Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 1994 l(2) 67-76

The influence of retail store environment on brand-related judgments

Syed H Akhter, J Craig Andrews and Srinivas Durvasula College of Business, Marquette University, Milwaukee, WI 53233, USA

Theories of schematic, or representational, thinking posit that schema congruity and incongruity direct people’s evaluative, inferential, and action processes. However, to date research has not provided a test of schema (in)congruity theory for important environmental cues, such as the effect of retail store environment on brand judgments. Within the framework of schema (in)congruity, this paper tests the effects of retail store environment on brand judgments. Empirical evidence in support of the congruity theory, theoretical implications of the findings, and directions for future research are provided.

Keywords: retail store environment, global brands and retail store, atmospherics, brand image and store environment

Examine the following typical encounters. A consumer walks into a retail store with favorable physical and social attributes and notices a brand of wine he/she has not seen before or heard about. Another consumer walks into a different retail store with unfavorable physical and social attributes and notices the same brand of wine he/she has not seen before or heard about. The question is, how would these two consumers form brand beliefs, attitude toward the brand, brand evaluation, and brand purchase intention regarding this new brand of wine?

That a store’s internal environment can create a store image and that this image can influence purchase decisions (Kotler, 1973) decision-making time (Bellizzi et al, 1983), patronage decisions (Gentry and Burns, 1977-78) and product evalua- tions (Gardner and Siomkos, 1986) is now an accepted paradigm in retailing and consumer behav- ior literature. Existing evidence supports the hypothesis that an individual element in a store’s environment, such as music, price, or color, can significantly influence consumers’ behavior (Cox, 1962; Gardner, 1970; Andrews and Valenzi, 1971; Milliman, 1982).

Research on store image has successfully examined how consumers use store-related factors to develop store image. In particular, the findings suggest that both physical and social characteristics of a store (for example, the physical layout and type

of clientele, including the brands carried by the store) contribute to the formation of store image (Lindquist, 1974-75; Zimmer and Golden, 1988). Although numerous studies have examined the influence of store environment on consumers’ behavior, what remains to be explored is how differ- ent store environments influence brand-related judgments for established brands.

The purpose of this study is to first explore the influence of store environment on brand judgments when consumers do not know about the brand (the aschema brand condition, experiment l), and then examine the role of store environment on brand judgments when consumers know about the brand (the schema brand condition, experiment 2).

Aschema brand conditions

Schemas are defined as cognitive structures rep- resenting one’s expectations about a domain (Bettman, 1979). Thus, a brand schema can be conceptualized as including a set of expectations about the different attributes of a brand and the links among these attributes. To say that a person has a schema for a brand implies that the person has a set of expectations that provide a structure for interpreting and understanding incoming informa- tion about a particular brand. A lack of brand schema, on the other hand, implies absence of cognitive structures about the brand. Thus, to say

0969-6989/94/02067-10 0 1994 Butterworth-Heinemann Ltd 67

@zF) / favorable brand judgments and. similarly, a less

c favorable impression of the store will lead to the

Very formation of less favorable brand judgments. The stiff ambience of the store environment thus becomes

Figure 1 Representation of cognitive structures of Ford significant in influencing brand-related judgments

Fiesta, from Mitchell (1983) under the aschema brand condition. In sum. brand- related judgments of the aschema brand will be influ- enced by the valenced characteristics of the store’s environment. Therefore, we propose the following:

that a person does not have a brand schema means that the person lacks cognitive structures for inter- preting incoming information about a brand.

Various factors may account for the absence of cognitive structures including that the brand is either new or, if the brand already exists, the person has either not heard about the brand or has not had any experience with the brand. This condition of a lack of brand schema is referred to in our paper as the aschema brand condition.

Mitchell (1983) provides a representation of cognitive structures of Ford Fiesta (Figure I). The different attributes associated with Ford Fiesta are organized into a network of associations. For instance, Ford Fiesta may be considered economical because it requires few repairs, gives good mileage, and is inexpensive to drive. Mandler (1982) suggests that these cognitive structures or network of associ- ations are built up in the course of interaction with the environment. Thus, a person who has had more experience with a particular object will have a more developed cognitive structure about the object than a person who has not had any experience with the object.

Research evidence suggests that external cues, such as advertising or price information, can play an important role in brand judgment when brand information is absent or when the brand information presented is ambiguous. For example, Ha and Hoch (1989) note that when subjects are exposed to ambiguous evidence, advertising effects become important. That is, subjects rely on ad-induced expec- tations to assess product quality. Similarly, Petty and Cacioppo (1986) indicate that when persuasive arguments are ambiguous, source information can determine the extent of persuasion. Furthermore, research on price-quality relationships suggests that in the absence of product-related information, consumers use price information to judge the quality of a product (Monroe, 1973; Olson, 1977: Monroe and Petroshius, 1980).

