Zona costera

3.2.1 Philosophical positioning

In my ontology, which are philosophical assumptions regarding the nature of reality, I took the realism approach. This approach, a traditional position, emphasises that the world is concrete and external and that science can progress only through observations that have a direct correspondence to the phenomena being investigated (Mehrabian & Russell, 1974). This is an extreme position, which was modified, pointing out that the difference between the laws of physics and nature, and the knowledge or theories that scientists have above this law. It assumes that the ultimate objects of scientific inquiry exist and act quite independently of scientists and their activity. This is contrary to the debate concerning relativism. In this approach, we assume that scientific laws are not just there to be discovered, but they are created by people (Mehrabian & Russell, 1974). This means that the ‘truth’ of a particular theory or idea is led through discussion and agreement between the main protagonists. In the retail research field there is much evidence available for all protagonists but none of is actually accepted as definitive by all, supporting different views at the same time. The relativist position assumes that there may never be a definitive answer to the debate, which is not the case of my approach.

Epistemology, is mainly about different ways of inquiring into the nature of the physical and social worlds (Mehrabian & Russell, 1974). It has formed the ground for debate among many scientists as to how social science should be conducted: positivism and social constructivism. Interestingly, there are no scientists holding only one sole position. Positivism, in general, refers to philosophical positions that emphasise empirical data and scientific methods. This tradition holds that the world consists of regularities, that these regularities are detectable, and that the researcher can, therefore, infer knowledge about the real world by observing it. Positivism provides the best way of investigating human and social behaviour and I’ve taken this approach in my research study. Furthermore, a positivist approach provides a hierarchy of methods. Experiments are considered ideal because of their ability to determine causality. Although, this method is often difficult to employ in the social sciences due to practical and ethical issues, for my research objectives this approach suits well. Statistics is a second-best approach, well-suited for making generalisations. Comparative methods, as well as case studies, are primarily used

for theory testing/building. Social constructivism was developed in reaction to the application of positivism to the social sciences and while taking this approach one takes the view that ‘reality’ is not objective and exterior but socially constructed and given meaning by people (Mehrabian & Russell, 1974). One can assume that this means that ‘reality’ is determined by people rather than by objective and external factors. The focus is on what people individually and collectively are thinking and feeling. Attention is focussed on the ways people communicate with each other, both verbally or non-verbally. That is why, while taking this approach researchers attempt to understand and appreciate the different experiences that people have, rather than looking for external causes and fundamental laws to explain a behaviour. As in my research, I assume that the in-store experience exists, it has impact on customers and I formulate the measures to evaluate this. That is why a positivist approach is taken in my research.

The methodology used in the research is connected to the position I take. From an ontological perspective, I employ realism and my epistemology is positivism, which defines my methodological approach. In my position, however, I assume that there is a reality that exists independently of me and my work is to discover it. In my case, I examine the impact of the in-store experience on customer behaviour. I design my study to create key factors to be measured precisely to verify or falsify my hypothesis. While I recognise that reality cannot be accessed directly, I am using surveys of large samples of individuals to access it indirectly. My data here will be expressed in quantified form, which will help to create propositions that will be tested. Based on those results, new ideas may be developed.

3.2.2 Theoretical positioning

In order to develop my research framework, I needed to review the theoretical background of the customer-experience construct. This knowledge helps to better understand the overall structure of the conceptual model and the detailed role of its elements (i.e., creating and influencing the customers’ shopping experiences).

Some of the first work concerning the impact of the store environment on customer behaviour dates back to the 1950s and 1960s (Cox, 1964; Kotzan & Evanson, 1969; Martineau, 1958; Smith & Curnow, 1996). The term ‘store atmosphere’ was used and defined for the first time by Kotler (1973). It was used to describe the planning of the environment to create certain effects on buyers.

Kotler (1973) affirms that a product goes beyond the tangible aspects normally associated with it and that a planned environment has an impact on it. Based on this one can conclude that shopping trips can be very complex, considering the number of stimuli shoppers encounter both inside and outside the store (Esbjerg et al., 2012). However, all the empirical studies, which were examined for this literature review, are mostly based on studying customer behaviour within the store. The techniques identified in the research papers include (1) analysis of records; (2) observations; (3) interviewing; (4) controlled experimentation.

