Description
The purpose of this research is to examine the impact of atmospherics on consumer
symbolic interpretations, and various psychological outcomes in a purely hedonic service environment.
International Journal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research
Atmospherics and consumers' symbolic interpretations of hedonic services
Sacha J oseph-Mathews Mark A. Bonn David Snepenger
Article information:
To cite this document:
Sacha J oseph-Mathews Mark A. Bonn David Snepenger, (2009),"Atmospherics and consumers' symbolic interpretations of hedonic
services", International J ournal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research, Vol. 3 Iss 3 pp. 193 - 210
Permanent link to this document:http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/17506180910980519
Downloaded on: 24 January 2016, At: 22:07 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 85 other documents.
To copy this document: [email protected]
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 2154 times since 2009*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
Paul W. Ballantine, Richard J ack, Andrew G. Parsons, (2010),"Atmospheric cues and their effect on the hedonic retail experience",
International J ournal of Retail & Distribution Management, Vol. 38 Iss 8 pp. 641-653http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09590551011057453
J ooyeon Ha, SooCheong (Shawn) J ang, (2012),"The effects of dining atmospherics on behavioral intentions through quality perception",
J ournal of Services Marketing, Vol. 26 Iss 3 pp. 204-215http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/08876041211224004
J ennifer M. Mower, Minjeong Kim, Michelle L. Childs, (2012),"Exterior atmospherics and consumer behavior: Influence of landscaping
and window display", J ournal of Fashion Marketing and Management: An International J ournal, Vol. 16 Iss 4 pp. 442-453 http://
dx.doi.org/10.1108/13612021211265836
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:115632 []
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.
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
0
7
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
Atmospherics and consumers’ symbolic
interpretations of hedonic services
Sacha Joseph-Mathews, Mark A. Bonn and David Snepenger
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this research is to examine the impact of atmospherics on consumer
symbolic interpretations, and various psychological outcomes in a purely hedonic service environment.
Design/methodology/approach – Field data were collected from 500 respondents in Florida across
four hedonic service attraction sites and then analyzed using MANOVA in SPSS. A mediation method
proposed by Baron and Kenny is utilized to determine the mediating role of consumer symbolic
interpretations in the nomological network.
Findings – There were four major ?ndings. First, similar to other service sectors, environmental factors
do play a critical role in determining behavioral intentions in hedonic services. Second, patrons
conceptualize hedonic attractions/services in terms of both utilitarian and hedonic components. Third,
consumer symbolic perceptions (meanings) do affect behavioral intentions. Finally, consumers do
evaluate their service environments (ambient, design and layout and social factors) differently
depending on the meanings they attach to a service environment.
Research limitations/implications – Managers can tailor service environments to match the symbolic
interpretations and behavioral outcomes they would like to foster in order to maximize monies spent on
physical upgrades. Additional work is needed in the area of consumer meanings and symbolic
interpretations.
Originality/value – The study indicates that the service environment can be used as a differentiating
tool to perpetuate brand meaning and uniqueness in the minds of the consumer, thereby creating a
competitive advantage for the hedonic facilities and by extension ensuring repeat patronage.
Keywords Service industries, Service levels, Consumer behaviour, Perception
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
Hedonic meaning attaches to the fantasy and emotive aspects of a consumptive experience
(Hirschman and Holbrook, 1982). Hedonic meaning relates to sensory pleasures,
daydreams, emotional response and esthetic enjoyment. Hedonic components in a
consumption experience emphasize the enjoyment or pleasure the experience offers,
separate and apart from realizing any utilitarian bene?t (Holbrook and Hirschman, 1982).
These de?nitions help explain why hedonic services represent a multi-million dollar
business.
Baseball games, spa visits, theme park trips and symphony concerts all represent hedonic
services. With such a large variety of entertainment options at a consumer’s disposal,
managers are increasingly challenged to augment the fringe bene?ts associated with their
core service (Hightower et al., 2002). One such fringe bene?t many service providers have
focused on is the physical environment. The physical or ‘‘service’’ environment has become
an opportunity to aid in the ‘‘affective grati?cation’’ (Kempf, 1999) consumers actively seek
out in a hedonic service or product. In an effort to become more competitive, many service
DOI 10.1108/17506180910980519 VOL. 3 NO. 3 2009, pp. 193-210, Q Emerald Group Publishing Limited, ISSN 1750-6182
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
PAGE 193
Sacha Joseph-Mathews is
Assistant Professor,
Eberhardt School of
Business, University of the
Paci?c, Stockton,
California, USA.
Mark A. Bonn is Professor,
Dedman School of
Hospitality, College of
Business, Florida State
University, Tallahassee,
Florida, USA.
David Snepenger is
Professor, Marketing
Department, College of
Business, Montana State
University, Bozeman,
Montana, USA.
Received: June 2008
Revised: February 2009
Accepted: April 2009
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
0
7
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
providers are investing in new construction or extensive remodeling efforts of prominent
hedonic facilities.
For example, in January of 2004, Norwegian Cruise Lines launched a multi-million dollar
renovation on one of their cruise ships; Pride of Aloha. The refurbished luxury cruise liner
boasts a Hawaiian theme and depicts the history, art and culture of Hawaii. In May 2005, Six
Flags reopened the Largo Theme Park under its new name ‘‘Hurricane Harbor’’ after
spending millions on a new facility which featured new restaurants, rides, private cabanas
and swimming pools for kids. Six Flags considered it to be its largest renovation ever. In 2001
Houston began construction of a $21 million facility posed to house an aquarium, meeting
spaces, entertainment and restaurants downtown. While in 2004, the Brooklyn Museum
completed a $63 million improvement plan, the Cincinnati’s Taft Museum of Art reopened for
business after spending $22.8 million in renovations, and the Art Gallery of Ontario revealed
their expansion plans to grow their existing exhibition space by some 75,000 sq. feet (Art
Business News, 2004).
Renovations at leisure attractions like these represents big business, and hedonic
institutions worldwide are investing millions annually on renovation and refurbishment. These
activities are all done in an effort to break through the market clutter and offer a competitive
advantage over their competitors. Ultimately, these hedonic services are all vying for the
attention and patronage of consumers who have millions of entertainment options at their
disposal. In the eyes of the managers of these various facilities, any renovation activity that
can add value to the product above and beyond the alternative is certainly worth the millions
spent.
Even though hedonic attractions invest heavily in creating the service environment for their
visitors, historically, there has been limited scholarly thought committed to investigating the
role of the service environment in predominantly hedonic facilities such as, museums, theme
parks, ball parks, performing centers, etc. Instead, most of the work done within the
servicescape and service environment literature has focused almost totally on utilitarian
services. Given the lack of research on the value of service environments in hedonic
settings, asking the following questions is reasonable, ‘‘To what end are these renovations
taking place?’’ What value is added? Do these establishments serve market segments that
have divergent desires for hedonic and utilitarian experiences? Do hedonic visitors evaluate
facilities differently than utilitarian shoppers?’’ and, ultimately, ‘‘What is the return on the
investment for the facility that has heavily invested in the physical service environment?’’
The goal of this study is therefore twofold. First, the study quanti?es consumers’
assessments of service environmental factors across four major leisure facilities that include:
a museum, performing arts center, aquarium and zoo. Second, the study examines the
statistical relationships between the service environment, experience meanings, and
psychological outcomes. Figure 1 outlines the model.
Conceptual background
Service environment
Bitner (1992) argues that an organization’s physical environment creates a virtual metaphor
for that organization. Furthermore by creating a unique physical environment, service
providers are able to differentiate themselves fromtheir competitors and create brand equity
in the minds of the consumer. Thus, the physical environment becomes a mental cue for a
more signi?cant variable: its image (Kotler, 1973). Via bold furniture, wooden ?oors, dim
lighting, and signage, the physical environment creates a brand image by encapsulating an
emotional personal in physical attributes.
Existing research indicates that the meanings consumers often attach to speci?c places are
built on experiences persons have within those places (Ga¨ rling, 1988; Poria et al., 2004;
Scott and Canter, 1997; Tuan, 1977). Where consumers are drawn to an environment, this
attraction can directly impact consumer’s positive evaluations of the bene?ts present within
the environment and ultimately lead to positive purchase intentions. Moreover, the literature
has established the direct link between an emotionally pleasing environment and positive
PAGE 194
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
VOL. 3 NO. 3 2009
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
0
7
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
evaluations of products within that pleasing environment (Kotler, 1973; Obermiller and
Bitner, 1984).
The service environment literature is divided into two general schools of thought. Baker
(1986) ?rst introduced the categorization of in-store atmospherics through her
Stimulus-Organism-Response (S-O-R) grouping system. She categorized the ‘‘elements’’
into three groups: design factors (layout, color, clutter), social factors (employees and
shoppers), and ambient factors (visual and non-visual cues such as lighting, scent, and
sound which sets the mood and tone of an environment). Using a modi?ed categorization,
Bitner (1992) extended the S-O-R base to three new groups of atmospherics, which she
termed the servicescape. The ?rst two dimensions are the same as Baker (1986) but the
third dimension differs. Bitner’s (1992) third dimension is termed signs, symbols and
artifacts. This study applies Baker’s (1986) design, social, and ambient categories.
The service environment can connote both explicit and implicit cues that serve as
communicators to the users (Eroglu et al., 2000). These atmospherics can be used to
fashion distinctive brand personality in the minds of the visitor/patron and by extension make
emotional connections with customers. The personnel responsible for manipulating the
environmental stimuli within any speci?c environment is then able to orchestrate brand
leverage and create lasting brand meaning for the facility in the eyes of the customer/patron
(Baker, 1986; Bitner, 1986, 1990, 1992; Booms and Bitner, 1982; Kotler, 1973; Shostack,
1977). Consequently, professionals can create speci?c brand meanings through direct
manipulation of atmospherics (such as product displays and spacious display areas,
lighting, sounds, power aisles and bold clear signage) in an effort to break through the
clutter of the marketplace, defy convention and create a unique experience for the
consumer. In creating these unique brand associations, atmospherics are able to contribute
to an overall positive consumer response, which can manifest itself in positive purchase
behavior (Kotler, 1973).
Repatronage intention, word of mouth behavior and image evaluations. Improving physical
surroundings, and in particular impressive architectural exteriors, can enhance entrance
?gures, as they often encapsulate many of the very characteristics the attraction has to offer
(Barbieri, 2004; Sirefman, 1999). For example, the Kansas City Royals recently renovated
their party pavilion at a cost of US$600,000. Following this addition to their stadium, the
pavilion sold out for all 81 home games, within six weeks of tickets going on sale for an
average cost of US$45 per ticket (Menninger, 2000). Extant literature has pointed to the link
between a successful service encounter and the possibility of repatronage intentions (e.g.,
Baker, 1986; Bitner, 1992). More recently, researchers in the marketing literature have even
found linkages between aesthetically pleasing physical environments and positive service
quality evaluations/value perceptions (Baker et al., 2002). Architecture is increasingly
playing an important role in attracting the public to art-related spaces (Dietsch, 1997). This
study suggests that interior design and atmospheric elements formulate the impression
customers leave with and subsequently, the ?nal image that would dictate whether or not the
customer revisits the institution.
Figure 1 Conceptual model
VOL. 3 NO. 3 2009
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
PAGE 195
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
0
7
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
Meanings of places
According to the World Trade Organization, 37 percent of all trips today include a visit to a
cultural/heritage attraction, including museums, conservatories, zoos, aquariums, galleries,
performing arts centers, reservation sites, historical monuments, buildings and cemeteries
to name a few(Bonn et al., 2007). But what makes one museumdifferent fromanother? What
sets apart one aquariumor theme park fromits counterpart? A key function here is emotional
uniqueness.
Extant literature suggests that the places we visit all represent some type of emotional
meaning and purpose in our lives (Snepenger et al., 2004). Generally, people buy things and
visit places for what they mean, both to them personally, as well as what they mean to close
friends, family members and signi?cant others (Levy, 1959). Researchers have also noted
that these meanings can change from visit to visit, and in order to truly understand the
transient nature of meanings for patrons, researchers and practitioners alike need to further
investigate the underling motives behind these assigned meanings.
Traditionally, most of the research in the marketing arena has focused primarily on the
utilitarian meanings that customers attach to products. That is’ researchers have honed in on
the task-related or product acquisition characteristics associated with products, events,
experiences, etc., where consumers evaluate a product based on its usefulness (Bloch and
Richins, 1983; Bloch and Bruce, 1984). However, most consumption experiences include a
duality of both utilitarian and hedonic characteristics and or values (Babin et al., 1994; Mano
and Oliver, 1993). While utilitarian components include functional attributes, hedonic
characteristics instead result from a playfulness and fun component in activities (Holbrook
and Hirschman, 1982). The focus for hedonic meaning centers on activities that perpetuate
perceived freedom, heightened involvement, escapism and fantasy, where the value lies in
their intrinsically pleasing properties (Bloch and Richins, 1983; Hirschman, 1982; Mano and
Oliver, 1993).
This study focuses on three types of meanings: utilitarian meanings, hedonic meanings, and
novelty meanings. Previous studies have illustrated that utilitarian meanings focus on
task-related and functional characteristics (for example, how expensive or reliable a service
is). In this study we will examine the educational component present in hedonic service
offerings as a proxy for functional meaning. From a hedonic perspective we will examine the
fun, enjoyment and excitement generated from these consumption experiences based on
previous research done in the ?eld (e.g. Babin et al., 1994). We also introduce a third
category of meanings consumers attach to consumption experiences, namely: novelty
meaning.
Utilitarian/educational meaning. In today’s marketplace many leisure attractions are
seemingly ?nding it more dif?cult to differentiate themselves from their counterparts. In
the entertainment/hedonic industries, destinations, cruise lines, restaurants, hotels, theme
parks, performing arts centers, museums, zoos, malls, aquariums, video arcades, ball
parks, movie theatres, and even IMAX centers are all competing for patronage. As a result,
many facilities and attractions are ?nding new and interesting ways to appeal to their
clientele. Not surprisingly, these entertainment centers have recently adopted a type of
paradigm shift for their facilities, where the focus has moved from one of pure entertainment
to a more educational orientation (Slessor, 1997).
This shift has led many museums, aquariums, zoos and even theme parks to assume a more
scienti?c and technological focus, resulting in new interactive multi-sensory exhibits where
multimedia displays are the evolving norm. Visitors come to participate and interact, armed
with a genuine educational expectation. Examples of this multimedia educational focus can
be seen at various leisure attractions including; Cleveland’s Rock and Roll Hall of Fame and
Museum, where visitors can listen to numerous rock-’n-roll classics by the mere touch of a
screen (Slessor, 1997). Similarly, the New Museum of Contemporary Art in Manhattan is
planning a $35 million expansion that will incorporate educational facilities alongside
additional exhibition space (Iovine, 2003). To truly satisfy the needs and expectations of
PAGE 196
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
VOL. 3 NO. 3 2009
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
0
7
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
today’s visitor/patron, hedonic attractions would do well to incorporate some type of
educational component.
What consumers want are truly enjoyable vacations, but they are no longer satis?ed with just
pleasant scenery, or a fun outing. Consumers want hedonic encounters to be incredible from
a purely hedonic standpoint, yes, but now, these consumers also want to learn, to be
exposed to new cultures, new information, broaden their horizons and gain new insight from
their experience. This means that above and beyond a fun or purely pleasurable activity,
they need to satisfy educational or learning requirements. This educational component very
much resembles the practical, useful, necessary and valuable characteristics associated
with utilitarian elements (Slessor, 1997). Based on the various utilitarian functions associated
with educational meaning, for the purposes of this study we will use education as a surrogate
for utilitarian meaning.