Thus, the theoretical premise for the aschema brand condition is as follows. When consumers lack cognitive structures about the brand to help guide the selection, abstraction, interpretation, and integration (Alba and Hasher, 1983) of brand- related information, they will look to other cues, such as store environment, to help form judgments about the brand. Thus, when cognitive structures about a brand are lacking, a favorable impression of store environment will lead to the formation of

Influence of retail store environment on brand-related judgments: S I-I Akhter ct al

Hla For the aschematic brand, brand beliefs will be more favorable under a favorable store environment than under an unfavorable store environment.

Hlb For the aschematic brand, brand attitudes will be more favorable under a favorable store environment than under an unfavorable store environment.

Hlc For the aschematic brand, brand evaluations will be more favorable under a favorable store environment than under an unfavorable store environment.

Hld For the aschematic brand, purchase intention will be more favorable under a favorable store environment than under an unfavorable store environment.

Experiment 1

A total of 209 usable responses from undergraduate business students of a major midwestern university were used in this experiment. Responses with missing values were excluded from the analysis. Subjects were randomly assigned to two different experimental stores (favorable or unfavorable store) and responses on the dependent variables involving brand judgments of aschema brands were obtained. Three products (beer, dress watches, and color televisions), relevant to our sample, were used in this experiment to test the hypotheses regarding the influence of store environment on brand judgments.

As the experiment involved the study of aschematic brands, fictitious brand names for the three product categories (beer, dress watches, and TVs) were selected by the authors. To make sure that these brands were indeed fictitious, brands available in the market were cataloged, which indicated that the experimental brands were not available. The experimental (aschema) brands used for the three product categories were as follows:

68 .lournul c~f Retuiling urrtl C‘msumer Serviws 1994 Volurnr I Number 1

Okura watches, Select beer, and Nihon televisions. All dependent measures were analyzed in a one- way, between-subjects analysis of variance design with two levels of the manipulated store environ- ment (ie favorable or unfavorable).

Independent variables

Retail store environment

For testing the four hypotheses mentioned above, it was critical to create two distinct store environ- ments, one with favorable physical and social attributes and the other with unfavorable physical and social attributes. In the marketing and consumer behavior literature, retail store environ- ment has been conceptualized as consisting of both physical and social attributes, which act together to generate store image. While researchers generally concur that the study of store attributes is important for determining store image, they, however, disagree on what these attributes should be. For instance, Martineau (1958) proposed that layout and architecture, symbols and color, advertising, and sales personnel are important in developing a store’s personality. Later, Fisk (1961-62), Kelly and Stephenson (1967), and Kunkel and Berry (1968) proposed their own set of attributes for determining store image. Lindquist (1974-75), after reviewing the then existing literature, proposed a framework in which he included the following nine categories: merchandise, service, physical facilities, conveni- ence, clientele, promotion, institutional factors, post-transactional satisfaction, and store atmosphere.

store-relevant attributes for later use in the study. Students were given a booklet with instructions to list store characteristics/attributes that would be important to them when purchasing imported beer, a dress watch, and a 20 inch color TV. For each product, the instructions were provided on the top of a separate page with the space below numbered to 10 for writing store characteristics or attributes against each number (Cialdini et al, 1976; Andrews and Shimp 1990).

Based on subjects’ initial responses, two tentative store profiles, one for a favorable store and the other for the unfavorable store, were developed for each product category. The attributes selected for inclusion in the store profile were those that were most frequently mentioned by the subjects (Ajzen and Fishbein, 1980). The attributes used in the two store profiles were the same, but differed in their properties. That is, for the favorable store the attributes presented a favorable image while for the unfavorable store the same attributes presented an unfavorable image. After the two store profiles were developed, a different group of students were then asked to evaluate them for each product category. Responses indicated that the two store profiles (see below) were perceived as significantly different from each other, with one being favorable and the other unfavorable; for example, liquor store F(1,48) = 638.73, p < 0.001, watch store F(1,48) = 629.11, p < 0.001, and TV store F(1,45) = 323.74, p < 0.001.

Although different attributes have been recom- mended to measure store image, Hirschman et al (1978) recommend that the attributes selected to measure store image should be relevant to the study and the setting. That is, only those attributes that are relevant to consumers and are appropriate for the setting and the study should be included in the set of image-generating store attributes. Furthermore, based on a review of different articles on store image, Peterson and Kerin (1983) concluded that store image dimensions vary across different types of stores partly because of the differ- ent kinds of products carried by the stores. Therefore, a dimension that may be important for, say, a liquor store may not be relevant for a store selling TVs. That stores’ attributes for determining store image should be specific to stores in terms of their classification and products offered is now well accepted in marketing (Greenberg, 1961; Tillman, 1967; Cardozo 1974-75; Dickson and Albaum, 1977).