Most of the reviewed papers focus on customers’ perceptions of the in-store shopping experience, which is a holistic construct in nature and involves the customer’s cognitive, affective, emotional, social and physical responses to the retailer (Bell et al., 2011). That is why the majority of in-store studies are based on the PAD Emotional State model (Mehrabian & Russell, 1974) concerning the impact of the environment on behaviour. This theory proposes three basic emotional states which mediate approach-avoidance behaviours in any environment: Pleasure- displeasure; Arousal-non arousal and Dominance-submissiveness (PAD). Based on this theory, store environment could affect customer behaviour in several ways. Certain response of human beings to the environment may be conditioned or hard-wired into the human brain. For example, for a store layout in a racetrack form, shoppers may follow the path defined by the layout with little thought or emotion aroused by the layout (Levy & Weitz, 1998). In the work of Mehrabian & Russell (1974) one can observe, that in a variety of settings (schools, hospitals, homes, etc.), emotions affected by the environment can be fully described by three states, pleasure, arousal and dominance (PAD). Interestingly, for many years the majority of studies on emotional response to store environment have adopted this paradigm, providing evidence that shoppers’ emotional states can be largely represented by the PAD dimensions (Babin & Darden, 1996; Bellizzi et al., 1983; Donovan & Rossiter, 1994). These studies also show that emotional responses lead to a variety of behaviours and outcomes, such as how long shoppers stay and how much money they spend inside a store. Other studies use different scales that include some emotion measures (Bellizzi et al., 1983). However, many of these measures are similar to those found in the PAD dimensions, which is why I keep it as the dominant, theoretical positioning in my research thesis.

When I look at this model more closely I can see that the Mehrabian and Russell (M-R) (1974) model is based on the stimulus-organism-response (S-O-R) paradigm, relating features of the environment (S) to approach-avoidance behaviours (R) within the environment, mediated by the individual’s emotional states (0) aroused by the environment. The M-R model proposes that sensory variables within the environment, the amount of information in the environment, and individual differences in affective response will influence people’s affective responses to the environment. The model (Figure 3.1) is quite influential and has been validated in many prior studies. However, in the current retail environment it is not fully up-to-date. The model helps to understand the emotional responses of the customers in a store, but it does not refer to the multiple touch points impacting their responses. Thus, it needs to be adapted to have a new, richer, theoretical framework (Figure 3.2). In this modified framework, environmental characteristics are proposed to affect consumer arousal, which in turn affects pleasantness and (through pleasantness) consumer shopping behaviours.

Figure 3.1 Modified Mehrabian-Russell Model. Source: Donovan & Rossiter 1994, p.284

Verhoef et al. (2009) noted the need to consider customers’ in-store experience alongside experiences in other channels (Figure 3.3) as well as the evolution of their total experience with the brand over time. Verhoef et al. (2009) furthermore suggested that longitudinal research needs to be conducted to explore whether the drivers of the retail experience are stable. Over the stages of the customers’ journey, it is likely that different retail drivers have different effects at the various stages of the decision-making process and as a function of customers’ experience level (Puccinelli et al., 2009). Taking this into consideration, my research should focus on seven consumer behaviour research domains that influence customers’ experiences (Figure 3.2): (1) goals, schemas and information processing; (2) memory; (3) involvement; (4) attitudes; (5) affect; (6) atmospherics; and (7) consumer attributions and choices. These illustrate insights gleaned from each

ENVIRONMENTAL STIMULI EMOTIONAL STATES: PLEASURE, AROUSAL APPROACH OR AVOIDANCE RESPONSES

topical area, using standard consumer decision-making stages (i.e., need recognition, information search, evaluation, purchase and post-purchase). For example, consumer goals play an important role in determining how consumers perceive the retail environment and various retail marketing mix elements (Arnold

et al., 2005).

Figure 3.2 Environmental characteristics impact on shopping behaviour. Source: Kaltcheva & Weitz, 2006, p.109

Furthermore, according to Meyer and Schwager (2007), customer experience is the internal and subjective response. To have a holistic view of the theoretical background concerning customer experience, this process needs to be integrated with phases such as search, purchase and consumption. This approach differs from most studies in the retailing literature, which focus mainly on specific parts of the shopping experience.

However, for this research project, shopping encounters should not be examined in isolation and thus there is a need to adopt a holistic view of customers’ shopping experience to identify the elements that have the greatest impact on customers’ shopping trip. Adding to the above, recent literature has identified that the customer experience construct is holistic in nature and involves the customer’s cognitive, affective, emotional, social and physical responses to the retailer (Bell

Figure 3.3 Conceptual model of customer experience creation. Source: Verhoef, P.