Fun/hedonic meaning. In light of previous work in the ?eld (Hirschman and Holbrook, 1982;
Holbrook and Hirschman, 1982), hedonic meaning includes the fun, interesting, exciting,
and non-practical experiences a visitor/consumer or patron attaches to a product,
experience or service. As the antithesis of the utilitarian component consumers are looking
for a purely enjoyable take away in every leisure or hedonic activity, where they can loose
themselves in the experience and become a part of an enacted fantasy – the joy of a bungee
jump, the pleasure of a day at the spa, and the thrill of a rollercoaster ride.
Novelty meaning. According to Bello and Etzel (1985, p. 20) some visitors seek attractions
that are ‘‘new, and unfamiliar which differ from prior experiences.’’ These researchers
theorize that visitors seek both novel and commonplace tourism experiences, depending on
their state prior to the vacation. Where their current environment fails to provide optimal
stimulation vacationers are motivated to seek novelty and complexity. Conversely, if their
prior state exceeds optimal stimulation, more commonplace experiences are sought. For
tourists and visitors, novelty and uniqueness are important motivation for many attractions
(Bello and Etzel, 1985; Cohen, 1972; Snepenger, 1987).
Novelty meanings are the associations and characteristics consumers in hedonic
consumption attach to the uniqueness of the experience. That is, the uniqueness
consumers expected from a theme park versus a visit to the museum, a trip to the mountains
as oppose to a trip to the ocean, a canoeing expedition as apposed to a bike ride, a Harley
over a Honda. Novelty meaning is what makes people prefer one experience over another,
and encompasses the essence of that experience. Novelty surrounds the unique differences
that make each consumption experience memorable and worthy of trying. When examining
hedonic activities/services, the novelty component arises above and beyond the mere
enjoyment and fun characteristics. In this context consumers look for meanings that
heighten their experiences at speci?c venues, events, activities, etc.
Novelty meaning can be different for each consumer. What may appear to be novel to one
person may strike another as ordinary or run of the mill. For example, in performing arts, the
same musical or concert performance may appear mundane to one individual while
fascinating another. However, what makes each experience unique is the individual
elements that tend to help it to stand out. The fact that Salsa dancing has its own unique ?are
or the thrill from bungee jumping is like no other, while the impact of each Broadway
production changes based on the individual actors and playwrights. The unique elements
that make a speci?c experience stand out as special amongst visitors, or customers/patrons
embody the essence of novelty meaning. In this study we operationalize novelty meaning in
each tourism experience to include elements unique to that experience such as displays,
exhibits, and interactive capabilities.
As outlined above, each type of meaning differs signi?cantly from the next, yet
commonalities are shared. One such commonality is the relationship between the
environment and the elicited emotional experience that occurs within said environment.
Based on prior work in the ?eld (e.g. Boyd and Levy, 1963; Levy, 1959; Snepenger et al.,
2004), we recognize that non-verbal signs and symbols can be used to de?ne objects and
by extension places. Some have even argued that in many consumption experiences,
VOL. 3 NO. 3 2009
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
PAGE 197
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
0
7
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
several multi-sensory channels are operating simultaneously and help to make the
experience that more enjoyable (Holbrook and Hirschman, 1982). For example, having
lunch at an outdoor cafe´ is a completely different experience fromthe same lunch consumed
inside a restaurant. This suggests non-verbal cues that need to be seen, tasted, or smelled
can heighten an experience and may even be necessary requirements for the experience to
be truly appreciated.
Prior work in the ?eld has made the connection between a speci?c type of physical
environment and patronage intentions as well as repeat visits (Bonn et al., 2007). This study
takes this work a step further as we propose that there is a direct correlation between the
physical environment and the individual meanings consumers attach to the objects, events
or places associated with a consumption experience. Perhaps these cues can become even
more signi?cant in a hedonic setting where fantasy, fun and enjoyment are high on the
expectation lists. The study examines how the service environment can in?uence these
meanings for patrons and visitors to speci?c types of facilities, and ultimately, how the ?nal
brand meaning can in turn affect a visitor’s (patron’s) overall impression of the facility as well
as their intention to revisit and recommend it to others. Inevitably, both the exterior and
interior designs of these facilities becomes fundamental in shaping their identities as well as
the ?nal take away or impression. In attempting to understand which physical attributes tie
into speci?c visitor meanings we seek to investigate the following hypotheses:
H1a. Utilitarian meanings mediate the relationship between ambient environmental
factors and a visitor’s attitude towards a facility.
H1b. Hedonic meanings mediate the relationship between ambient environmental
factors and a visitor’s attitude towards a facility.
H1c. Novelty meanings mediate the relationship between ambient environmental
factors and a visitor’s attitude towards a facility.
H2a. Utilitarian meanings mediate the relationship between design and layout
environmental factors and a visitor’s intention to revisit a facility.
H2b. Hedonic meanings mediate the relationship between design and layout
environmental factors and a visitor’s intentions to revisit a facility.
H2c. Novelty meanings mediate the relationship between social environmental factors
and a visitor’s intentions to revisit a facility.
H3a. Utilitarian meanings mediate the relationship between social environmental
factors and a visitor’s word of mouth behavioral intention.
H3b. Hedonic meanings mediate the relationship between social environmental
factors and a visitor’s word of mouth behavioral intention.
H3c. Novelty meanings mediate the relationship between social environmental factors
and a visitor’s word of mouth behavioral intention.
Method
The sample
For a two-month period in the Summer of 2004, visitors to four key tourist facilities in Florida
were personally interviewed, as part of a comprehensive destination marketing research
project focusing upon Tampa, Florida. The facilities consisted of a museum, aquarium,
performing arts center and zoo. During random days, sites, and times, visitors were
indiscriminately screened using arbitrary numbers to determine their place of residence.
Once quali?ed as non-residents to the particular county at the site in which they were
contacted, visitors were then asked to respond to an 111-item survey related to their on-site
(most recent) travel experience. Information pertaining to economic expenditures, party
size, length of stay, demographics, activities pursued, primary destination for this visit, and
many other dimensions were represented in the survey instrument. Individuals were
PAGE 198
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
VOL. 3 NO. 3 2009
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
0
7
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
informed in advance that the survey took approximately ten minutes to complete, and that
there was no incentive given for those individuals deciding to respond. Over 90 percent of all
quali?ed individuals agreed to participate in the interview process. Only one adult visitor per
travel party was interviewed.
Ultimately, 500 respondents provided data suitable for analysis. The sample was comprised
of 49 percent men and 51 percent women with an average income of $27,660. A total of 93.8
percent of the sample indicated they were Caucasian followed by African-American (2.6
percent), Hispanic,(1.2 percent), and Asian Americans (1.2 percent).
Measurement scales. Each of the constructs in the conceptual model were operationalized
using established scales which are discussed in this section below. Table I outlines each of
the scales used in this study. The Likert-type scales used anchors of 1 ¼ Strongly disagree
and 7 ¼ Strongly agree.
Service environment. Measurement items for the service environment construct were
adapted from scales used in Baker et al. (2002). The scale consists of three dimensions:
ambiance, design/layout and social. Speci?cally, the ambient dimension was measured
using four items that assessed the facility’s performance with respect to color scheme,
lighting and signage. The design and layout dimension is comprised of elements such as
ease of ?nding particular points of interest, traf?c ?ow of customers, layout functionality and
open space utility. Finally, the social dimension evaluates the service employees of the
facility and consisted of items relevant to their courteous nature and knowledge levels, as
well as the quality of service they provided. These scales had construct reliabilities ranging
from 0.83 to 0.96.
Attitude about the facility. This construct was assessed using a ?ve-item scale based on
existing scales in the literature. The scale measured favorable/unfavorable attitudes to the
facility and evaluated whether or not the patron was impressed by the experience.
Respondents were asked to rate how much they agree with statements based on the
above-mentioned elements. Scales similar to this one have been recommended and used
Table I Measurement scales
Variable Items Measurement citation
Ambiance The facility uses a pleasing color scheme Adapted based on Baker et al. (2002)
This facility has attractive lighting
The signage at this facility was easy to read
The signage at this facility was very helpful
Design and layout This facility is well designed Adapted based on Baker et al. (2002)
This facility is well organized
This facility has a pleasing layout
This facility is very spacious
The layout of this facility is well thought out
The traf?c ?ow in this facility is very heavy
(reverse coded)
Social This facility has knowledgeable employees Adapted based on Baker et al. (2002)
This facility has a courteous staff
This facility has friendly employees
Attitude to the facility My overall impression of the facility is positive Adapted based on Hensel and Bruner (1992)
My overall impression of the facility is good
My overall impression of the facility is unfavorable
(reverse coded)
Word of mouth intentions I would encourage friends and relatives to visit
this facility
Zeithaml et al. (1996)
I would recommend this facility to a friend
I would say good things about this facility
Revisit intentions I would revisit this facility in the future Adapted based on Zeithaml
I plan to revisit this facility
Visiting this facility was worth the effort
VOL. 3 NO. 3 2009
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
PAGE 199
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
0
7
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
successfully in the marketing literature (e.g. Oliver, 1981). The scale for facility image had a
construct reliability of 0.88.
Behavioral intentions. Respondents’ behavioral intentions were assessed using two different
scales which examined repeat visit intentions, and word of mouth behavior. Each of these
scales has been previously validated in other research (e.g. Zeithaml et al., 1996). The revisit
intentions scale had a construct reliability of 0.80, while word of mouth recommendations
had a construct reliability of 0.98. All items were measured on a seven-point Likert scale.
Meanings. All three types of meanings were evaluated using seven-point Likert scales, as
recommended by the literature (Snepenger et al., 2004). For the educational/utilitarian
meanings scale, respondents assessed how much of an educational experience the visit
offered, whether or not they felt enlightened upon their departure and if they had learned
anything during their visit to the facility. The hedonic meanings scale asked respondents to
evaluate the facility based on the amount of fun they had, the enjoyment that was generated
and how exciting their experience was. The novelty scale examined the uniqueness and
design quality of the exhibits and displays they experienced. Table II gives further
information as well as explanations of all scales used.
Analyses and results
Construct reliabilities estimates (Fornell and Larcker, 1981) assess the internal consistencies
of the scales used in the study. Generally, the reliability estimates ranged from a low of 0.80
to a high of 0.98. Convergent validity was established based on the average variance
extracted (AVE) as outlined by Fornell and Larcker (1981). All of the constructs
demonstrated AVE greater than 0.50, indicating that the constructs (and not error)
explained the majority of variance in the model. Discriminant validity was also examined
using criteria outlined by Fornell and Larcker (1981). The explained variance for each
construct was compared to the shared variance between that construct and the other
constructs within the model. If the average variance extracted by each construct is greater
than the shared variance among the other variables in the model then Fornell and Larcker’s
criteria is successfully met. Based on this test, all of the variables exhibited discriminant
validity.
Analyses
MANOVA was used to test the above-mentioned hypotheses. In order to test for mediation, a
procedure as outlined by Baron and Kenny (1986) was utilized. The central idea behind
mediation is the concept that the relationship between a particular antecedent and a given
outcome is mediated or in?uenced by a third variable (Baron and Kenny, 1986). A
variable/construct is said to function as a mediator to the extent that it accounts for the
relationship between the predictor, (in this case servicescape/service environment
variables) and the criterion variables, (intent to revisit, word of mouth behavior and
attitude to the facility). In particular, we examined whether hedonic, novelty and utilitarian
meanings, mediated the relationship between a facility’s servicescape and the
aforementioned dependent variables.
Table II Descriptive statistics, correlations, and reliabilities for variables
Variables Mean SD r AF WOM IR Amb Lay Soc Util Hed Nov
Attitude to the facility (AF) 4.66 1.32 0.88 1.00
Word of mouth (WOM) 4.67 1.62 0.98 0.64 1.00
Intention to revisit (IR) 4.50 1.37 0.80 0.94 0.60 1.00
Ambiance (Amb) 4.03 1.27 0.88 0.63 0.33 0.66 1.00
Layout and design (Lay) 4.80 1.14 0.83 0.59 0.32 0.61 0.89 1.00
Social (Soc) 5.35 1.52 0.96 0.03 20.06 0.03 0.12 0.06 1.00
Utilitarian (Util) 3.36 2.08 0.98 20.18 20.25 20.17 0.12 0.02 0.10 1.00
Hedonic (Hed) 3.59 1.29 0.99 0.68 0.43 0.77 0.92 0.89 0.06 0.08 1.00
Novelty (Nov) 3.77 1.69 0.88 20.16 20.05 20.14 20.18 20.13 20.18 20.04 20.15 1.00
PAGE 200
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
VOL. 3 NO. 3 2009
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
0
7
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
In order to necessitate mediation criteria, the following circumstances must be satis?ed as
outlined by Baron and Kenny (1986). First, a signi?cant relationship between the
independent and the dependent variables must be established. Second, the independent
variable must signi?cantly impact the mediator, and third, the mediator must signi?cantly
impact the dependent variable. Finally, in light of the third criteria, the relationship between
the independent and dependent variables should either decrease in signi?cance or lose
signi?cance completely.
For the purposes of this study we ran four MANOVA models. In the ?rst model we regressed
revisit intentions, word of mouth intentions and attitude to the facility on the three
environmental variables namely: ambiance, design and layout and social. In the second
model we regressed each of the three mediator variables on the various environmental
factors. In the third MANOVA model we regressed revisit intentions, word of mouth intentions
and attitude to the facility on the three mediator variables namely; novelty meaning, utilitarian
meaning and novelty meaning. In the last model we regressed the word of mouth variable
(as this was the only variable in which all of the criteria was met) on both the meaning
mediators and the environmental factors.
In the ?rst round of testing, there was a signi?cant relationship between ambiance and all of
the dependent variables namely word of mouth (p ¼ 0:019), revisit intentions (p ¼ 0:000)
and attitude to the facility (p ¼ 0:000). Layout and design has a signi?cant relationship with
attitude to the facility (p ¼ 0:04) and the social environment has a signi?cant relationship with
revisit intentions (p ¼ 0:048). This generally con?rms previous research in the ?eld that
environmental factors are important within a service environment and more importantly
within a hedonic setting (Bonn et al., 2007).
In the second round of testing there was a signi?cant relationship between ambiance and
utilitarian meaning (p ¼ 0:008), ambiance and hedonic meaning (p ¼ 0:009), and ambiance
and novelty meaning (p ¼ 0:001). There was also a signi?cant relationship between layout
and design and novelty meaning (p ¼ 0:010). Ambiance was the only environmental factor
that has had a consistently signi?cant relationship with the various types of meaning, with the
exception of layout and design which had a signi?cant relationship with novelty meaning.
In the third round of testing we examined the relationships between the mediator factors and
each of the dependent variables. Here utilitarian meaning had a signi?cant relationship with
word of mouth intentions (p ¼ 0:042), hedonic meaning had a signi?cant relationship
with word of mouth intentions (p ¼ 0:000), novelty meaning had a signi?cant relationship with
word of mouth intentions (p ¼ 0:000). None of the other relationships were statistically
signi?cant. Although the relationships were only signi?cant for word of mouth intentions this
still tells us that patrons do in fact form speci?c meaning evaluations when they visit
particular sites/facilities. In the fourth round of testing there were mixed results. Instead of
using MANOVA we ran a regression analysis as we only had one dependent variable: word
of mouth intentions. The results indicated that hedonic and novelty meanings (p ¼ 0:000,
0.041) mediated the relationship between ambiance, design and layout and social factors
and word of mouth intentions. While utilitarian meaning did not. The ?rst criterion was met for
each of the three environmental factors on at least one dependent variable. The second
criteria were met for ambiance and the various types of meanings, as well as layout and
design and novelty meaning. In the third criterion all the various types of meanings were
signi?cant with word of mouth. For the ?nal criterion we found full mediation only with novelty
and hedonic meaning with word of mouth intentions. Tables III-VI outline the results for the
various models tested.