Store operationalization

The retail store environment used in the actual experiment was operationalized by describing the favorable store or the unfavorable store in terms of the physical and social attributes obtained from the pretest. In the case of the watch store, the following attributes were used: selection of watches, friendli- ness and knowledgeability of salespeople, attract- iveness and organization of displays, subtlety and pleasantness of lighting, adequacy of display space, and softness and pleasantness of background music in the store. The following attributes were used for the TV store: selection of TVs, friendliness of the salespeople, presence of service department, light- ing in the store, store layout, and attractiveness of store displays. And for the liquor store, the follow- ing attributes were used: selection of imported and local beer, friendliness and knowledgeability of salespeople, refrigeration facilities, attractiveness and colorfulness of displays, subtlety and pleasant- ness of lighting in the store, quality of music and attractiveness of the atmosphere. The hypothetical favorable store for each product category was then operationalized by providing favorably valenced information on attributes relevant to each store. In

Pretest turn, the unfavorable store was operationalized by For this study, responses from 27 undergraduate using the same attributes; however, the attributes business students were elicited to develop a list of presented an unfavorable picture.

Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 1994 Volume I Number 2 69

Influence of retail store environment on brand-related judgments: S H Akhter et al

Procedure

Subjects were first given a questionnaire booklet to peruse, with the first page of the booklet containing general instructions. Following the general instruc- tions, the subjects were exposed to a description of a retail store, which covered the different relevant attributes of the retail store. On the following page, the subjects were informed that the retail store sells different brands of the product category, and that one of the brands the store sells is - (the appropri- ate brand name was inserted, ie Select for beer, Okura for dress watches, and Nihon for color TVs). Each questionnaire contained only one brand and one type of store.

After providing subjects with information regard- ing the store and the name of a brand, the follow- ing responses were elicited in order: cognitive responses, brand beliefs. attitude toward the brand, brand evaluation (inspection of the brand in the store for the purpose of purchasing), purchase inten- tion, and store schema manipulation checks. Lastly, the subjects were asked to state what they thought was the purpose of the study.

were given a booklet with instructions to list product characteristics/features that would be important to them in purchasing imported beer, a dress watch, and a 20 inch color TV. The instructions for each product were provided on top of a separate page with the space below numbered to 10 for writing product characteristics/features against each number. High-frequency items - that is, those attributes that were most frequently mentioned - were then selected for inclusion in the final study (Ajzen and Fishbein. 1980).

Brand beliefs about these product-related attributes were measured on a seven-point Likert scale anchored by ‘strongly agree’ and ‘strongly disagree’. Based on the responses in the pretest, a different set of attributes were used for each product. For the dress watch belief measures, the brand attributes were attractiveness of style, relia- bility of quality, accuracy of time, and appeal of the image. For the TV belief measures, the brand attributes included sharpness of the picture, realness of color, appeal of the cabinet design, and distortion of sound. Finally, for the beer belief measures, the attributes were freshness of taste, attractiveness of

Results package, appeal of beer color, and image quality. Subjects’ evaluation of the four belief items were

summed to obtain subjects’ overall perceptions toward the store. Responses indicate that the two stores were perceived as significantly different in all

Manipulation checks

It was important for this experiment to establish that subjects’ perception of the two experimental stores was significantly different. Therefore, subjects were asked at the end of the study to respond to the following three items (favorable/unfavorable, bad/ good, and positive/negative) in terms of their overall feeling toward the store described earlier in the questionnaire. Responses on these three items were

three product categories: Select beer, F(1,73) = 607.39, p < 0.001; Okura watch, F(1,67) = 291.21. p < 0.001; and Nihon TV, F(1,63) =571.03, p < 0.001.

of the three attitude items were summed to measure attitude toward the brand. The coefficient alpha for beer, dress watches, and color TVs was 0.94, 0.96, and 0.96 respectively.

summed to obtain the brand belief index. Coefficient alpha for beer, dress watch, and color TVs was 0.83, 0.84. and 0.84 respectively.

Brand attitudes

Brand attitude was measured on three seven-point bipolar scales: good-bad, unfavorable-favorable, positive-negative. These three items were common to all three product categories. Subjects’ evaluations

Furthermore, after the subjects were provided with the store description and brand information, they were also asked to list their thoughts about the store and the brand on a blank page numbered to 10. Net store cognition, that is, positive store cogni- tion minus negative store cognition, should be higher in the case of the favorable store than the unfavor- able store. The following net store cognition results further indicate that the two stores were perceived as significantly different: Select beer, F(1,73) = 102.52, p <O.OOl; Okura watch, F(1,67) = 88.25, p c 0.001; and Nihon TV, F(1,63) = 108.38, p < 0.001.

Brand evaluation

Brand evaluation - that is, whether subjects would consider evaluating the brand in the given store - was measured on two seven-point bipolar scales: likely-unlikely and probable-improbable, Subjects’ evaluations of the two brand evaluation items were summed to measure the likelihood of evaluating the brand in the store. The correlation between the two items for beer, dress watches, and color TVs was 0.94, 0.97, and 0.94 respectively.

Purchase intention

Purchase intention was measured on two seven-

Dependent measures

Brand beliefs

point bipolar scales: likely-unlikely and probable-improbable. Subjects’ responses to these two items were summed to obtain a measure of

To generate product-related attributes, a pretest intention to purchase the brand in the store. The was first conducted. Thirty-two different students correlation between the two items for beer. dress

70 .lorrmal qf Retailing und Consumer Service~y 1994 Volume I Nwher -7

Influence of retail store environment on brand-related judgments: S H Akhter et al

Influence of retail store environment on brand-related judgments: S H Akhter et al

Table 1 Cell means and standard deviations for dependent measures: aschematic brands

Dependent measures Beer

Store (+) (n = 37)

Net brand cognitions

Brand beliefs

Attitude toward the brand

Brand evaluation

Purchase intention

(Z7)

19.16 (4.65)

13.87 (3.79)

9.70 (3.66)

7.95 (3.77)

Store (-) (n = 38)

Store (+) (n = 35)

-0.605 0.200 (0.823) (0.632)

12.13 22.06 (4.41) (3.62)

8.16 15.62 (3.42) (3.57)

6.95 10.40 (3.38) (3.02)

5.05 7.03 (2.70) (2.95)

Watch

Store (-) (n = 34)

-0.853 (0.958)

12.15 (3.78)

8.44 (3.44)

6.62 (3.55)

3.74 (2.15)

TV

Store (+) (n = 32)

-0.031 (0.897)

19.59 (4.35)

14.34 (4.14)

10.63 (3.33)

8.25 (2.68)

Store (-) (n = 33)

-0.697 (0.984)

14.12 (2.82)

8.58 (2.62)

7.46 (3.59)

4.33 (2.13)

Select

/

Brand beliefs

/ , Brand attitude

. Brand evaluation

25 -

Unfavorable store Favorable store Unfavorable store Favorable store Unfavorable store Favorable store

Figure 2 Cognitive evaluative responses.

Note: Brand beliefs were measured on four seven-point scales (minimum = 4 and maximum = 28); brand attitude on three seven-point scales (minimum = 3 and maximum = 21); brand evaluation and purchase intention on two seven-point scales (minimum = 2 and maximum = 14)

Okura

Brand beliefs

watch, and color TVs was 0.97, 0.98, and 0.97 respectively.

The rationale presented earlier for the four hypotheses suggests that brand beliefs, attitude toward the brand, brand evaluation, and brand purchase intention would be more favorable when brand-related judgments are made within the context of the favorable store and less favorable when made within the context of the unfavorable store. Empirical results indicate the following.

Select beer. As displayed in Table 1 and shown in Figure 2, significant differences for brand beliefs, attitude toward the brand, brand evaluation, and brand purchase intention were found between the favorable and unfavorable stores. These brand- related judgments for Select Beer were more favor-

Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 1994 Volume I Number 2

Brand attitude

Brand ‘evaluation

Purchase intention

25 -

20-

15-

lo-

5-

Nihon

Brand beliefs

Brand attitude

able in the favorable (than the unfavorable) store condition: brand beliefs F(1,73) = 45.17, p < 0.001; attitude toward the brand F(1,73) = 46.94, p < 0.001; brand evaluation F(1,73) = 11.49, p < 0.001; and brand purchase intention F(1,73) = 14.65, p < 0.001.

Okura watch. As also indicated in Table 1 and depicted in Figure 2, significant differences for brand-related judgments were found between the favorable and unfavorable stores for the Okura watch: brand beliefs F(1,67) = 123.59, p < 0.001; attitudes toward the brand F(1,67) = 72.56, p < 0.001; brand evaluation F(1,67) = 22.75, p < 0.001; and brand purchase intention F(1,67) = 43.25, p < 0.001.

Nihon TV. Finally, according to Table 1 and as indicated in Figure 2, significant differences for

71

Influence of retail store environment on brand-related judgments: S H Akhter et al

brand-related evaluative judgments were found between the two stores for Nihon TV: brand beliefs F(1,63) = 36.52, p = < 0.001; attitude toward the brand F(1,63) = 42.20, p < 0.001; brand evaluation F(1,63) = 13.61 , p < 0.001; and brand purchase intention F( 1,63) = 42.74, p < 0.001.

The findings from the above-described experiment support the hypothesis that under the aschema brand condition, subjects use store-related informa- tion to form brand judgments. Thus, when the store has favorable attributes, brand judgments regarding the aschema brand are more favorable than when the store has unfavorable attributes. Although support for the influence of store environment has been provided under the aschema brand condition, an important question that remains unanswered is: How would these two stores influence brand-related judgments when consumers have a favorable brand schema for established brands? The question now is: How would the store environment influence brand judgments when consumers not only have informa- tion about the store but also have a favorable brand schema? To answer this substantive question, a more stringent test is applied in the second experi- ment, in which subjects possessing a favorable schema of brands are asked to provide brand judgments under the two store conditions. Respondents thus were not only familiar with the brand, but also had a favorable opinion of the brand.