Discussion
This study serves to illustrate the role of the service environment in a purely hedonic setting,
and make an empirical connection between speci?c environmental factors and the
meanings customers attach to hedonic services and products consumed within these
environments. Our contributions to the literature are based on four study ?ndings. First, we
con?rmed that similar to other service sectors, environmental factors do play a critical role in
determining behavioral intentions in hedonic services. Second, we established that, similar
VOL. 3 NO. 3 2009
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
PAGE 201
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
0
7
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
Table III Results of the MANOVA analyses: model 1 – independent and dependent
variables
Independent variables Dependent variables Sum of squares df F Sig. ( p)
Ambiance WOM 59.45 20 1.85 0.019
Revisit intentions 55.09 20 6.20 0.000
Attitude to the facility 37.19 20 3.83 0.000
Layout/design WOM 28.32 13 1.36 0.183
Revisit intentions 4.71 13 0.816 0.643
Attitude to the facility 15.59 13 2.47 0.004
Social WOM 0.128 3 0.027 0.994
Revisit intentions 3.59 3 2.69 0.048
Attitude to the facility 3.38 3 2.32 0.076
Table IV Results of the MANOVA analyses: model 2 – independent on mediator variables
Independent variables Mediator variables Sum of squares Df F Sig. ( p)
Ambiance Utilitarian 21.39 19 1.16 0.316
Hedonic 21.76 19 1.58 0.079
Novelty 21.45 19 1.52 0.099
Layout/design Utilitarian 0.2.55 13 0.675 0.782
Hedonic 9.18 13 0.977 0.480
Novelty 9.52 13 0.988 0.470
Social Utilitarian 3.92 3 1.34 0.266
Hedonic 2.14 3 0.990 0.402
Novelty 2.55 3 1.150 0.334
Table V Results of the MANOVA analyses: model 3 – mediator on dependent variables
Mediator variables Dependent variables Sum of squares Df F Sig. ( p)
Utilitarian WOM 24.22 8 2.07 0.042
Revisit intentions 19.40 8 1.81 0.080
Attitude to the facility 16.57 8 1.68 0.109
Hedonic WOM 70.15 13 3.69 0.000
Revisit intentions 19.41 13 1.11 0.353
Attitude to the facility 25.29 13 1.58 0.099
Novelty WOM 88.86 16 2.86 0.000
Revisit intentions 25.48 16 1.18 0.286
Attitude to the facility 29.22 16 1.48 0.115
Table VI Results of the MANOVA analyses: model 4 – all variables on dependent variable
Dependent variable – word of mouth intentions
Independent variables b SE t Sig ( p)
Ambiance 0.724 0.176 4.103 0.000
Design and layout 0.231 0.207 1.115 0.266
Social 0.007 0.101 0.074 0.941
Utilitarian 0.099 0.085 1.159 0.248
Hedonic 1.602 0.509 3.147 0.002
Novelty 1.017 0.495 2.053 0.041
Notes: Overall F – 27.97; Df – 204/6; R – 0.672; Sum of squares – 213.415; Adjusted R
2
– 045;
Overall significance ¼ 0:000
PAGE 202
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
VOL. 3 NO. 3 2009
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
0
7
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
to the duality sought in consumer products (Babin et al., 1994; Mano and Oliver, 1993),
visitors and tourists alike conceptualize hedonic attractions/services in terms of utilitarian
and hedonic components as well as novelty characteristics. Third, the meanings these
visitors attach to their experiences can in turn in?uence behavioral intentions, speci?cally
word of mouth intentions. Finally, the study illustrates the direct link between the service
environment (i.e. ambient, layout and social environmental cues) and the meanings that
consumers attach to certain experiences and or products, demonstrating that consumers do
evaluate their surroundings differently depending on the meanings they attach to a service
environment.
The service environment and hedonic services
Environmental psychologists connect individual’s environments and their behavioral
patterns (e.g. Davis, 1984; Mehrabian and Russell, 1974). Marketers built on these
?ndings, translating them to a service environment with applications mainly to the retailing
sector (e.g. Baker, 1986; Bitner, 1992; Obermiller and Bitner, 1984). This study focused on
investigating the relevance of the service environment within a purely hedonic setting, with
an aim to establish which elements are most signi?cant for hedonic service providers.
The results replicate previous ?ndings in the service environment literature, and point to the
relevance of the service environment across various types of service industries. What has
become obvious is that whether we are talking to museumcurators, theme park operators, or
retailing managers, the message is the same: the physical environment is tantamount to
in?uencing speci?c behavioral patterns. A direct link can be made between an aesthetically
pleasing environment and repeat purchase intentions, positive word of mouth behavior and
favorably perceptions of facilities, whether the consumer is engaging in purchasing
utilitarian or hedonic products/services.
Although an extensive amount of existing work on the service environment is available (see
Turley and Milliman (2000) for a detailed review), few studies have sought to investigate the
dominance of one environmental element over another, or have even sought to investigate
multiple elements together within one study. We have discovered that the servicescape not
only contributes to whether or not consumers or patrons will recommend the facility to others
and even return in the future, but also each element in the physical environment can affect
consumers in different ways. For example design and layout elements seem to have the
strongest impact consumers’ attitudes to the facility. This makes intuitive sense as functional
issues such as aisle space, traf?c ?ow, layout and spaciousness are critical to how a patron
will feel about a speci?c facility and its usefulness as an entertainment center.
Social factors are most relevant to revisit intentions. This also makes intuitive sense that the
people a patron interacts with at a particular venue can make or break the likelihood of them
returning to that event or facility in the future. How many times have we heard ‘‘I did not like
the other people at that event they annoyed me I will never return to that place’’. Both staff
and customers can impact whether a consumer would be willing to revisit a facility. This
heightens the signi?cance of customer service to repeat patronage and a newcontribution is
the signi?cance of other consumers in the revisit equation.
The study ?ndings also indicate that different environmental elements result in different
behavioral intentions. Managers therefore need to be sure the physical upgrades they
undertake will have impacts in meaningful ways. For example, they need to be sure if repeat
purchase behavior is intended that they focus on improving service environment factors that
demonstrate improved repeat purchase behavior. Similarly, if they depend on positive word
of mouth recommendations then they need to focus on improving service environment
factors that speak to that speci?c behavioral outcome. Rather than channeling money into
upgrades that appear aesthetically pleasing, armed with these ?ndings managers may be
able to better able to fund projects for speci?cally desired outcomes.
Meanings and behavioral outcomes
Each product, service, event or place has several meanings that consumers attach to it,
moreover, these meanings change for each and every consumer (Levy, 1959). Researchers
VOL. 3 NO. 3 2009
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
PAGE 203
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
0
7
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
have come to recognize that most products have a utilitarian- or task-related component as
well as a hedonic- or pleasure-based component (Babin et al., 1994; Mano and Oliver,
1993). Our results indicate that there is also a third meaning component relevant speci?cally
to hedonic service encounters known as novelty meaning. This type of meaning is speci?c to
hedonic-related activities, products and or events, and refers to the unique elements that
come to mind when consumers contemplate indulging in a speci?c service or product.
The study ?ndings demonstrated that each of the meanings affect word of mouth intension.
Suggesting that not only do customers attach meanings to particular facilities and locations
but these meanings signi?cantly impact what they say about those facilities once they leave.
Such associations support the need to make each hedonic encounter fun, unique
pleasurable and exciting, while at the same time capitalizing on any educational component
that can be enhanced through the experience. Whether a customer is contemplating a trip to
Maui, or an opera attendance, they want to ensure it is an exercise they enjoy each and every
time they engage in the activity. So for every beach someone visits, every concert they
attend or bike ride they take, they are doing it because there is a unique element they enjoy
above and beyond the next best alternative. This is where the novelty meaning component
comes in, our research con?rms that consumers do actively seek a novelty element when
engaging in hedonic services and this element is separate and apart from the purely
pleasurable and fun aspect of that purchase.
The different meanings consumers attach to various products and or services play different
roles in dictating consumer behavior and simply facilitating hedonic meaning on its own is
insuf?cient to guarantee repeat behavior. Instead, marketers and managers alike also need
to be concerned about the utilitarian and novelty meanings consumers attach and by
extension take away from a service or product encounter in the hedonic sector.
The service environment and meanings
Consumers evaluate their physical environment differently depending on what uses they
have for that environment and by extension what meanings they attach to that environment.
Suggesting that if managers and marketers alike know the various meanings that
consumers/patrons attach to their facilities they can in turn provide physical environments
that compliment these meanings more closely and accordingly provide an enhanced
experience for consumers/patrons partaking in those environments.
While the social element may not impact the speci?c meanings patrons evoke for speci?c
facilities, ambiance and design and layout both play a signi?cant role in dictating how
patrons attach meanings to their hedonic experiences. These results suggest that
customers, visitors patrons, etc., not only use the service environment to make conscious
decisions such as whether or not they will stay, what they will buy, if they will return, etc. But
also and more importantly, they subconsciously associate certain colors, fonts, designs,
layouts, architecture and even carpeting with feelings and meanings that they attach to
speci?c venues, activities, events, and experiences. For example, seating at a concert hall
can intensify the utilitarian meaning one attaches to an opera performance, while the stage
lighting can accentuate the hedonic meaning. Similarly, the size of the hall, the unique sound
system only found there and the interior layout all signi?cantly contribute to the novelty
meaning patrons attach to viewing the opera at that performing arts arena. Moreover, social
factors have no effect on various meanings so the educational or functional component is
deemed successful even if the customer service encounter was not up to par. Instead social
factors have the most impact of revisit intentions, which heightens once again the
signi?cance of good customer service at hedonic facilities.
Although several pieces studies investigate meanings people attach to hedonic services,
and the role of the environment has been hinted at, (e.g. Levy, 1959) no systematic
investigation examines associations between environmental factors and the meanings
consumers/visitors/patrons take away from one environment to another. In the hedonic
sector we are in the business of making memories: we advertise experiences. Managers and
marketers alike go to great lengths in an effort to highlight the uniqueness of their destination.
They want potential visitors to witness how spectacular the vacation experience will be. Yet,
PAGE 204
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
VOL. 3 NO. 3 2009
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
0
7
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
how much do we really know about what kind of meanings consumers or patrons take away
from these experiences? What are the elements that we can manipulate to improve the
experience and by extension make the meaning that more memorable and impactful?
A direct relationship exists between the service environment and these meanings and
likewise a relationship between these meanings and speci?c behavioral intentions. Thus, the
meaning visitors/patrons attach to a particular environment and by extension
attraction/facility can ultimately determine how likely a visitor is to pass on or recommend
a facility. Managers can use these ?ndings to manipulate the meanings consumers take
away by manipulating the environment. Currently, millions are spent on extensive service
environment related renovations and improvements, without concrete investigations into the
role of these upgrades in improved customer evaluations. One of our goals was to examine
whether physical renovations impacted if a consumer returned to a speci?c venue, and
engaged in positive word of mouth behavior. The relationship between certain key
environmental components and the meanings attached to these service encounters testify to
the signi?cance of the physical environment to the ultimate take-away consumers attach to
service encounters.
By establishing a link between speci?c environmental factors and unique meaning
consumers attach to product/services, managers and marketers alike are able to heighten
the ultimate meanings consumers attach to certain venues, events, products and/or services
in the hedonic sector. By heightening certain meanings they can then in turn increase the
likelihood of certain behavioral intentions. This research offers empirical evidence that can
facilitate a more focused renovation effort to speci?cally address individual facility goals
through calculated physical upgrades.
Future research
The meanings literature is still somewhat in a preliminary stage of academic investigation.
Above and beyond the three types of meanings explored here there are several others that
we have not examined, namely, social, cultural, sacred, secular, and others that are yet to be
detected and developed in the literature. We have looked speci?cally at the role of
atmospherics in meanings creation as well as the mediating role of meanings between
predictor and criterion variables. There is still an extensive amount of research to be done in
this area. As a preliminary examination, we have simply opened the gates, in the hope that
researchers will tap into the many facets that need to be explored. For example we looked at
speci?c ambient, design and social cues, however, each of these dimensions are comprised
of numerous elements, of which only a handful have been explored in this study. A deeper
exploration of the most predictive ambient, design and social cues is necessary to fully
comprehend the relationship between these two constructs.
Similarly, we looked at meanings relevant to only a handful of behavioral intentions there are
numerous other behavioral intentions that can be investigated; loyalty, ability or willingness
to increase expenditure, time spent, etc, as numerous other dependent variables such as
meanings across genders, and various societal groups such as race, class, locations need
investigation. Do people of different ethnic backgrounds look for, and take away different
meanings? Do domestic visitors attach the same meanings in hedonic services as their
national and international counterparts? A gamut of questions needs answering. Finally, the
form utilitarian components take in the hedonic sector is still unknown. Are utilitarian
components applicable to hygiene factors, education, or functionality? What is considered
utilitarian, and what is not?
Conclusion
Originally, this study was centered on the role of meanings as mediators between a facilities’
service environment and the impact it has on visitors/patrons. However, the results showthat
although we only found full mediation for ambiance environmental factors, there were
several other ?ndings that proved equally interesting in the knowledge quest as it pertains to
the role of meanings in the hedonic services as well as the role of the service environment in
channeling and creating these meanings.
VOL. 3 NO. 3 2009
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
PAGE 205
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
0
7
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
Additionally, we discovered, that presently, many hedonic attractions are not necessarily
doing a great job in nurturing the right service environmental cues in order to maximize
return visits, visitor perceptions and word of mouth recommendations. Although millions are
spent yearly on upgrades and renovations, it is very possible that these additions and
improvements are focusing on the wrong things and smaller less expensive changes are
being ignored. The end result is an inef?cient use of resources and a failure to capitalize on a
signi?cant opportunity. We now know that the service environment directly impacts not only
how an attraction is perceived and the likelihood of a return visit, but it also in?uences the
meaning consumers associate with that attraction/service/facility or overall experience and it
strongly impacts a patron’s word of mouth intentions. Additionally, we found evidence to
support the notion that when patrons visit a facility or attraction in the hedonic sector, in
addition to their need for a hedonic experience, they also have utilitarian and novelty needs
that contribute to a richer overall experience.
This study provides a link between the physical environment and the meanings
consumers/patrons attach to those environments. Second, the study identi?es a type of
hierarchy amongst atmospheric elements where some elements are more important than
others depending on the type of meaning consumers attach to a particular hedonic
site/facility. Third the study identi?es a direct link in the hedonic service industry between a
pleasing physical environment and return patronage and positive word of mouth behavior,
suggesting that the role of the physical environment is consistent across industries, as
patterns found in retailing sectors can be replicated in the hedonic service sectors. Fourth,
the study is progress towards mapping out the nomological network that encompasses
meanings and the service environment as it pertains to consumer behavior. This study is a
?rst step in exploring that link and creating additional value from the extensive expenditures
on physical upgrades that have become commonplace in many of the world’s hedonic
attractions.
References
Art Business News (2004), ‘‘Museum matters’’, available at: www.artbusinessnews.com
Babin, B.J., Darden, W.R. and Grif?n, M. (1994), ‘‘Work and/or fun: measuring hedonic and utilitarian
shopping value’’, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 644-56.
Baker, J. (1986), ‘‘The role of environment in marketing services: the consumer perspective’’,
in Czpeil, J.A., Congam, C. and Shanaham, J. (Eds), The Services Marketing Challenge: Integrated for
Competitive Advantage, American Marketing Association, Chicago, IL, pp. 79-84.
Baker, J., Parasuraman, A., Grewal, D. and Voss, G. (2002), ‘‘The in?uence of multiple store
environmental cues on perceived merchandise value and patronage intentions’’, Journal of Marketing,
Vol. 66, April, pp. 120-41.
Barbieri, K. (2004), ‘‘$63m facelift at Brooklyn Museum set to welcome larger crowds’’, Amusement
Business, Vol. 116, April, p. 5.
Baron, R.M. and Kenny, D.A. (1986), ‘‘The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social
psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations’’, Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, Vol. 51 No. 6, pp. 1173-82.