Schematic processing and schema congruity

Since the pioneering work of Bartlett (1932), schematic processing has emerged as an important theoretical framework for explaining consumer (Sujan, 1985; Sujan et al, 1986; Meyers-Levy and Tybout, 1989; Sujan and Bettman, 1989) and social psychological behavior (Minsky, 1975; Neisser, 1976; Markus, 1977; Schank and Abelson, 1977; Fiske, 1982; Fiske and Pavelchak, 1984). Schematic processing is important because it is considered more efficient than other modes of processing. Evaluative outcomes of schematic processing are influenced by, among other factors, schema congruity and incongruity: that is, the degree of match between the evidence and the activated schema-specified configuration (Mandler, 1982).

Mandler (1982) theorizes that schema congruity leads to favorable value judgments because the phenomenal experience of a person is that of acceptability and familiarity, arising out of ‘congruity between the evidence and the relational structure of the activated schema’ (p 20). In contrast, schema incongruity leads to unfavorable value judgments because schema incongruity ‘is a case of interruption of expectations and predictions’ (Mandler, 1982, p 21). Recently, Meyers-Levy and Tybout (1989) tested the influence of schema

congruity on product evaluations. Products that were moderately incongruent with their associated category schemas elicited more favorable evaluation than products that were extremely incongruent.

The second experiment departs from existing studies by attempting to examine the influence of schema congruity and incongruity on both attitudi- nal and behavioral responses. That is, we explore a wider range of brand-related processing, namely. brand beliefs, attitude toward the brand, brand evaluation (evaluating the brand for purchasing purposes), and brand purchase intention. In partic- ular, the question being answered is whether schema incongruity between store and brand leads to less favorable brand evaluative judgments than when schema congruity between store and brand is present. As our second experiment is an extension of the first study. brand-related judgments are studied for a popularly known brand in the same three different product categories: beer, dress watches, and color TVs.

Research hypotheses

The central orientation of our second experiment is based on Mandler’s (1982) hypothesis that extreme schema incongruity results in unfavorable evaluative judgments, whereas schema congruity results in favorable evaluative judgments. Incongruity between store and brand can be created by invok- ing a mismatch between the store and a brand of a product the store sells. For example, the claim that a high-quality brand is sold in an unfavorable store would create schema incongruity because consumers do not generally expect to find a high- quality brand in a store with unfavorable physical and social attributes. According to Mandler (1982). when there is incongruity between a store and a brand, unfavorable brand judgments will be gener- ated. Schema congruity, on the other hand, can be created by indicating that a high-quality brand is sold in a favorable store. Store and brand congruity, in this case, is achieved because consumers expect to find high-quality brands in favorable stores. Therefore, we propose that:

H2a

H2b

H2c

H2d

Brand beliefs will be more favorable under schema congruity than under schema incon- gruity conditions. Attitude toward the brand will be more favorable under schema congruity than under schema incongruity conditions. Brand evaluation will be more favorable under schema congruity than under schema incongruity conditions. Purchase intention will be more favorable under schema congruity than under schema incongruity conditions.

From a theoretical as well as a practical perspective, the inclusion of the brand schematic condition is

72 .lournal of Retailing and Consumer Services 1994 Volume I Number 2

Influence of retail store environment on brand-related judgments: S H Akhter et al

instructive because it allows the generalization of the influence of two types of stores, a favorable and an unfavorable store, on brand-related judgments for not only schematic but aschematic brands as well. Furthermore, the findings from this study will also allow us to discern relationships between brand beliefs, attitude toward the brand, brand evaluation, and brand purchase intention, under varying store environment and brand schema conditions.

Experiment 2

Subjects and analysis

A total of 160 usable responses from undergraduate business students of a major midwestern university were used in this experiment. Responses with missing values were excluded from analysis. Subjects were randomly assigned to two different experimen- tal stores (a favorable or an unfavorable store) and responses on the dependent variables involving brand judgments of a high-quality brand were obtained. All dependent measures were analyzed in a one-way, between-subjects analysis of variance design with two levels of the manipulated store.

Brand schema. As the purpose of the four hypothe- ses was to test brand judgments under the brand (in)congruity condition, it was important to select a brand in each product category that was perceived by subjects as being of high quality. In a pretest, under- graduate business students were asked to name different brands in the three product categories (beer, watches, and TVs) that were of high quality. Based on their responses, the following most frequently mentioned brands (Heineken, Seiko, and Sony) were selected in the three product categories to test the schema (in)congruity hypothesis. The two types of store environment, a favorable and an unfavorable store, as well as the dependent variables, were identi- cal to those used in Experiment 1.

Results

Manipulation checks

It was important for this experiment to also estab- lish that subjects’ perception of the two experimen- tal stores was significantly different. Subjects were asked at the end of the study to respond to three items (favorable/unfavorable, bad/good, and positive/negative) regarding their overall feeling toward the store described earlier in the question- naire. Responses on these three items were summed to obtain subjects’ overall perception of the store. Their responses indicate that the two stores were perceived as significantly different in all three product categories: Heineken beer, F(1,50) = 366.22, p < 0.001; Seiko watch, F(1,45) = 233.19, p cc 0.001; and Sony TV, F(1,36) = 524.72, p < 0.001.

Furthermore, after the subjects were provided with store description and brand information, they

Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 1994 Volume I Number 2

were also asked to list their thoughts about the store and the brand on a blank page numbered to 10. It is expected that net store cognition - that is, positive minus negative store cognition - would be higher in the case of the favorable store than the unfavorable store. The following results further indicate that the two stores were perceived as significantly different by the subjects: Heineken beer, F(1,50) = 95.41, p < 0.001; Seiko watch, F(1,45) = 82.85, p < 0.001; and Sony TV, F(1,36) = 524.72, p < 0.001.

Dependent measures

The rationale presented above for the hypotheses suggests that brand beliefs, attitude toward the brand, brand evaluation, and brand purchase intention would be more favorable for the congruity condition than for the incongruity condi- tion. This predicted pattern of relations can be seen in a plot of mean values in the three panels in Figure 3.

Heineken beer. As displayed in Table 2 and Figure 3, significant differences for brand beliefs, attitude toward the brand, and brand evaluation were found between schema congruity and incon- gruity conditions for the Heineken beer. Brand judgments for Heineken beer were more favorable in the schema congruity than in the schema incon- gruity condition: brand beliefs F(1,50) = 34.08, p < 0.001; attitude toward the brand F(1,50) = 54.21, p < 0.001; brand evaluation F(1,50) = 5.22, p < 0.027. Brand purchase intention, however, was not more favorable for the schema congruity condition than schema incongruity condition: F(1,50) = 2.41, p < 0.127.

Seiko watch. For the Seiko watch, significant differences for brand beliefs, attitude toward the brand, brand evaluation, and brand purchase inten- tion were found between schema congruity and incongruity conditions, as shown in Table 2 and Figure 3. Brand judgments were more favorable in the schema congruity than in the schema incon- gruity conditions. For Seiko watch: brand beliefs F(1,45) = 28.64, p < 0.001; attitude toward the brand F(1,45) = 20.21, p < 0.001; brand evaluation F(l,45) = 9.30, p < 0.004; and brand purchase intention F(1,45) = 13.25, p < 0.001.

Sony TV. Significant differences for brand beliefs, attitude toward the brand, brand evaluation, and brand purchase intention were found between schema congruity and incongruity conditions for Sony TV. Brand judgments were more favorable in the schema congruity than in the schema incon- gruity condition: brand beliefs F(1,36) = 25.83, p < 0.001; attitude toward the brand F(1,36) = 38.09, p < 0.001; brand evaluation F(1,36) = 13.96, p < 0.001; and brand purchase intention F(1,36) = 65.39, p < 0.001 (see Table 2 and Figure 3).

73

Influence of retail store environment on brand-related judgments: S H Akhter et al

Table 2 Cell means and standard deviations for dependent measures: schematic brands

Dependent measures Beer

Congruity store (+) (II = 37)

Incongruity store (-) (n = 38)

Net brand cognitions

Brand beliefs

Attitude toward the brand

Brand evaluation

Purchase intention

0.519 0.400 (0.753) (1.323) 22.78 IS.40 (3.56) (5.43) 1x.19 10.44 (3.24) (4.31) 10.00 7.56 (3.55) (4.14) X.63 6.92

(3.84) (4.1 I)

Watch

Congruity store (+) (n = 23)

0.391 (0.783) 22.47 (3.72) 17.00 (3.05) 10.96 (3.52) 9.35

(3.55)

Incongruity store (-)

(II = 24)

0.417 ( 1.530) IS.96 (6.59) Il.63 (4.90) 7.50

(4.20) 5.67

(3.38)

TV

Congruity store (+) (II = 19)

1.211 (0.855) 24.00 (3.42) 18.42 (3.02) 12.X4 (1.80) I 1.26 (2.38)

Incongruity store (-) (II = 19)

0.947 (1.079) 17.90 (6.32) 11.47 (3.06) 9.74

(3.14) 4.95

(2.44)

Heineken Seiko

Brand beliefs

Brand attitude

Brand

evaluation

Purchase

intention

Sony

/ Brand beliefs

Brand attitude

Brand evaluation

Purchase intention

Unfavorable store Favorable store Unfavorable store Favorable store Unfavorable store Favorable store

Figure 3 Evaluative judgment responses

No&: Brand beliefs were measured on four seven-point scales (minimum = 4 and maximum = 28): brand attitude on three seven-point scales (minimum = 3 and maximum = 21); brand evaluation and purchase intention on two seven-point scales (minimum = 2 and maximum = 14)

Discussion

The findings from Experiment 2 show that subjects’ brand judgments were more favorable under favor- able (vs unfavorable) store conditions. The results provide support for the schema congruity hypothe- sis by showing that under schema congruity (that is, a match between the brand and store) favorable brand judgments were formed and under schema incongruity (a mismatch between brand and store) unfavorable brand judgments were formed.