Bello, D.C. and Etzel, M.J. (1985), ‘‘The role of novelty in pleasure travel experience’’, Journal of Travel
Research, Vol. 24 Nos 1, Summer, pp. 20-6.
Bitner, M.J. (1986), ‘‘Consumer responses to the physical environment in service settings’’,
in Venkatesan, M., Schmalensee, D.M. and Marshall, C. (Eds), Creativity in Services Marketing,
American Marketing Association, Chicago, IL, pp. 89-93.
Bitner, M.J. (1990), ‘‘Evaluating service encounters: the effects if physical surroundings and employee
responses’’, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 54 No. 2, pp. 69-82.
Bitner, M.J. (1992), ‘‘Servicescapes: the impact of physical surroundings on customers and
employees’’, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 56, April, pp. 57-71.
Bloch, P.H. and Bruce, G.D. (1984), ‘‘The leisure experience and consumer products: an investigation of
underlying satisfactions’’, Journal of Leisure Research, Vol. 16, Spring, pp. 74-88.
PAGE 206
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
VOL. 3 NO. 3 2009
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
0
7
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
Bloch, P.H. and Richins, M.L. (1983), ‘‘A theoretical model for the study of product importance
perceptions’’, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 47, Summer, pp. 69-81.
Bonn, M.A., Joseph-Mathews, S.M., Dai, M., Hayes, S. and Cave, J. (2007), ‘‘Heritage/cultural attraction
atmospherics: creating the right environment for the heritage/cultural visitor’’, Journal of Travel
Research, Vol. 45 No. 3, pp. 345-54.
Booms, B.H. and Bitner, M.J. (1982), ‘‘Marketing services by managing the environment’’, Cornell Hotel
Restaurant Administration Quarterly, Vol. 23, May, pp. 35-9.
Boyd, H.W. Jr and Levy, S.J. (1963), ‘‘Newdimensions in consumer analysis’’, Harvard Business Review,
Vol. 41, November-December, pp. 129-40.
Cohen, E. (1972), ‘‘Toward a sociology of international tourism’’, Social Research, Vol. 39 No. 1,
pp. 164-82.
Davis, T.R. (1984), ‘‘The in?uence of the physical environment in of?ces’’, The Academy of Management
Review, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 271-84.
Dietsch, D.K. (1997), ‘‘Museum boom’’, Architecture, Vol. 86 No. 12, pp. 11-12.
Eroglu, S.A., Machleit, K. and Davis, L.M. (2000), ‘‘Online retail atmospherics: empirical tests of a cue
typology’’, in Evans, J.R. and Berman, B. (Eds), Retailing 2000: Launching the New Millennium, the Sixth
Triennial AMS/ACRA Retailing Conference, Vol. 9, pp. 144-50.
Fornell, C. and Larcker, D.F. (1981), ‘‘Evaluation structural equations models with unobservable
variables and measurement error’’, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 18, February, pp. 39-50.
Ga¨ rling, T. (1988), ‘‘What is environmental about environmental psychology?’’, Journal of Environmental
Psychology, Vol. 2, pp. 161-2.
Hensel, P.J. and Bruner, G.C. II (1992), ‘‘Scaling and measurement: multi-itemscaled measures in sales
related research’’, Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 77-82.
Hightower, R. Jr, Brady, M.K. and Baker, T.L. (2002), ‘‘Investigating the role of the physical environment in
hedonic service consumption: an exploratory study of sporting events’’, Journal of Business Research,
Vol. 55 No. 9, pp. 697-707.
Hirschman, E.C. (1982), ‘‘Religious af?liation and consumption processes: an initial paradigm’’,
in Sheth, J.N. (Ed.), Research in Marketing, Vol. 6, JAI Press, Greenwich, CT.
Hirschman, E.C. and Holbrook, M.B. (1982), ‘‘Hedonic consumption: emerging concepts, methods and
propositions’’, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 46, Summer, pp. 92-101.
Holbrook, M.B. and Hirschman, E.C. (1982), ‘‘The experiential aspects of consumption: consumer
fantasies, feelings and fun’’, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 9, September, pp. 132-40.
Iovine, J. (2003), ‘‘‘Under the radar’ museum plans new home on the Bowery’’, Wired New York Forum,
available at:http://wirednewyork.com/forum/showthread.php?t ¼ 3624.
Kempf, D.S. (1999), ‘‘Attitude formation from product trial: distinct role of cognition and affect for
hedonic and functional products’’, Psychology Marketing, Vol. 16, January, pp. 35-50.
Kotler, P. (1973), ‘‘Atmospherics as a marketing tool’’, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 4, Winter, pp. 48-64.
Levy, S.J. (1959), ‘‘Symbols for sale’’, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 37, July-August, pp. 117-24.
Mano, H. and Oliver, R.L. (1993), ‘‘Assessing the dimensionality and structure of the consumption
experience: evaluation, feeling and satisfaction’’, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 20, December,
pp. 451-66.
Mehrabian, A. and Russell, J.A. (1974), An Approach to Environmental Psychology, MIT Press,
Cambridge, MA.
Menninger, B. (2000), ‘‘Used facilities get a newlook’’, Street and Smiths Sports Business Journal, Vol. 3,
May, pp. 8-14, 25, 34.
Obermiller, C. and Bitner, M.J. (1984), ‘‘Store atmosphere: a peripheral cue for product evaluation’’,
in Stewart, D.C. (Ed.), American Psychological Association Annual Conference Proceedings, Consumer
Psychology Division, American Psychological Association, Champaign, IL, pp. 52-3.
VOL. 3 NO. 3 2009
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
PAGE 207
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
0
7
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
Oliver, R.L. (1981), ‘‘Measurement and evaluation of satisfaction processes in retail settings’’, Journal of
Retailing, Vol. 57, Fall, pp. 25-48.
Poria, Y., Butler, R. and Airey, D. (2004), ‘‘Links between tourists, heritage and reasons for visiting
heritage sites’’, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 43, August, pp. 12-24.
Scott, M. and Canter, D.V. (1997), ‘‘Picture or place? A multiple sorting study of landscape’’, Journal of
Environmental Psychology, Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 263-81.
Shostack, G.L. (1977), ‘‘Breaking free from product marketing’’, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 41, April,
pp. 73-80.
Sirefman, S. (1999), ‘‘Formed and forming: contemporary museum architecture’’, Daedalus, Vol. 128,
Summer, pp. 297-321.
Slessor, C. (1997), Eco-tech: Sustainable Architecture and High Technology, Thames and Hudson,
New York, NY.
Snepenger, D. (1987), ‘‘Segmenting the vacation market by novelty-seeking role’’, Journal of Travel
Research, Vol. 26, Fall, pp. 8-14.
Snepenger, D., Murphy, L., Snepenger, M. and Anderson, W. (2004), ‘‘Normative meanings of
experiences for a spectrum of tourism places’’, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 43, November,
pp. 108-17.
Tuan, Y.F. (1977), Space and Place: The Perspective of Experience, University of Minnesota Press,
Minneapolis, MN.
Turley, L.W. and Milliman, R.E. (2000), ‘‘Atmospheric effects on shopping behavior: a review of the
experimental evidence’’, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 49 No. 2, pp. 193-211.
Zeithaml, V.A., Berry, L.L. and Parasuraman, A. (1996), ‘‘The behavioral consequences of marketing’’,
Journal of Marketing, Vol. 60, April, pp. 31-46.
Further reading
Anderson, J.C. and Gerbing, D.W. (1988), ‘‘Structural equation modeling in practice: a review and
recommended two-step approach’’, Psychology Bulletin, Vol. 103 No. 3, pp. 411-23.
Areni, C.S. and Kim, D. (1993), ‘‘The in?uence of background music on shopping behavior: classical
versus top-forty music in a wine store’’, in McAllister, L. and Rothschild, M.L. (Eds), Advances in
Consumer Research, Association of Consumer Research, Provo, UT, pp. 336-40.
Ayala, H. (1996), ‘‘Resort ecotourism: a paradigm for the 21st century’’, Cornell Hotel and Restaurant
Administrative Quarterly, Vol. 37, October, pp. 46-53.
Baker, J., Grewal, D. and Parasuraman, A. (1994), ‘‘The in?uence of store environment on quality
inferences and store image’’, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 22, Fall, pp. 328-40.
Baker, J., Levy, M. and Grewal, D. (1992), ‘‘An experimental approach to making retail store environment
decisions’’, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 68, Winter, pp. 445-60.
Becker, F.D. (1977), Housing Messages, Dowden, Hutchinson & Ross, Stroudsburg, PA.
Becker, F.D. (1981), Workspace, Praeger Publishers, New York, NY.
Belizzi, J.A., Crowley, A.E. and Hasty, R.W. (1983), ‘‘The effects of color in store design’’, Journal of
Retailing, Vol. 59, Spring, pp. 21-45.
Bentler, L.D. and Bonett, D.G. (1980), ‘‘Signi?cance tests and goodness of ?t in the analysis of
covariance structures’’, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 88 No. 3, pp. 588-606.
Berry, L.L. (2000), ‘‘Cultivating service brand equity’’, Journal of Marketing Science, Vol. 28, Winter,
pp. 128-37.
Brady, M.K. and Cronin, J.J. Jr (2001), ‘‘Some new thought on conceptualizing perceived service
quality: a hierarchical approach’’, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 65, July, pp. 34-49.
Brady, M.K. and Cronin, J.J. Jr (2001), ‘‘Customer orientation: effects on customer service perceptions
and outcome behaviors’’, Journal of Service Research, Vol. 3 No. 3, pp. 241-51.
PAGE 208
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
VOL. 3 NO. 3 2009
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
0
7
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
Chebat, J.C., Gelinas-Chebat, C. and Filiatrault, P. (1993), ‘‘Interactive effects of music and visual cues
on time perception: an application to waiting lines in banks’’, Perceptual and Motor Skills, Vol. 77 No. 3,
pp. 995-1020.
Diamantis, D. (1998), ‘‘Consumer behavior and ecotourism products’’, Annals of Tourism Research,
Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 515-28.
Diamantis, D. (2000), ‘‘Ecotourism and sustainability in Mediterranean Islands’’, Thunderbird
International Business Review, Vol. 2, July-August, pp. 427-43.
Donovan, R. and Rossiter, J. (1982), ‘‘Store atmosphere: an environmental psychology approach’’,
Journal of Retailing, Vol. 58, Spring, pp. 34-57.
Donovan, R., Rossiter, J.R., Marcoolyn, G.M. and Nesdale, A. (1994), ‘‘Store atmosphere and
purchasing behavior’’, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 70 No. 3, pp. 283-94.
Dube, L., Chebat, J.C. and Morin, S. (1995), ‘‘The effects of background music on consumers’ desire to
af?liate in buyer-seller interactions’’, Psychology, Vol. 12, July, pp. 305-19.
Eroglu, S.A. and Davis, L.M. (2001), ‘‘Atmospheric qualities of online retailing: a conceptual model and
implications’’, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 54 No. 2, pp. 177-84.
Eroglu, S.A. and Machleit, K. (1990), ‘‘An empirical study of retail crowding: antecedents and
consequences’’, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 66 No. 2, pp. 201-21.
Gagnon, J.P. and Osterhaus, J.T. (1985), ‘‘Research note: effectiveness of ?oor displays on the sales of
retail products’’, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 61, Spring, pp. 104-16.
Harrell, G.D., Hutt, M.D. and Anderson, J.C. (1980), ‘‘Path analysis of buyer behavior under conditions of
crowding’’, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 45-51.
Hirschman, E.C. (1983), ‘‘Predictors of self-projection, fantasy ful?llment and escapism’’, Journal of
Social Psychology, Vol. 120, June, pp. 63-76.
Holbrook, M.B., Chestnut, R.W., Oliva, T.A. and Greenleaf, E.A. (1984), ‘‘Play as a consumption
experience: the roles of emotions, performance and personality in the enjoyment of games’’, Journal of
Consumer Research, Vol. 11, September, pp. 728-40.
Hu, L. and Bentler, P.M. (1996), ‘‘Cutoff criteria for ?t indexes in covariance structure analysis:
conventional cutoff versus new alternatives’’, Structural Equation Modeling, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 1-55.
Hvenegaard, G.T. (1994), ‘‘Ecotourism: a status report and conceptual framework’’, Journal of Travel
Research, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 24-35.
Joreskog, K.G. (1971), ‘‘Statistical analysis of congeric tests’’, Psychometrika, Vol. 36, pp. 109-33.
Levy, S.J. (1979), ‘‘A paradigm conceptualizing leisure behavior: towards a person-environment
interaction analysis’’, Journal of Leisure Research, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 48-58.
Lew, A. (1998), ‘‘Ecotourism trends’’, Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 25, July, pp. 742-6.
Machleit, K.A. and Eroglu, S.A. (2000), ‘‘Describing and measuring emotional responses to shopping
experience’’, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 49 No. 2, pp. 101-11.
Marsh, H.W., Balla, J.R. and McDonald, R.P. (1988), ‘‘Goodness of ?t indices in con?rmatory factor
analysis: the effect of sample size’’, Psychology Bulletin, Vol. 103 No. 3, pp. 291-310.
Milliman, R.E. (1982), ‘‘Using background music to affect the behavior of supermarket shoppers’’,
Journal of Marketing, Vol. 46 No. 2, pp. 86-91.
Milliman, R.E. (1986), ‘‘The in?uence of background music on the behavior of restaurant patrons’’,
Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 13, September, pp. 286-9.
Smith, P. and Burns, D.J. (1996), ‘‘Atmospherics and retail environments: the case of the power aisle’’,
International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 7-17.
Spangenberg, E.R., Crowley, A.E. and Henderson, P. (1996), ‘‘Improving the store environment: do
olfactory cues affect evaluations and behaviors?’’, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 60, April, pp. 67-80.
Tian, S., Crompton, J.L. and Witt, P.A. (1996), ‘‘Integrating constraints and bene?ts to identify responsive
target markets for museum attractions’’, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 43, Fall, pp. 34-45.
VOL. 3 NO. 3 2009
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
PAGE 209
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
0
7
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
Wener, R.E. (1985), ‘‘The environmental psychology of service encounters,’’, in Czepiel, J., Solomon, M.
and Surprenant, C. (Eds), The Service Encounter, Lexington Books, Lexington, MA, pp. 101-12.
Wineman, J.D. (1982), ‘‘Of?ce design and evaluation’’, Environment and Behavior, Vol. 14 No. 3,
pp. 271-98.
Yalch, R. and Spagenberg, E. (1993), ‘‘Using store music for retail zoning: a ?eld experiment’’, in
McAlister, L. and Rothschild, M.L. (Eds), Advances in Consumer Research, Association for Consumer
Research, Provo, UT, pp. 632-6.
Zeithaml, V.A., Parasuraman, A. and Malhotra, A. (2002), ‘‘Service quality delivery through web sites: a
critical review of extant knowledge’’, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 30 No. 4,
pp. 362-75.
Corresponding author
Sacha Joseph-Mathews can be contacted at: sjoseph@paci?c.edu
PAGE 210
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
VOL. 3 NO. 3 2009
To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected]
Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
0
7
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
This article has been cited by:
1. M.S. Balaji, Rajdeep Chakraborti. 2015. Stadium atmosphere: scale development and validation in Indian context. Journal of
Indian Business Research 7:1, 45-66. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
2. David Gration, Maria M. Raciti. 2014. Exploring the Relationship Between Festivalgoers' Personal Values and Their
Perceptions of the Non-urban Blended Festivalscape: An Australian Study. Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and Tourism
14, 275-295. [CrossRef]
3. Min Li, Z.Y. Dong, Xi Chen. 2012. Factors influencing consumption experience of mobile commerce. Internet Research 22:2,
120-141. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
4. Andrew G. Parsons. 2011. Atmosphere in fashion stores: do you need to change?. Journal of Fashion Marketing and
Management: An International Journal 15:4, 428-445. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
0
7
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
doc_188824774.pdf
The purpose of this research is to examine the impact of atmospherics on consumer
symbolic interpretations, and various psychological outcomes in a purely hedonic service environment.