There was, however, one unexpected result that needs explanation. Subjects evaluated Heineken beer less favorably in the unfavorable store than in the favorable store, except that in both conditions they suggested that they would consider purchasing the brand in either store. One possible explanation of this outcome is that the purchase of beer involves

less economic risk and, therefore, subjects were indifferent as to the type of stores from which beer would be purchased.

Although the existing literature has shown the impact of retail store environment on product evalu- ation (see Gardner and Siomkos, 1986), our paper adds to the existing body of the literature by showing how varying retail store environments influence brand beliefs, attitude toward the brand, brand evaluation, and purchase intention when there is congruity and incongruity between store and brands. Under the congruity condition, that is, when a favorably perceived brand is placed in a store with favorable characteristics, brand judgments are positive. However, when the same favorably perceived brand is placed in a store with unfavorable characteristics, brand judgments become negative.

74 Journul of Rerailing and Consumer Services 1994 Volume 1 Nrcmher L

Furthermore, this paper also addresses the issue of how brand judgments will be influenced when consumers do not have any knowledge about the brand. When an aschema brand is placed in a store with favorable characteristics, brand judgments are favorable. On the other hand, the same aschema brand gets unfavorable judgments when it is placed in a store with unfavorable characteristics.

Findings from this study support Mandler’s hypothesis that schema congruity generates favor- able responses and that schema incongruity gener- ates unfavorable responses. These findings are consistent with previous research demonstrating the impact of advertising (Ha and Hoch, 1989) sources (Petty and Cacioppo 1986) and price information (Monroe, 1973; Olson 1977; Monroe and Petroshius, 1980) when brand information is either lacking or ambiguous.

The existing literature suggests that environment can influence people’s cognithe, affective, and conative behavior. That is, a pleasant environment can have positive influence on peoples’ behavior and an unpleasant environment negative influence. What is interesting about the findings from this study is that unfavorable responses were obtained not only for the unknown brand, but also for the known, high-quality brand in the context of an unfavorable store.

The findings from this study also provide support for the marketing notion of ‘total product’: that is, a product is evaluated not only on its intrinsic quality or attributes, but also contextually. In other words, for consumers, not only is the product important but also the context in which it is placed. Furthermore, the results suggest that a well-known brand may suffer a loss in brand image when its distribution extends from high-quality stores to low-quality stores. The results also support the expectation that an unknown brand’s image is enhanced when distributed in a store with favorable physical and social attributes versus a store with unfavorable physical and social attributes. Overall, the findings highlight the importance of store environment in the formation of brand-related judgments.

Andrews, I R and Valenzi, R E (1971) ‘Combining price, brand, and store cues to form an impression of product quality’ in Proceedings 79th Annual Convention, American Psychological Association 649

Andrews, J C and Shimp, T A (1990) ‘Effects of involvement, argument strength, and source characteristics on central and peripheral processing of advertising’ Psychology and Marketing 7 (3) 19.5-214

Bartlett, F C (1932) Remembering Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

Bellizzi, J A, Crawley, A E and Hasty, R W (1983) ‘The effec- tiveness of color in store design’ Journal of Retailing 59 (Spring) 21-45

Bettman, J R (1979) An Information Processing Theory of Consumer Choice Addison Wesley, Reading, MA

Cardozo, R N (1974-75) ‘How images vary by product class’ Journal of Retailing 50 (Winter) 85-98

Cialdini, R B, Herman, C P, Levy, A, Kozlowski, L T and Petty, R (1976) ‘Elastic shifts of opinion: determinants of direction and durability’ Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 34 (4) 663672

Cox, D F (1962) ‘The measurement of information value: study in consumer decision making’ in Emerging Concepts in Marketing American Marketing Association, Chicago, 41@17

Dickson, J and Albaum, G (1977) ‘A method for developing tailormade semantic differentials for specific marketing content areas’ Journal of Marketing Research 14 (February) 87-91

Fisk, G (1961-62) ‘A conceptual mode1 for studying customer image’ Journal of Retailing 37 (Winter) l-8, 54

Fiske, S T (1982) ‘Schema triggered affect: applications to social perception,’ in Clark, M S and Fiske, S T (eds) Affect and Cognition: The 17th Annual Carnegie Symposium on Cognition Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ, 55-78

Fiske, S T and Pavelchak, M A (1984) ‘Category-based versus piece-meal-based affective responses: developments in schema- triggered affect,’ in Sorrentinio, R M and Higgins, E T (eds) Handbook of Motivation and Cognition: Foundations of Social Behavior The Guilford Press. New York. 167-203

Gardner, D M (1970) ‘An experimental investigation on price quality relationship’ Journal-of Retailing 46 (Fall) 39-40 _

Gardner. M P and Siomkos. G J (1986) ‘Toward a methodologv for assessing effects of in-store atmospherics,’ in Lutz, R J (ez) Advances in Consumer Research Vol XIII, 27-31

Gentry, J W and Burns, A C (1977-78) ‘How important are evaluative criteria in shopping center patronage?’ Journal of Retailing 53 (Winter) 73-86

Greenberg, A (1961) ‘Frame of reference of image response’ Journal of Marketing 26 (April) 62-64

Ha, Y-W and Hoch, S H (1989) ‘Ambiguity, processing strategy, and advertising-evidence interactions’ Journal of Consumer Research 16 (December) 354360

Hirschman, E C, Greenberg, B and Robertson, D (1978) ‘The intermarket reliability of retail image research: an empirical examination’ Journal of Retailing 54 (Spring) 16-36

Kelly, R and Stephenson, R (1967) ‘The semantic differential: an information source for designing retail patronage appeals’

Acknowledgements Journal of Marketing 31 (October) 43-47

We thank George Mandler, Terence Shimp, and Mita Sujan from University of California at San Diego, University of South Carolina, and Pennsylvania State University respectively, for their valuable comments and suggestions on an earlier version of this paper.

Refereznces Ajzen, I and Fishbein, M (1980) Understanding Attitudes and

Predicting Social Behavior Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ Alba, J W and Hasher, L (1983) ‘Is memory schematic?’

Psychological Bulletin 93 (2) 203-231

Kotler, P (1973) ‘Atmospherics as a marketing tool’ Journal of Retailing 48 (Winter) 48-64

Kunkel, J and Berry, L (1968) ‘A behavioral conception of retail image’ Journal of Marketing 32 (October) 21-27

Lindquist, J D (1974-75) ‘Meaning of image: a survey of empir- ical and hypothetical evidence’ Journal of Retailing 50 (Winter) 29-38, 116

Mandler, G (1982) ‘The structure of value’ in Clark, M S and Fiske, S T (eds) Affect and Cognition: The Seventeenth Annual Carnegie Symposium on Cognition Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ, 3-36

Markus, H (1977) ‘Self-schemata and processing information about the self Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 35 63-78

Martineau, P (1958) ‘The personality of the retail store’ Harvard Business Review 36 (January-February) 47-55

Influence of retail store environment on brand-related judgments: S H Akhter et al

Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 1994 Volume 1 Number 2 75

Influence of retail store environment on brand-related judgments: S H Akhter et al

Meyers-Levy, J and Tybout, A M (1989) ‘Schema congruity as a basis for product evaluation’ Journal of Consumer Research 16 (June) 39-54

Milliman (1982) ‘Using background music to affect the behavior of supermarket shoppers’ Journal of Marketing 46 (Summer) x6-91

Minsky, M (1975) ‘A framework for representing knowledge’ in Winston, P H (ed) The Psychology o,f Computer Vision McGraw-Hill, New York, 211-280

Mitchell, A A (1983) ‘Cognitive processes initiated by exposure to advertising’ in Harris, R J (ed) Information Processing Research in Advertising Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Hillsdale. NJ, 13-42

Monroe, K B (1973) ‘Buyer’s subjective perception of price’ Journal of Marketing Research 10 (February) 70-80

Monroe, K B and Petroshius, S M (1980) ‘Buyer’s perception of price: an update of the evidence’ in Kassarjian, H H and Robertson, T S (eds) Perspectives in Consumer Behavior Scott Foresman and Co. Glenview, IL, 43-55

Neisser, U (1976) Cognition and Realify W.H. Freeman, San Francisco, CA

Olson, J C (1977) ‘Price an informational cue: effects on product evaluation’ in Woodside, A G, Sheth, J N and Bennett. P D (eds) Consumer and Industrial Buying Behavior North Holland, New York, 267-286

Peterson, R A and Kerin. R A (1983) ‘Store image measurement in patronage research: fact and artifact’ in Darden, W R and Lusch, R F (eds) Patronage Behavior und Retail Manugemcn( North Holland, New York, 293-306

Petty. R E and Cacioppo, J T (1986) Communication and Persuasion: Central and Peripheral Routes lo Attitude Change Springer-Verlag. New York

Schank. R and Abelson. R (1977) Scrims. Plans. Goa/.\ and Understanding: An lnquirv inlo Human Knowledge Strrrctrwc Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ

Sujan. M (1985) ‘Consumer knowledge: effects on evaluation strategies mediating consumer judgments’ Journal of Consumer Reseurch 12 (June) 31-46

Sujan, M, Bettman, J R and Sujan, H (1986) ‘Effects of consumei expectations of information processing in selling encounters’ Journal of Marketing Research 23 (November) 346-353

Sujan, M and Bettman. J H (1989) ‘The effects of brand position- ing strategies on consumers’ brand and category perceptions: some insights from schema research’ Journul of Murkrfing Research 26 (November) 454-467

Tillman. R (1967) Semantic differential measurement ol consumer images of retail stores’ Smrrhern .Journa/ of’ Businexs 2 (April) 67-75

Zimmer, M R and Golden, L L (1988) ‘Impressions of retail stores: a content analysis of consumer images’ .Journa/ of Rerailing 64 (Fall) 265-293

76 .lournal af Rerailing and Consumer Services 1994 Volume I Number Z