International Journal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research
Atmospherics and consumers' symbolic interpretations of hedonic services
Sacha J oseph-Mathews Mark A. Bonn David Snepenger
Article information:
To cite this document:
Sacha J oseph-Mathews Mark A. Bonn David Snepenger, (2009),"Atmospherics and consumers' symbolic interpretations of hedonic
services", International J ournal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research, Vol. 3 Iss 3 pp. 193 - 210
Permanent link to this document:http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/17506180910980519
Downloaded on: 24 January 2016, At: 22:07 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 85 other documents.
To copy this document: [email protected]
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 2154 times since 2009*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
Paul W. Ballantine, Richard J ack, Andrew G. Parsons, (2010),"Atmospheric cues and their effect on the hedonic retail experience",
International J ournal of Retail & Distribution Management, Vol. 38 Iss 8 pp. 641-653http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09590551011057453
J ooyeon Ha, SooCheong (Shawn) J ang, (2012),"The effects of dining atmospherics on behavioral intentions through quality perception",
J ournal of Services Marketing, Vol. 26 Iss 3 pp. 204-215http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/08876041211224004
J ennifer M. Mower, Minjeong Kim, Michelle L. Childs, (2012),"Exterior atmospherics and consumer behavior: Influence of landscaping
and window display", J ournal of Fashion Marketing and Management: An International J ournal, Vol. 16 Iss 4 pp. 442-453 http://
dx.doi.org/10.1108/13612021211265836
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:115632 []
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.
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
0
7
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
Atmospherics and consumers’ symbolic
interpretations of hedonic services
Sacha Joseph-Mathews, Mark A. Bonn and David Snepenger
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this research is to examine the impact of atmospherics on consumer
symbolic interpretations, and various psychological outcomes in a purely hedonic service environment.
Design/methodology/approach – Field data were collected from 500 respondents in Florida across
four hedonic service attraction sites and then analyzed using MANOVA in SPSS. A mediation method
proposed by Baron and Kenny is utilized to determine the mediating role of consumer symbolic
interpretations in the nomological network.
Findings – There were four major ?ndings. First, similar to other service sectors, environmental factors
do play a critical role in determining behavioral intentions in hedonic services. Second, patrons
conceptualize hedonic attractions/services in terms of both utilitarian and hedonic components. Third,
consumer symbolic perceptions (meanings) do affect behavioral intentions. Finally, consumers do
evaluate their service environments (ambient, design and layout and social factors) differently
depending on the meanings they attach to a service environment.
Research limitations/implications – Managers can tailor service environments to match the symbolic
interpretations and behavioral outcomes they would like to foster in order to maximize monies spent on
physical upgrades. Additional work is needed in the area of consumer meanings and symbolic
interpretations.
Originality/value – The study indicates that the service environment can be used as a differentiating
tool to perpetuate brand meaning and uniqueness in the minds of the consumer, thereby creating a
competitive advantage for the hedonic facilities and by extension ensuring repeat patronage.
Keywords Service industries, Service levels, Consumer behaviour, Perception
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
Hedonic meaning attaches to the fantasy and emotive aspects of a consumptive experience
(Hirschman and Holbrook, 1982). Hedonic meaning relates to sensory pleasures,
daydreams, emotional response and esthetic enjoyment. Hedonic components in a
consumption experience emphasize the enjoyment or pleasure the experience offers,
separate and apart from realizing any utilitarian bene?t (Holbrook and Hirschman, 1982).
These de?nitions help explain why hedonic services represent a multi-million dollar
business.
Baseball games, spa visits, theme park trips and symphony concerts all represent hedonic
services. With such a large variety of entertainment options at a consumer’s disposal,
managers are increasingly challenged to augment the fringe bene?ts associated with their
core service (Hightower et al., 2002). One such fringe bene?t many service providers have
focused on is the physical environment. The physical or ‘‘service’’ environment has become
an opportunity to aid in the ‘‘affective grati?cation’’ (Kempf, 1999) consumers actively seek
out in a hedonic service or product. In an effort to become more competitive, many service
DOI 10.1108/17506180910980519 VOL. 3 NO. 3 2009, pp. 193-210, Q Emerald Group Publishing Limited, ISSN 1750-6182
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
PAGE 193
Sacha Joseph-Mathews is
Assistant Professor,
Eberhardt School of
Business, University of the
Paci?c, Stockton,
California, USA.
Mark A. Bonn is Professor,
Dedman School of
Hospitality, College of
Business, Florida State
University, Tallahassee,
Florida, USA.
David Snepenger is
Professor, Marketing
Department, College of
Business, Montana State
University, Bozeman,
Montana, USA.
Received: June 2008
Revised: February 2009
Accepted: April 2009
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
0
7
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
providers are investing in new construction or extensive remodeling efforts of prominent
hedonic facilities.
For example, in January of 2004, Norwegian Cruise Lines launched a multi-million dollar
renovation on one of their cruise ships; Pride of Aloha. The refurbished luxury cruise liner
boasts a Hawaiian theme and depicts the history, art and culture of Hawaii. In May 2005, Six
Flags reopened the Largo Theme Park under its new name ‘‘Hurricane Harbor’’ after
spending millions on a new facility which featured new restaurants, rides, private cabanas
and swimming pools for kids. Six Flags considered it to be its largest renovation ever. In 2001
Houston began construction of a $21 million facility posed to house an aquarium, meeting
spaces, entertainment and restaurants downtown. While in 2004, the Brooklyn Museum
completed a $63 million improvement plan, the Cincinnati’s Taft Museum of Art reopened for
business after spending $22.8 million in renovations, and the Art Gallery of Ontario revealed
their expansion plans to grow their existing exhibition space by some 75,000 sq. feet (Art
Business News, 2004).
Renovations at leisure attractions like these represents big business, and hedonic
institutions worldwide are investing millions annually on renovation and refurbishment. These
activities are all done in an effort to break through the market clutter and offer a competitive
advantage over their competitors. Ultimately, these hedonic services are all vying for the
attention and patronage of consumers who have millions of entertainment options at their
disposal. In the eyes of the managers of these various facilities, any renovation activity that
can add value to the product above and beyond the alternative is certainly worth the millions
spent.
Even though hedonic attractions invest heavily in creating the service environment for their
visitors, historically, there has been limited scholarly thought committed to investigating the
role of the service environment in predominantly hedonic facilities such as, museums, theme
parks, ball parks, performing centers, etc. Instead, most of the work done within the
servicescape and service environment literature has focused almost totally on utilitarian
services. Given the lack of research on the value of service environments in hedonic
settings, asking the following questions is reasonable, ‘‘To what end are these renovations
taking place?’’ What value is added? Do these establishments serve market segments that
have divergent desires for hedonic and utilitarian experiences? Do hedonic visitors evaluate
facilities differently than utilitarian shoppers?’’ and, ultimately, ‘‘What is the return on the
investment for the facility that has heavily invested in the physical service environment?’’
The goal of this study is therefore twofold. First, the study quanti?es consumers’
assessments of service environmental factors across four major leisure facilities that include:
a museum, performing arts center, aquarium and zoo. Second, the study examines the
statistical relationships between the service environment, experience meanings, and
psychological outcomes. Figure 1 outlines the model.
Conceptual background
Service environment
Bitner (1992) argues that an organization’s physical environment creates a virtual metaphor
for that organization. Furthermore by creating a unique physical environment, service
providers are able to differentiate themselves fromtheir competitors and create brand equity
in the minds of the consumer. Thus, the physical environment becomes a mental cue for a
more signi?cant variable: its image (Kotler, 1973). Via bold furniture, wooden ?oors, dim
lighting, and signage, the physical environment creates a brand image by encapsulating an
emotional personal in physical attributes.
Existing research indicates that the meanings consumers often attach to speci?c places are
built on experiences persons have within those places (Ga¨ rling, 1988; Poria et al., 2004;
Scott and Canter, 1997; Tuan, 1977). Where consumers are drawn to an environment, this
attraction can directly impact consumer’s positive evaluations of the bene?ts present within
the environment and ultimately lead to positive purchase intentions. Moreover, the literature
has established the direct link between an emotionally pleasing environment and positive
PAGE 194
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
VOL. 3 NO. 3 2009
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
0
7
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
evaluations of products within that pleasing environment (Kotler, 1973; Obermiller and
Bitner, 1984).
The service environment literature is divided into two general schools of thought. Baker
(1986) ?rst introduced the categorization of in-store atmospherics through her
Stimulus-Organism-Response (S-O-R) grouping system. She categorized the ‘‘elements’’
into three groups: design factors (layout, color, clutter), social factors (employees and
shoppers), and ambient factors (visual and non-visual cues such as lighting, scent, and
sound which sets the mood and tone of an environment). Using a modi?ed categorization,
Bitner (1992) extended the S-O-R base to three new groups of atmospherics, which she
termed the servicescape. The ?rst two dimensions are the same as Baker (1986) but the
third dimension differs. Bitner’s (1992) third dimension is termed signs, symbols and
artifacts. This study applies Baker’s (1986) design, social, and ambient categories.
The service environment can connote both explicit and implicit cues that serve as
communicators to the users (Eroglu et al., 2000). These atmospherics can be used to
fashion distinctive brand personality in the minds of the visitor/patron and by extension make
emotional connections with customers. The personnel responsible for manipulating the
environmental stimuli within any speci?c environment is then able to orchestrate brand
leverage and create lasting brand meaning for the facility in the eyes of the customer/patron
(Baker, 1986; Bitner, 1986, 1990, 1992; Booms and Bitner, 1982; Kotler, 1973; Shostack,
1977). Consequently, professionals can create speci?c brand meanings through direct
manipulation of atmospherics (such as product displays and spacious display areas,
lighting, sounds, power aisles and bold clear signage) in an effort to break through the
clutter of the marketplace, defy convention and create a unique experience for the
consumer. In creating these unique brand associations, atmospherics are able to contribute
to an overall positive consumer response, which can manifest itself in positive purchase
behavior (Kotler, 1973).
Repatronage intention, word of mouth behavior and image evaluations. Improving physical
surroundings, and in particular impressive architectural exteriors, can enhance entrance
?gures, as they often encapsulate many of the very characteristics the attraction has to offer
(Barbieri, 2004; Sirefman, 1999). For example, the Kansas City Royals recently renovated
their party pavilion at a cost of US$600,000. Following this addition to their stadium, the
pavilion sold out for all 81 home games, within six weeks of tickets going on sale for an
average cost of US$45 per ticket (Menninger, 2000). Extant literature has pointed to the link
between a successful service encounter and the possibility of repatronage intentions (e.g.,
Baker, 1986; Bitner, 1992). More recently, researchers in the marketing literature have even
found linkages between aesthetically pleasing physical environments and positive service
quality evaluations/value perceptions (Baker et al., 2002). Architecture is increasingly
playing an important role in attracting the public to art-related spaces (Dietsch, 1997). This
study suggests that interior design and atmospheric elements formulate the impression
customers leave with and subsequently, the ?nal image that would dictate whether or not the
customer revisits the institution.
Figure 1 Conceptual model
VOL. 3 NO. 3 2009
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
PAGE 195
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
0
7
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
Meanings of places
According to the World Trade Organization, 37 percent of all trips today include a visit to a
cultural/heritage attraction, including museums, conservatories, zoos, aquariums, galleries,
performing arts centers, reservation sites, historical monuments, buildings and cemeteries
to name a few(Bonn et al., 2007). But what makes one museumdifferent fromanother? What
sets apart one aquariumor theme park fromits counterpart? A key function here is emotional
uniqueness.
Extant literature suggests that the places we visit all represent some type of emotional
meaning and purpose in our lives (Snepenger et al., 2004). Generally, people buy things and
visit places for what they mean, both to them personally, as well as what they mean to close
friends, family members and signi?cant others (Levy, 1959). Researchers have also noted
that these meanings can change from visit to visit, and in order to truly understand the
transient nature of meanings for patrons, researchers and practitioners alike need to further
investigate the underling motives behind these assigned meanings.
Traditionally, most of the research in the marketing arena has focused primarily on the
utilitarian meanings that customers attach to products. That is’ researchers have honed in on
the task-related or product acquisition characteristics associated with products, events,
experiences, etc., where consumers evaluate a product based on its usefulness (Bloch and
Richins, 1983; Bloch and Bruce, 1984). However, most consumption experiences include a
duality of both utilitarian and hedonic characteristics and or values (Babin et al., 1994; Mano
and Oliver, 1993). While utilitarian components include functional attributes, hedonic
characteristics instead result from a playfulness and fun component in activities (Holbrook
and Hirschman, 1982). The focus for hedonic meaning centers on activities that perpetuate
perceived freedom, heightened involvement, escapism and fantasy, where the value lies in
their intrinsically pleasing properties (Bloch and Richins, 1983; Hirschman, 1982; Mano and
Oliver, 1993).
This study focuses on three types of meanings: utilitarian meanings, hedonic meanings, and
novelty meanings. Previous studies have illustrated that utilitarian meanings focus on
task-related and functional characteristics (for example, how expensive or reliable a service
is). In this study we will examine the educational component present in hedonic service
offerings as a proxy for functional meaning. From a hedonic perspective we will examine the
fun, enjoyment and excitement generated from these consumption experiences based on
previous research done in the ?eld (e.g. Babin et al., 1994). We also introduce a third
category of meanings consumers attach to consumption experiences, namely: novelty
meaning.
Utilitarian/educational meaning. In today’s marketplace many leisure attractions are
seemingly ?nding it more dif?cult to differentiate themselves from their counterparts. In
the entertainment/hedonic industries, destinations, cruise lines, restaurants, hotels, theme
parks, performing arts centers, museums, zoos, malls, aquariums, video arcades, ball
parks, movie theatres, and even IMAX centers are all competing for patronage. As a result,
many facilities and attractions are ?nding new and interesting ways to appeal to their
clientele. Not surprisingly, these entertainment centers have recently adopted a type of
paradigm shift for their facilities, where the focus has moved from one of pure entertainment
to a more educational orientation (Slessor, 1997).
This shift has led many museums, aquariums, zoos and even theme parks to assume a more
scienti?c and technological focus, resulting in new interactive multi-sensory exhibits where
multimedia displays are the evolving norm. Visitors come to participate and interact, armed
with a genuine educational expectation. Examples of this multimedia educational focus can
be seen at various leisure attractions including; Cleveland’s Rock and Roll Hall of Fame and
Museum, where visitors can listen to numerous rock-’n-roll classics by the mere touch of a
screen (Slessor, 1997). Similarly, the New Museum of Contemporary Art in Manhattan is
planning a $35 million expansion that will incorporate educational facilities alongside
additional exhibition space (Iovine, 2003). To truly satisfy the needs and expectations of
PAGE 196
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
VOL. 3 NO. 3 2009
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
0
7
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
today’s visitor/patron, hedonic attractions would do well to incorporate some type of
educational component.
What consumers want are truly enjoyable vacations, but they are no longer satis?ed with just
pleasant scenery, or a fun outing. Consumers want hedonic encounters to be incredible from
a purely hedonic standpoint, yes, but now, these consumers also want to learn, to be
exposed to new cultures, new information, broaden their horizons and gain new insight from
their experience. This means that above and beyond a fun or purely pleasurable activity,
they need to satisfy educational or learning requirements. This educational component very
much resembles the practical, useful, necessary and valuable characteristics associated
with utilitarian elements (Slessor, 1997). Based on the various utilitarian functions associated
with educational meaning, for the purposes of this study we will use education as a surrogate
for utilitarian meaning.
Fun/hedonic meaning. In light of previous work in the ?eld (Hirschman and Holbrook, 1982;
Holbrook and Hirschman, 1982), hedonic meaning includes the fun, interesting, exciting,
and non-practical experiences a visitor/consumer or patron attaches to a product,
experience or service. As the antithesis of the utilitarian component consumers are looking
for a purely enjoyable take away in every leisure or hedonic activity, where they can loose
themselves in the experience and become a part of an enacted fantasy – the joy of a bungee
jump, the pleasure of a day at the spa, and the thrill of a rollercoaster ride.
Novelty meaning. According to Bello and Etzel (1985, p. 20) some visitors seek attractions
that are ‘‘new, and unfamiliar which differ from prior experiences.’’ These researchers
theorize that visitors seek both novel and commonplace tourism experiences, depending on
their state prior to the vacation. Where their current environment fails to provide optimal
stimulation vacationers are motivated to seek novelty and complexity. Conversely, if their
prior state exceeds optimal stimulation, more commonplace experiences are sought. For
tourists and visitors, novelty and uniqueness are important motivation for many attractions
(Bello and Etzel, 1985; Cohen, 1972; Snepenger, 1987).
Novelty meanings are the associations and characteristics consumers in hedonic
consumption attach to the uniqueness of the experience. That is, the uniqueness
consumers expected from a theme park versus a visit to the museum, a trip to the mountains
as oppose to a trip to the ocean, a canoeing expedition as apposed to a bike ride, a Harley
over a Honda. Novelty meaning is what makes people prefer one experience over another,
and encompasses the essence of that experience. Novelty surrounds the unique differences
that make each consumption experience memorable and worthy of trying. When examining
hedonic activities/services, the novelty component arises above and beyond the mere
enjoyment and fun characteristics. In this context consumers look for meanings that
heighten their experiences at speci?c venues, events, activities, etc.
Novelty meaning can be different for each consumer. What may appear to be novel to one
person may strike another as ordinary or run of the mill. For example, in performing arts, the
same musical or concert performance may appear mundane to one individual while
fascinating another. However, what makes each experience unique is the individual
elements that tend to help it to stand out. The fact that Salsa dancing has its own unique ?are
or the thrill from bungee jumping is like no other, while the impact of each Broadway
production changes based on the individual actors and playwrights. The unique elements
that make a speci?c experience stand out as special amongst visitors, or customers/patrons
embody the essence of novelty meaning. In this study we operationalize novelty meaning in
each tourism experience to include elements unique to that experience such as displays,
exhibits, and interactive capabilities.
As outlined above, each type of meaning differs signi?cantly from the next, yet
commonalities are shared. One such commonality is the relationship between the
environment and the elicited emotional experience that occurs within said environment.
Based on prior work in the ?eld (e.g. Boyd and Levy, 1963; Levy, 1959; Snepenger et al.,
2004), we recognize that non-verbal signs and symbols can be used to de?ne objects and
by extension places. Some have even argued that in many consumption experiences,
VOL. 3 NO. 3 2009
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
PAGE 197
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
0
7
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
several multi-sensory channels are operating simultaneously and help to make the
experience that more enjoyable (Holbrook and Hirschman, 1982). For example, having
lunch at an outdoor cafe´ is a completely different experience fromthe same lunch consumed
inside a restaurant. This suggests non-verbal cues that need to be seen, tasted, or smelled
can heighten an experience and may even be necessary requirements for the experience to
be truly appreciated.
Prior work in the ?eld has made the connection between a speci?c type of physical
environment and patronage intentions as well as repeat visits (Bonn et al., 2007). This study
takes this work a step further as we propose that there is a direct correlation between the
physical environment and the individual meanings consumers attach to the objects, events
or places associated with a consumption experience. Perhaps these cues can become even
more signi?cant in a hedonic setting where fantasy, fun and enjoyment are high on the
expectation lists. The study examines how the service environment can in?uence these
meanings for patrons and visitors to speci?c types of facilities, and ultimately, how the ?nal
brand meaning can in turn affect a visitor’s (patron’s) overall impression of the facility as well
as their intention to revisit and recommend it to others. Inevitably, both the exterior and
interior designs of these facilities becomes fundamental in shaping their identities as well as
the ?nal take away or impression. In attempting to understand which physical attributes tie
into speci?c visitor meanings we seek to investigate the following hypotheses:
H1a. Utilitarian meanings mediate the relationship between ambient environmental
factors and a visitor’s attitude towards a facility.
H1b. Hedonic meanings mediate the relationship between ambient environmental
factors and a visitor’s attitude towards a facility.
H1c. Novelty meanings mediate the relationship between ambient environmental
factors and a visitor’s attitude towards a facility.
H2a. Utilitarian meanings mediate the relationship between design and layout
environmental factors and a visitor’s intention to revisit a facility.
H2b. Hedonic meanings mediate the relationship between design and layout
environmental factors and a visitor’s intentions to revisit a facility.
H2c. Novelty meanings mediate the relationship between social environmental factors
and a visitor’s intentions to revisit a facility.
H3a. Utilitarian meanings mediate the relationship between social environmental
factors and a visitor’s word of mouth behavioral intention.
H3b. Hedonic meanings mediate the relationship between social environmental
factors and a visitor’s word of mouth behavioral intention.
H3c. Novelty meanings mediate the relationship between social environmental factors
and a visitor’s word of mouth behavioral intention.
Method
The sample
For a two-month period in the Summer of 2004, visitors to four key tourist facilities in Florida
were personally interviewed, as part of a comprehensive destination marketing research
project focusing upon Tampa, Florida. The facilities consisted of a museum, aquarium,
performing arts center and zoo. During random days, sites, and times, visitors were
indiscriminately screened using arbitrary numbers to determine their place of residence.
Once quali?ed as non-residents to the particular county at the site in which they were
contacted, visitors were then asked to respond to an 111-item survey related to their on-site
(most recent) travel experience. Information pertaining to economic expenditures, party
size, length of stay, demographics, activities pursued, primary destination for this visit, and
many other dimensions were represented in the survey instrument. Individuals were
PAGE 198
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
VOL. 3 NO. 3 2009
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
0
7
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
informed in advance that the survey took approximately ten minutes to complete, and that
there was no incentive given for those individuals deciding to respond. Over 90 percent of all
quali?ed individuals agreed to participate in the interview process. Only one adult visitor per
travel party was interviewed.
Ultimately, 500 respondents provided data suitable for analysis. The sample was comprised
of 49 percent men and 51 percent women with an average income of $27,660. A total of 93.8
percent of the sample indicated they were Caucasian followed by African-American (2.6
percent), Hispanic,(1.2 percent), and Asian Americans (1.2 percent).
Measurement scales. Each of the constructs in the conceptual model were operationalized
using established scales which are discussed in this section below. Table I outlines each of
the scales used in this study. The Likert-type scales used anchors of 1 ¼ Strongly disagree
and 7 ¼ Strongly agree.
Service environment. Measurement items for the service environment construct were
adapted from scales used in Baker et al. (2002). The scale consists of three dimensions:
ambiance, design/layout and social. Speci?cally, the ambient dimension was measured
using four items that assessed the facility’s performance with respect to color scheme,
lighting and signage. The design and layout dimension is comprised of elements such as
ease of ?nding particular points of interest, traf?c ?ow of customers, layout functionality and
open space utility. Finally, the social dimension evaluates the service employees of the
facility and consisted of items relevant to their courteous nature and knowledge levels, as
well as the quality of service they provided. These scales had construct reliabilities ranging
from 0.83 to 0.96.
Attitude about the facility. This construct was assessed using a ?ve-item scale based on
existing scales in the literature. The scale measured favorable/unfavorable attitudes to the
facility and evaluated whether or not the patron was impressed by the experience.
Respondents were asked to rate how much they agree with statements based on the
above-mentioned elements. Scales similar to this one have been recommended and used
Table I Measurement scales
Variable Items Measurement citation
Ambiance The facility uses a pleasing color scheme Adapted based on Baker et al. (2002)
This facility has attractive lighting
The signage at this facility was easy to read
The signage at this facility was very helpful
Design and layout This facility is well designed Adapted based on Baker et al. (2002)
This facility is well organized
This facility has a pleasing layout
This facility is very spacious
The layout of this facility is well thought out
The traf?c ?ow in this facility is very heavy
(reverse coded)
Social This facility has knowledgeable employees Adapted based on Baker et al. (2002)
This facility has a courteous staff
This facility has friendly employees
Attitude to the facility My overall impression of the facility is positive Adapted based on Hensel and Bruner (1992)
My overall impression of the facility is good
My overall impression of the facility is unfavorable
(reverse coded)
Word of mouth intentions I would encourage friends and relatives to visit
this facility
Zeithaml et al. (1996)
I would recommend this facility to a friend
I would say good things about this facility
Revisit intentions I would revisit this facility in the future Adapted based on Zeithaml
I plan to revisit this facility
Visiting this facility was worth the effort
VOL. 3 NO. 3 2009
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
PAGE 199
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
0
7
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
successfully in the marketing literature (e.g. Oliver, 1981). The scale for facility image had a
construct reliability of 0.88.
Behavioral intentions. Respondents’ behavioral intentions were assessed using two different
scales which examined repeat visit intentions, and word of mouth behavior. Each of these
scales has been previously validated in other research (e.g. Zeithaml et al., 1996). The revisit
intentions scale had a construct reliability of 0.80, while word of mouth recommendations
had a construct reliability of 0.98. All items were measured on a seven-point Likert scale.
Meanings. All three types of meanings were evaluated using seven-point Likert scales, as
recommended by the literature (Snepenger et al., 2004). For the educational/utilitarian
meanings scale, respondents assessed how much of an educational experience the visit
offered, whether or not they felt enlightened upon their departure and if they had learned
anything during their visit to the facility. The hedonic meanings scale asked respondents to
evaluate the facility based on the amount of fun they had, the enjoyment that was generated
and how exciting their experience was. The novelty scale examined the uniqueness and
design quality of the exhibits and displays they experienced. Table II gives further
information as well as explanations of all scales used.
Analyses and results
Construct reliabilities estimates (Fornell and Larcker, 1981) assess the internal consistencies
of the scales used in the study. Generally, the reliability estimates ranged from a low of 0.80
to a high of 0.98. Convergent validity was established based on the average variance
extracted (AVE) as outlined by Fornell and Larcker (1981). All of the constructs
demonstrated AVE greater than 0.50, indicating that the constructs (and not error)
explained the majority of variance in the model. Discriminant validity was also examined
using criteria outlined by Fornell and Larcker (1981). The explained variance for each
construct was compared to the shared variance between that construct and the other
constructs within the model. If the average variance extracted by each construct is greater
than the shared variance among the other variables in the model then Fornell and Larcker’s
criteria is successfully met. Based on this test, all of the variables exhibited discriminant
validity.
Analyses
MANOVA was used to test the above-mentioned hypotheses. In order to test for mediation, a
procedure as outlined by Baron and Kenny (1986) was utilized. The central idea behind
mediation is the concept that the relationship between a particular antecedent and a given
outcome is mediated or in?uenced by a third variable (Baron and Kenny, 1986). A
variable/construct is said to function as a mediator to the extent that it accounts for the
relationship between the predictor, (in this case servicescape/service environment
variables) and the criterion variables, (intent to revisit, word of mouth behavior and
attitude to the facility). In particular, we examined whether hedonic, novelty and utilitarian
meanings, mediated the relationship between a facility’s servicescape and the
aforementioned dependent variables.
Table II Descriptive statistics, correlations, and reliabilities for variables
Variables Mean SD r AF WOM IR Amb Lay Soc Util Hed Nov
Attitude to the facility (AF) 4.66 1.32 0.88 1.00
Word of mouth (WOM) 4.67 1.62 0.98 0.64 1.00
Intention to revisit (IR) 4.50 1.37 0.80 0.94 0.60 1.00
Ambiance (Amb) 4.03 1.27 0.88 0.63 0.33 0.66 1.00
Layout and design (Lay) 4.80 1.14 0.83 0.59 0.32 0.61 0.89 1.00
Social (Soc) 5.35 1.52 0.96 0.03 20.06 0.03 0.12 0.06 1.00
Utilitarian (Util) 3.36 2.08 0.98 20.18 20.25 20.17 0.12 0.02 0.10 1.00
Hedonic (Hed) 3.59 1.29 0.99 0.68 0.43 0.77 0.92 0.89 0.06 0.08 1.00
Novelty (Nov) 3.77 1.69 0.88 20.16 20.05 20.14 20.18 20.13 20.18 20.04 20.15 1.00
PAGE 200
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
VOL. 3 NO. 3 2009
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
0
7
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
In order to necessitate mediation criteria, the following circumstances must be satis?ed as
outlined by Baron and Kenny (1986). First, a signi?cant relationship between the
independent and the dependent variables must be established. Second, the independent
variable must signi?cantly impact the mediator, and third, the mediator must signi?cantly
impact the dependent variable. Finally, in light of the third criteria, the relationship between
the independent and dependent variables should either decrease in signi?cance or lose
signi?cance completely.
For the purposes of this study we ran four MANOVA models. In the ?rst model we regressed
revisit intentions, word of mouth intentions and attitude to the facility on the three
environmental variables namely: ambiance, design and layout and social. In the second
model we regressed each of the three mediator variables on the various environmental
factors. In the third MANOVA model we regressed revisit intentions, word of mouth intentions
and attitude to the facility on the three mediator variables namely; novelty meaning, utilitarian
meaning and novelty meaning. In the last model we regressed the word of mouth variable
(as this was the only variable in which all of the criteria was met) on both the meaning
mediators and the environmental factors.
In the ?rst round of testing, there was a signi?cant relationship between ambiance and all of
the dependent variables namely word of mouth (p ¼ 0:019), revisit intentions (p ¼ 0:000)
and attitude to the facility (p ¼ 0:000). Layout and design has a signi?cant relationship with
attitude to the facility (p ¼ 0:04) and the social environment has a signi?cant relationship with
revisit intentions (p ¼ 0:048). This generally con?rms previous research in the ?eld that
environmental factors are important within a service environment and more importantly
within a hedonic setting (Bonn et al., 2007).
In the second round of testing there was a signi?cant relationship between ambiance and
utilitarian meaning (p ¼ 0:008), ambiance and hedonic meaning (p ¼ 0:009), and ambiance
and novelty meaning (p ¼ 0:001). There was also a signi?cant relationship between layout
and design and novelty meaning (p ¼ 0:010). Ambiance was the only environmental factor
that has had a consistently signi?cant relationship with the various types of meaning, with the
exception of layout and design which had a signi?cant relationship with novelty meaning.
In the third round of testing we examined the relationships between the mediator factors and
each of the dependent variables. Here utilitarian meaning had a signi?cant relationship with
word of mouth intentions (p ¼ 0:042), hedonic meaning had a signi?cant relationship
with word of mouth intentions (p ¼ 0:000), novelty meaning had a signi?cant relationship with
word of mouth intentions (p ¼ 0:000). None of the other relationships were statistically
signi?cant. Although the relationships were only signi?cant for word of mouth intentions this
still tells us that patrons do in fact form speci?c meaning evaluations when they visit
particular sites/facilities. In the fourth round of testing there were mixed results. Instead of
using MANOVA we ran a regression analysis as we only had one dependent variable: word
of mouth intentions. The results indicated that hedonic and novelty meanings (p ¼ 0:000,
0.041) mediated the relationship between ambiance, design and layout and social factors
and word of mouth intentions. While utilitarian meaning did not. The ?rst criterion was met for
each of the three environmental factors on at least one dependent variable. The second
criteria were met for ambiance and the various types of meanings, as well as layout and
design and novelty meaning. In the third criterion all the various types of meanings were
signi?cant with word of mouth. For the ?nal criterion we found full mediation only with novelty
and hedonic meaning with word of mouth intentions. Tables III-VI outline the results for the
various models tested.
Discussion
This study serves to illustrate the role of the service environment in a purely hedonic setting,
and make an empirical connection between speci?c environmental factors and the
meanings customers attach to hedonic services and products consumed within these
environments. Our contributions to the literature are based on four study ?ndings. First, we
con?rmed that similar to other service sectors, environmental factors do play a critical role in
determining behavioral intentions in hedonic services. Second, we established that, similar
VOL. 3 NO. 3 2009
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
PAGE 201
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
0
7
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
Table III Results of the MANOVA analyses: model 1 – independent and dependent
variables
Independent variables Dependent variables Sum of squares df F Sig. ( p)
Ambiance WOM 59.45 20 1.85 0.019
Revisit intentions 55.09 20 6.20 0.000
Attitude to the facility 37.19 20 3.83 0.000
Layout/design WOM 28.32 13 1.36 0.183
Revisit intentions 4.71 13 0.816 0.643
Attitude to the facility 15.59 13 2.47 0.004
Social WOM 0.128 3 0.027 0.994
Revisit intentions 3.59 3 2.69 0.048
Attitude to the facility 3.38 3 2.32 0.076
Table IV Results of the MANOVA analyses: model 2 – independent on mediator variables
Independent variables Mediator variables Sum of squares Df F Sig. ( p)
Ambiance Utilitarian 21.39 19 1.16 0.316
Hedonic 21.76 19 1.58 0.079
Novelty 21.45 19 1.52 0.099
Layout/design Utilitarian 0.2.55 13 0.675 0.782
Hedonic 9.18 13 0.977 0.480
Novelty 9.52 13 0.988 0.470
Social Utilitarian 3.92 3 1.34 0.266
Hedonic 2.14 3 0.990 0.402
Novelty 2.55 3 1.150 0.334
Table V Results of the MANOVA analyses: model 3 – mediator on dependent variables
Mediator variables Dependent variables Sum of squares Df F Sig. ( p)
Utilitarian WOM 24.22 8 2.07 0.042
Revisit intentions 19.40 8 1.81 0.080
Attitude to the facility 16.57 8 1.68 0.109
Hedonic WOM 70.15 13 3.69 0.000
Revisit intentions 19.41 13 1.11 0.353
Attitude to the facility 25.29 13 1.58 0.099
Novelty WOM 88.86 16 2.86 0.000
Revisit intentions 25.48 16 1.18 0.286
Attitude to the facility 29.22 16 1.48 0.115
Table VI Results of the MANOVA analyses: model 4 – all variables on dependent variable
Dependent variable – word of mouth intentions
Independent variables b SE t Sig ( p)
Ambiance 0.724 0.176 4.103 0.000
Design and layout 0.231 0.207 1.115 0.266
Social 0.007 0.101 0.074 0.941
Utilitarian 0.099 0.085 1.159 0.248
Hedonic 1.602 0.509 3.147 0.002
Novelty 1.017 0.495 2.053 0.041
Notes: Overall F – 27.97; Df – 204/6; R – 0.672; Sum of squares – 213.415; Adjusted R
2
– 045;
Overall significance ¼ 0:000
PAGE 202
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
VOL. 3 NO. 3 2009
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
0
7
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
to the duality sought in consumer products (Babin et al., 1994; Mano and Oliver, 1993),
visitors and tourists alike conceptualize hedonic attractions/services in terms of utilitarian
and hedonic components as well as novelty characteristics. Third, the meanings these
visitors attach to their experiences can in turn in?uence behavioral intentions, speci?cally
word of mouth intentions. Finally, the study illustrates the direct link between the service
environment (i.e. ambient, layout and social environmental cues) and the meanings that
consumers attach to certain experiences and or products, demonstrating that consumers do
evaluate their surroundings differently depending on the meanings they attach to a service
environment.
The service environment and hedonic services
Environmental psychologists connect individual’s environments and their behavioral
patterns (e.g. Davis, 1984; Mehrabian and Russell, 1974). Marketers built on these
?ndings, translating them to a service environment with applications mainly to the retailing
sector (e.g. Baker, 1986; Bitner, 1992; Obermiller and Bitner, 1984). This study focused on
investigating the relevance of the service environment within a purely hedonic setting, with
an aim to establish which elements are most signi?cant for hedonic service providers.
The results replicate previous ?ndings in the service environment literature, and point to the
relevance of the service environment across various types of service industries. What has
become obvious is that whether we are talking to museumcurators, theme park operators, or
retailing managers, the message is the same: the physical environment is tantamount to
in?uencing speci?c behavioral patterns. A direct link can be made between an aesthetically
pleasing environment and repeat purchase intentions, positive word of mouth behavior and
favorably perceptions of facilities, whether the consumer is engaging in purchasing
utilitarian or hedonic products/services.
Although an extensive amount of existing work on the service environment is available (see
Turley and Milliman (2000) for a detailed review), few studies have sought to investigate the
dominance of one environmental element over another, or have even sought to investigate
multiple elements together within one study. We have discovered that the servicescape not
only contributes to whether or not consumers or patrons will recommend the facility to others
and even return in the future, but also each element in the physical environment can affect
consumers in different ways. For example design and layout elements seem to have the
strongest impact consumers’ attitudes to the facility. This makes intuitive sense as functional
issues such as aisle space, traf?c ?ow, layout and spaciousness are critical to how a patron
will feel about a speci?c facility and its usefulness as an entertainment center.
Social factors are most relevant to revisit intentions. This also makes intuitive sense that the
people a patron interacts with at a particular venue can make or break the likelihood of them
returning to that event or facility in the future. How many times have we heard ‘‘I did not like
the other people at that event they annoyed me I will never return to that place’’. Both staff
and customers can impact whether a consumer would be willing to revisit a facility. This
heightens the signi?cance of customer service to repeat patronage and a newcontribution is
the signi?cance of other consumers in the revisit equation.
The study ?ndings also indicate that different environmental elements result in different
behavioral intentions. Managers therefore need to be sure the physical upgrades they
undertake will have impacts in meaningful ways. For example, they need to be sure if repeat
purchase behavior is intended that they focus on improving service environment factors that
demonstrate improved repeat purchase behavior. Similarly, if they depend on positive word
of mouth recommendations then they need to focus on improving service environment
factors that speak to that speci?c behavioral outcome. Rather than channeling money into
upgrades that appear aesthetically pleasing, armed with these ?ndings managers may be
able to better able to fund projects for speci?cally desired outcomes.
Meanings and behavioral outcomes
Each product, service, event or place has several meanings that consumers attach to it,
moreover, these meanings change for each and every consumer (Levy, 1959). Researchers
VOL. 3 NO. 3 2009
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
PAGE 203
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
0
7
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
have come to recognize that most products have a utilitarian- or task-related component as
well as a hedonic- or pleasure-based component (Babin et al., 1994; Mano and Oliver,
1993). Our results indicate that there is also a third meaning component relevant speci?cally
to hedonic service encounters known as novelty meaning. This type of meaning is speci?c to
hedonic-related activities, products and or events, and refers to the unique elements that
come to mind when consumers contemplate indulging in a speci?c service or product.
The study ?ndings demonstrated that each of the meanings affect word of mouth intension.
Suggesting that not only do customers attach meanings to particular facilities and locations
but these meanings signi?cantly impact what they say about those facilities once they leave.
Such associations support the need to make each hedonic encounter fun, unique
pleasurable and exciting, while at the same time capitalizing on any educational component
that can be enhanced through the experience. Whether a customer is contemplating a trip to
Maui, or an opera attendance, they want to ensure it is an exercise they enjoy each and every
time they engage in the activity. So for every beach someone visits, every concert they
attend or bike ride they take, they are doing it because there is a unique element they enjoy
above and beyond the next best alternative. This is where the novelty meaning component
comes in, our research con?rms that consumers do actively seek a novelty element when
engaging in hedonic services and this element is separate and apart from the purely
pleasurable and fun aspect of that purchase.
The different meanings consumers attach to various products and or services play different
roles in dictating consumer behavior and simply facilitating hedonic meaning on its own is
insuf?cient to guarantee repeat behavior. Instead, marketers and managers alike also need
to be concerned about the utilitarian and novelty meanings consumers attach and by
extension take away from a service or product encounter in the hedonic sector.
The service environment and meanings
Consumers evaluate their physical environment differently depending on what uses they
have for that environment and by extension what meanings they attach to that environment.
Suggesting that if managers and marketers alike know the various meanings that
consumers/patrons attach to their facilities they can in turn provide physical environments
that compliment these meanings more closely and accordingly provide an enhanced
experience for consumers/patrons partaking in those environments.
While the social element may not impact the speci?c meanings patrons evoke for speci?c
facilities, ambiance and design and layout both play a signi?cant role in dictating how
patrons attach meanings to their hedonic experiences. These results suggest that
customers, visitors patrons, etc., not only use the service environment to make conscious
decisions such as whether or not they will stay, what they will buy, if they will return, etc. But
also and more importantly, they subconsciously associate certain colors, fonts, designs,
layouts, architecture and even carpeting with feelings and meanings that they attach to
speci?c venues, activities, events, and experiences. For example, seating at a concert hall
can intensify the utilitarian meaning one attaches to an opera performance, while the stage
lighting can accentuate the hedonic meaning. Similarly, the size of the hall, the unique sound
system only found there and the interior layout all signi?cantly contribute to the novelty
meaning patrons attach to viewing the opera at that performing arts arena. Moreover, social
factors have no effect on various meanings so the educational or functional component is
deemed successful even if the customer service encounter was not up to par. Instead social
factors have the most impact of revisit intentions, which heightens once again the
signi?cance of good customer service at hedonic facilities.
Although several pieces studies investigate meanings people attach to hedonic services,
and the role of the environment has been hinted at, (e.g. Levy, 1959) no systematic
investigation examines associations between environmental factors and the meanings
consumers/visitors/patrons take away from one environment to another. In the hedonic
sector we are in the business of making memories: we advertise experiences. Managers and
marketers alike go to great lengths in an effort to highlight the uniqueness of their destination.
They want potential visitors to witness how spectacular the vacation experience will be. Yet,
PAGE 204
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
VOL. 3 NO. 3 2009
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
0
7
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
how much do we really know about what kind of meanings consumers or patrons take away
from these experiences? What are the elements that we can manipulate to improve the
experience and by extension make the meaning that more memorable and impactful?
A direct relationship exists between the service environment and these meanings and
likewise a relationship between these meanings and speci?c behavioral intentions. Thus, the
meaning visitors/patrons attach to a particular environment and by extension
attraction/facility can ultimately determine how likely a visitor is to pass on or recommend
a facility. Managers can use these ?ndings to manipulate the meanings consumers take
away by manipulating the environment. Currently, millions are spent on extensive service
environment related renovations and improvements, without concrete investigations into the
role of these upgrades in improved customer evaluations. One of our goals was to examine
whether physical renovations impacted if a consumer returned to a speci?c venue, and
engaged in positive word of mouth behavior. The relationship between certain key
environmental components and the meanings attached to these service encounters testify to
the signi?cance of the physical environment to the ultimate take-away consumers attach to
service encounters.
By establishing a link between speci?c environmental factors and unique meaning
consumers attach to product/services, managers and marketers alike are able to heighten
the ultimate meanings consumers attach to certain venues, events, products and/or services
in the hedonic sector. By heightening certain meanings they can then in turn increase the
likelihood of certain behavioral intentions. This research offers empirical evidence that can
facilitate a more focused renovation effort to speci?cally address individual facility goals
through calculated physical upgrades.
Future research
The meanings literature is still somewhat in a preliminary stage of academic investigation.
Above and beyond the three types of meanings explored here there are several others that
we have not examined, namely, social, cultural, sacred, secular, and others that are yet to be
detected and developed in the literature. We have looked speci?cally at the role of
atmospherics in meanings creation as well as the mediating role of meanings between
predictor and criterion variables. There is still an extensive amount of research to be done in
this area. As a preliminary examination, we have simply opened the gates, in the hope that
researchers will tap into the many facets that need to be explored. For example we looked at
speci?c ambient, design and social cues, however, each of these dimensions are comprised
of numerous elements, of which only a handful have been explored in this study. A deeper
exploration of the most predictive ambient, design and social cues is necessary to fully
comprehend the relationship between these two constructs.
Similarly, we looked at meanings relevant to only a handful of behavioral intentions there are
numerous other behavioral intentions that can be investigated; loyalty, ability or willingness
to increase expenditure, time spent, etc, as numerous other dependent variables such as
meanings across genders, and various societal groups such as race, class, locations need
investigation. Do people of different ethnic backgrounds look for, and take away different
meanings? Do domestic visitors attach the same meanings in hedonic services as their
national and international counterparts? A gamut of questions needs answering. Finally, the
form utilitarian components take in the hedonic sector is still unknown. Are utilitarian
components applicable to hygiene factors, education, or functionality? What is considered
utilitarian, and what is not?
Conclusion
Originally, this study was centered on the role of meanings as mediators between a facilities’
service environment and the impact it has on visitors/patrons. However, the results showthat
although we only found full mediation for ambiance environmental factors, there were
several other ?ndings that proved equally interesting in the knowledge quest as it pertains to
the role of meanings in the hedonic services as well as the role of the service environment in
channeling and creating these meanings.
VOL. 3 NO. 3 2009
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
PAGE 205
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
0
7
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
Additionally, we discovered, that presently, many hedonic attractions are not necessarily
doing a great job in nurturing the right service environmental cues in order to maximize
return visits, visitor perceptions and word of mouth recommendations. Although millions are
spent yearly on upgrades and renovations, it is very possible that these additions and
improvements are focusing on the wrong things and smaller less expensive changes are
being ignored. The end result is an inef?cient use of resources and a failure to capitalize on a
signi?cant opportunity. We now know that the service environment directly impacts not only
how an attraction is perceived and the likelihood of a return visit, but it also in?uences the
meaning consumers associate with that attraction/service/facility or overall experience and it
strongly impacts a patron’s word of mouth intentions. Additionally, we found evidence to
support the notion that when patrons visit a facility or attraction in the hedonic sector, in
addition to their need for a hedonic experience, they also have utilitarian and novelty needs
that contribute to a richer overall experience.
This study provides a link between the physical environment and the meanings
consumers/patrons attach to those environments. Second, the study identi?es a type of
hierarchy amongst atmospheric elements where some elements are more important than
others depending on the type of meaning consumers attach to a particular hedonic
site/facility. Third the study identi?es a direct link in the hedonic service industry between a
pleasing physical environment and return patronage and positive word of mouth behavior,
suggesting that the role of the physical environment is consistent across industries, as
patterns found in retailing sectors can be replicated in the hedonic service sectors. Fourth,
the study is progress towards mapping out the nomological network that encompasses
meanings and the service environment as it pertains to consumer behavior. This study is a
?rst step in exploring that link and creating additional value from the extensive expenditures
on physical upgrades that have become commonplace in many of the world’s hedonic
attractions.
References
Art Business News (2004), ‘‘Museum matters’’, available at: www.artbusinessnews.com
Babin, B.J., Darden, W.R. and Grif?n, M. (1994), ‘‘Work and/or fun: measuring hedonic and utilitarian
shopping value’’, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 644-56.
Baker, J. (1986), ‘‘The role of environment in marketing services: the consumer perspective’’,
in Czpeil, J.A., Congam, C. and Shanaham, J. (Eds), The Services Marketing Challenge: Integrated for
Competitive Advantage, American Marketing Association, Chicago, IL, pp. 79-84.
Baker, J., Parasuraman, A., Grewal, D. and Voss, G. (2002), ‘‘The in?uence of multiple store
environmental cues on perceived merchandise value and patronage intentions’’, Journal of Marketing,
Vol. 66, April, pp. 120-41.
Barbieri, K. (2004), ‘‘$63m facelift at Brooklyn Museum set to welcome larger crowds’’, Amusement
Business, Vol. 116, April, p. 5.
Baron, R.M. and Kenny, D.A. (1986), ‘‘The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social
psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations’’, Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, Vol. 51 No. 6, pp. 1173-82.
Bello, D.C. and Etzel, M.J. (1985), ‘‘The role of novelty in pleasure travel experience’’, Journal of Travel
Research, Vol. 24 Nos 1, Summer, pp. 20-6.
Bitner, M.J. (1986), ‘‘Consumer responses to the physical environment in service settings’’,
in Venkatesan, M., Schmalensee, D.M. and Marshall, C. (Eds), Creativity in Services Marketing,
American Marketing Association, Chicago, IL, pp. 89-93.
Bitner, M.J. (1990), ‘‘Evaluating service encounters: the effects if physical surroundings and employee
responses’’, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 54 No. 2, pp. 69-82.
Bitner, M.J. (1992), ‘‘Servicescapes: the impact of physical surroundings on customers and
employees’’, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 56, April, pp. 57-71.
Bloch, P.H. and Bruce, G.D. (1984), ‘‘The leisure experience and consumer products: an investigation of
underlying satisfactions’’, Journal of Leisure Research, Vol. 16, Spring, pp. 74-88.
PAGE 206
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
VOL. 3 NO. 3 2009
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
0
7
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
Bloch, P.H. and Richins, M.L. (1983), ‘‘A theoretical model for the study of product importance
perceptions’’, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 47, Summer, pp. 69-81.
Bonn, M.A., Joseph-Mathews, S.M., Dai, M., Hayes, S. and Cave, J. (2007), ‘‘Heritage/cultural attraction
atmospherics: creating the right environment for the heritage/cultural visitor’’, Journal of Travel
Research, Vol. 45 No. 3, pp. 345-54.
Booms, B.H. and Bitner, M.J. (1982), ‘‘Marketing services by managing the environment’’, Cornell Hotel
Restaurant Administration Quarterly, Vol. 23, May, pp. 35-9.
Boyd, H.W. Jr and Levy, S.J. (1963), ‘‘Newdimensions in consumer analysis’’, Harvard Business Review,
Vol. 41, November-December, pp. 129-40.
Cohen, E. (1972), ‘‘Toward a sociology of international tourism’’, Social Research, Vol. 39 No. 1,
pp. 164-82.
Davis, T.R. (1984), ‘‘The in?uence of the physical environment in of?ces’’, The Academy of Management
Review, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 271-84.
Dietsch, D.K. (1997), ‘‘Museum boom’’, Architecture, Vol. 86 No. 12, pp. 11-12.
Eroglu, S.A., Machleit, K. and Davis, L.M. (2000), ‘‘Online retail atmospherics: empirical tests of a cue
typology’’, in Evans, J.R. and Berman, B. (Eds), Retailing 2000: Launching the New Millennium, the Sixth
Triennial AMS/ACRA Retailing Conference, Vol. 9, pp. 144-50.
Fornell, C. and Larcker, D.F. (1981), ‘‘Evaluation structural equations models with unobservable
variables and measurement error’’, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 18, February, pp. 39-50.
Ga¨ rling, T. (1988), ‘‘What is environmental about environmental psychology?’’, Journal of Environmental
Psychology, Vol. 2, pp. 161-2.
Hensel, P.J. and Bruner, G.C. II (1992), ‘‘Scaling and measurement: multi-itemscaled measures in sales
related research’’, Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 77-82.
Hightower, R. Jr, Brady, M.K. and Baker, T.L. (2002), ‘‘Investigating the role of the physical environment in
hedonic service consumption: an exploratory study of sporting events’’, Journal of Business Research,
Vol. 55 No. 9, pp. 697-707.
Hirschman, E.C. (1982), ‘‘Religious af?liation and consumption processes: an initial paradigm’’,
in Sheth, J.N. (Ed.), Research in Marketing, Vol. 6, JAI Press, Greenwich, CT.
Hirschman, E.C. and Holbrook, M.B. (1982), ‘‘Hedonic consumption: emerging concepts, methods and
propositions’’, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 46, Summer, pp. 92-101.
Holbrook, M.B. and Hirschman, E.C. (1982), ‘‘The experiential aspects of consumption: consumer
fantasies, feelings and fun’’, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 9, September, pp. 132-40.
Iovine, J. (2003), ‘‘‘Under the radar’ museum plans new home on the Bowery’’, Wired New York Forum,
available at:http://wirednewyork.com/forum/showthread.php?t ¼ 3624.
Kempf, D.S. (1999), ‘‘Attitude formation from product trial: distinct role of cognition and affect for
hedonic and functional products’’, Psychology Marketing, Vol. 16, January, pp. 35-50.
Kotler, P. (1973), ‘‘Atmospherics as a marketing tool’’, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 4, Winter, pp. 48-64.
Levy, S.J. (1959), ‘‘Symbols for sale’’, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 37, July-August, pp. 117-24.
Mano, H. and Oliver, R.L. (1993), ‘‘Assessing the dimensionality and structure of the consumption
experience: evaluation, feeling and satisfaction’’, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 20, December,
pp. 451-66.
Mehrabian, A. and Russell, J.A. (1974), An Approach to Environmental Psychology, MIT Press,
Cambridge, MA.
Menninger, B. (2000), ‘‘Used facilities get a newlook’’, Street and Smiths Sports Business Journal, Vol. 3,
May, pp. 8-14, 25, 34.
Obermiller, C. and Bitner, M.J. (1984), ‘‘Store atmosphere: a peripheral cue for product evaluation’’,
in Stewart, D.C. (Ed.), American Psychological Association Annual Conference Proceedings, Consumer
Psychology Division, American Psychological Association, Champaign, IL, pp. 52-3.
VOL. 3 NO. 3 2009
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
PAGE 207
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
0
7
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
Oliver, R.L. (1981), ‘‘Measurement and evaluation of satisfaction processes in retail settings’’, Journal of
Retailing, Vol. 57, Fall, pp. 25-48.
Poria, Y., Butler, R. and Airey, D. (2004), ‘‘Links between tourists, heritage and reasons for visiting
heritage sites’’, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 43, August, pp. 12-24.
Scott, M. and Canter, D.V. (1997), ‘‘Picture or place? A multiple sorting study of landscape’’, Journal of
Environmental Psychology, Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 263-81.
Shostack, G.L. (1977), ‘‘Breaking free from product marketing’’, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 41, April,
pp. 73-80.
Sirefman, S. (1999), ‘‘Formed and forming: contemporary museum architecture’’, Daedalus, Vol. 128,
Summer, pp. 297-321.
Slessor, C. (1997), Eco-tech: Sustainable Architecture and High Technology, Thames and Hudson,
New York, NY.
Snepenger, D. (1987), ‘‘Segmenting the vacation market by novelty-seeking role’’, Journal of Travel
Research, Vol. 26, Fall, pp. 8-14.
Snepenger, D., Murphy, L., Snepenger, M. and Anderson, W. (2004), ‘‘Normative meanings of
experiences for a spectrum of tourism places’’, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 43, November,
pp. 108-17.
Tuan, Y.F. (1977), Space and Place: The Perspective of Experience, University of Minnesota Press,
Minneapolis, MN.
Turley, L.W. and Milliman, R.E. (2000), ‘‘Atmospheric effects on shopping behavior: a review of the
experimental evidence’’, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 49 No. 2, pp. 193-211.
Zeithaml, V.A., Berry, L.L. and Parasuraman, A. (1996), ‘‘The behavioral consequences of marketing’’,
Journal of Marketing, Vol. 60, April, pp. 31-46.
Further reading
Anderson, J.C. and Gerbing, D.W. (1988), ‘‘Structural equation modeling in practice: a review and
recommended two-step approach’’, Psychology Bulletin, Vol. 103 No. 3, pp. 411-23.
Areni, C.S. and Kim, D. (1993), ‘‘The in?uence of background music on shopping behavior: classical
versus top-forty music in a wine store’’, in McAllister, L. and Rothschild, M.L. (Eds), Advances in
Consumer Research, Association of Consumer Research, Provo, UT, pp. 336-40.
Ayala, H. (1996), ‘‘Resort ecotourism: a paradigm for the 21st century’’, Cornell Hotel and Restaurant
Administrative Quarterly, Vol. 37, October, pp. 46-53.
Baker, J., Grewal, D. and Parasuraman, A. (1994), ‘‘The in?uence of store environment on quality
inferences and store image’’, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 22, Fall, pp. 328-40.
Baker, J., Levy, M. and Grewal, D. (1992), ‘‘An experimental approach to making retail store environment
decisions’’, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 68, Winter, pp. 445-60.
Becker, F.D. (1977), Housing Messages, Dowden, Hutchinson & Ross, Stroudsburg, PA.
Becker, F.D. (1981), Workspace, Praeger Publishers, New York, NY.
Belizzi, J.A., Crowley, A.E. and Hasty, R.W. (1983), ‘‘The effects of color in store design’’, Journal of
Retailing, Vol. 59, Spring, pp. 21-45.
Bentler, L.D. and Bonett, D.G. (1980), ‘‘Signi?cance tests and goodness of ?t in the analysis of
covariance structures’’, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 88 No. 3, pp. 588-606.
Berry, L.L. (2000), ‘‘Cultivating service brand equity’’, Journal of Marketing Science, Vol. 28, Winter,
pp. 128-37.
Brady, M.K. and Cronin, J.J. Jr (2001), ‘‘Some new thought on conceptualizing perceived service
quality: a hierarchical approach’’, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 65, July, pp. 34-49.
Brady, M.K. and Cronin, J.J. Jr (2001), ‘‘Customer orientation: effects on customer service perceptions
and outcome behaviors’’, Journal of Service Research, Vol. 3 No. 3, pp. 241-51.
PAGE 208
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
VOL. 3 NO. 3 2009
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
0
7
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
Chebat, J.C., Gelinas-Chebat, C. and Filiatrault, P. (1993), ‘‘Interactive effects of music and visual cues
on time perception: an application to waiting lines in banks’’, Perceptual and Motor Skills, Vol. 77 No. 3,
pp. 995-1020.
Diamantis, D. (1998), ‘‘Consumer behavior and ecotourism products’’, Annals of Tourism Research,
Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 515-28.
Diamantis, D. (2000), ‘‘Ecotourism and sustainability in Mediterranean Islands’’, Thunderbird
International Business Review, Vol. 2, July-August, pp. 427-43.
Donovan, R. and Rossiter, J. (1982), ‘‘Store atmosphere: an environmental psychology approach’’,
Journal of Retailing, Vol. 58, Spring, pp. 34-57.
Donovan, R., Rossiter, J.R., Marcoolyn, G.M. and Nesdale, A. (1994), ‘‘Store atmosphere and
purchasing behavior’’, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 70 No. 3, pp. 283-94.
Dube, L., Chebat, J.C. and Morin, S. (1995), ‘‘The effects of background music on consumers’ desire to
af?liate in buyer-seller interactions’’, Psychology, Vol. 12, July, pp. 305-19.
Eroglu, S.A. and Davis, L.M. (2001), ‘‘Atmospheric qualities of online retailing: a conceptual model and
implications’’, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 54 No. 2, pp. 177-84.
Eroglu, S.A. and Machleit, K. (1990), ‘‘An empirical study of retail crowding: antecedents and
consequences’’, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 66 No. 2, pp. 201-21.
Gagnon, J.P. and Osterhaus, J.T. (1985), ‘‘Research note: effectiveness of ?oor displays on the sales of
retail products’’, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 61, Spring, pp. 104-16.
Harrell, G.D., Hutt, M.D. and Anderson, J.C. (1980), ‘‘Path analysis of buyer behavior under conditions of
crowding’’, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 45-51.
Hirschman, E.C. (1983), ‘‘Predictors of self-projection, fantasy ful?llment and escapism’’, Journal of
Social Psychology, Vol. 120, June, pp. 63-76.
Holbrook, M.B., Chestnut, R.W., Oliva, T.A. and Greenleaf, E.A. (1984), ‘‘Play as a consumption
experience: the roles of emotions, performance and personality in the enjoyment of games’’, Journal of
Consumer Research, Vol. 11, September, pp. 728-40.
Hu, L. and Bentler, P.M. (1996), ‘‘Cutoff criteria for ?t indexes in covariance structure analysis:
conventional cutoff versus new alternatives’’, Structural Equation Modeling, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 1-55.
Hvenegaard, G.T. (1994), ‘‘Ecotourism: a status report and conceptual framework’’, Journal of Travel
Research, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 24-35.
Joreskog, K.G. (1971), ‘‘Statistical analysis of congeric tests’’, Psychometrika, Vol. 36, pp. 109-33.
Levy, S.J. (1979), ‘‘A paradigm conceptualizing leisure behavior: towards a person-environment
interaction analysis’’, Journal of Leisure Research, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 48-58.
Lew, A. (1998), ‘‘Ecotourism trends’’, Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 25, July, pp. 742-6.
Machleit, K.A. and Eroglu, S.A. (2000), ‘‘Describing and measuring emotional responses to shopping
experience’’, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 49 No. 2, pp. 101-11.
Marsh, H.W., Balla, J.R. and McDonald, R.P. (1988), ‘‘Goodness of ?t indices in con?rmatory factor
analysis: the effect of sample size’’, Psychology Bulletin, Vol. 103 No. 3, pp. 291-310.
Milliman, R.E. (1982), ‘‘Using background music to affect the behavior of supermarket shoppers’’,
Journal of Marketing, Vol. 46 No. 2, pp. 86-91.
Milliman, R.E. (1986), ‘‘The in?uence of background music on the behavior of restaurant patrons’’,
Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 13, September, pp. 286-9.
Smith, P. and Burns, D.J. (1996), ‘‘Atmospherics and retail environments: the case of the power aisle’’,
International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 7-17.
Spangenberg, E.R., Crowley, A.E. and Henderson, P. (1996), ‘‘Improving the store environment: do
olfactory cues affect evaluations and behaviors?’’, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 60, April, pp. 67-80.
Tian, S., Crompton, J.L. and Witt, P.A. (1996), ‘‘Integrating constraints and bene?ts to identify responsive
target markets for museum attractions’’, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 43, Fall, pp. 34-45.
VOL. 3 NO. 3 2009
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
PAGE 209
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
0
7
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
Wener, R.E. (1985), ‘‘The environmental psychology of service encounters,’’, in Czepiel, J., Solomon, M.
and Surprenant, C. (Eds), The Service Encounter, Lexington Books, Lexington, MA, pp. 101-12.
Wineman, J.D. (1982), ‘‘Of?ce design and evaluation’’, Environment and Behavior, Vol. 14 No. 3,
pp. 271-98.
Yalch, R. and Spagenberg, E. (1993), ‘‘Using store music for retail zoning: a ?eld experiment’’, in
McAlister, L. and Rothschild, M.L. (Eds), Advances in Consumer Research, Association for Consumer
Research, Provo, UT, pp. 632-6.
Zeithaml, V.A., Parasuraman, A. and Malhotra, A. (2002), ‘‘Service quality delivery through web sites: a
critical review of extant knowledge’’, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 30 No. 4,
pp. 362-75.
Corresponding author
Sacha Joseph-Mathews can be contacted at: sjoseph@paci?c.edu
PAGE 210
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
VOL. 3 NO. 3 2009
To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected]
Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
0
7
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
This article has been cited by:
1. M.S. Balaji, Rajdeep Chakraborti. 2015. Stadium atmosphere: scale development and validation in Indian context. Journal of
Indian Business Research 7:1, 45-66. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
2. David Gration, Maria M. Raciti. 2014. Exploring the Relationship Between Festivalgoers' Personal Values and Their
Perceptions of the Non-urban Blended Festivalscape: An Australian Study. Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and Tourism
14, 275-295. [CrossRef]
3. Min Li, Z.Y. Dong, Xi Chen. 2012. Factors influencing consumption experience of mobile commerce. Internet Research 22:2,
120-141. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
4. Andrew G. Parsons. 2011. Atmosphere in fashion stores: do you need to change?. Journal of Fashion Marketing and
Management: An International Journal 15:4, 428-445. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
0
7
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
doc_188824774.pdf