International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management

Use of scent in a naturally odourless store

Andrew G. Parsons
Article information:
To cite this document:
Andrew G. Parsons, (2009),"Use of scent in a naturally odourless store", International Journal of Retail &
Distribution Management, Vol. 37 Iss 5 pp. 440 - 452
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09590550910954928
Downloaded on: 31 January 2016, At: 17:26 (PT)
Downloaded by New Mexico State University At 17:26 31 January 2016 (PT)

References: this document contains references to 33 other documents.

To copy this document: [email protected]
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 2885 times since 2009*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
Brenda Soars, (2009),"Driving sales through shoppers' sense of sound, sight, smell and touch",
International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, Vol. 37 Iss 3 pp. 286-298 http://
dx.doi.org/10.1108/09590550910941535
Bertil Hultén, (2011),"Sensory marketing: the multi-sensory brand-experience concept", European Business
Review, Vol. 23 Iss 3 pp. 256-273 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09555341111130245
Lena Goldkuhl, Maria Styvén, (2007),"Sensing the scent of service success", European Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 41 Iss 11/12 pp. 1297-1305 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/03090560710821189

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:199044 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for
Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines
are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as
providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee
on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive
preservation.

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

 The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/0959-0552.htm

IJRDM
37,5 Use of scent in a naturally
odourless store
Andrew G. Parsons
440 AUT Business School, Auckland University of Technology,
Auckland, New Zealand
Received 6 March 2008
Revised 9 June 2008
Accepted 20 June 2008 Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of the paper is to introduce the concept of associated scents for retail stores
Downloaded by New Mexico State University At 17:26 31 January 2016 (PT)

that are normally odourless, and provide an understanding of how associated scent can be used by
these non-scented retailers to influence shopper behaviour and the appeal of the store.
Design/methodology/approach – The study involves both an experiment and a field study.
The experiment is design to see if scents that have been identify as associated with different store
types differed in their influence on behaviour and affect from scents that are not associated with the
store. The field study involves an actual store where scent is manipulated, with an associated scent
during one period, and a non-associated yet pleasant scent present during another period. Customer
perceptions of the store are measured, their purchase behaviour is measured, and actual year-on-year
weekly sales are compared.
Findings – Previous studies have suggested that simply having a pleasant scent present can enhance
liking for the store and encourage positive sales behaviour, however, this study shows that for a store
that is normally odourless, the scent needs to have a perceived association with the store-type to gain
positive responses. Presence of a pleasant but non-associated scent can actually lead to negative
affective or behavioural responses.
Research limitations/implications – An important research implication is that the association of
a non product-specific scent with a particular (normally odourless) store might mean that encountering
that scent elsewhere may trigger in the person thoughts of the store, which further research could
show to be a motivator for visiting the store. Another implication is the need to identify best
performing associated scents, and whether a retailer through a marketing campaign can create an
artificial association, thus gaining a unique, sustainable competitive advantage.
Practical/implications – Because it is expected, the naturally scented store (e.g. the florist or bakery)
gains no competitive advantage through the use of scent, but this study shows managers of normally
odourless stores that they can gain a competitive advantage in their category through the identification
and use of scent customers would associate with the store-type. Furthermore, because the store is not
stuck with the scent, unlike the naturally scented stores, and because there may even be multiple
associated scents, managers can vary the use of scent so that desensitisation can be mitigated.
Originality/value – The paper introduces for the first time to the literature the concept of associated
scents for stores, and demonstrates the managerial value that use of an associated scent in a normally
odourless store can have with regard to enhanced shopper behaviour and liking for the store.
Keywords Shops, Consumer behaviour, Store ambience, New Zealand
Paper type Research paper

Introduction
International Journal of Retail &
Distribution Management [. . .] a rose by any other name would smell as sweet [. . .] (Shakespeare: Romeo and
Vol. 37 No. 5, 2009 Juliet II.ii).
pp. 440-452
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited Managers of retail outlets are increasingly recognising that that the store environment
0959-0552
DOI 10.1108/09590550910954928 significantly impacts upon sales, product evaluations, and consumer satisfaction
 through elements like music, colour, lighting, scent and crowding (Spangenberg et al., Scent in
1996; Mattila and Wirtz, 2001; Schifferstein and Blok, 2002; Chebat and Michon, 2003; a naturally
Davies et al., 2003; Spangenberg et al., 2006; Wirtz et al., 2007). Many stores are now
exploring the use of scent in helping create a store atmosphere. While music, colour, odourless store
lighting and crowding have been treated as controllable atmospheric stimuli by
researchers, scent has tended to be positioned as product-specific;, e.g. the bakery
selling bread smells of fresh baking; the florist selling fresh flowers has a floral odour. 441
Despite this, as Spangenberg et al. (1996) point out, many service providers and
retailers of products that do not naturally have a discernable scent are interested in
how they too can make use of ambient scent in their stores. Ambient scent – scent that
is not emanating from a particular object but is present in the store environment – may
be of greater interest than product-specific scents because it has the potential to affect
Downloaded by New Mexico State University At 17:26 31 January 2016 (PT)

consumers’ perceptions of the entire store and all of the products being sold. While
there have been some studies of ambient scent (Spangenberg et al., 1996; Morrin and
Ratneshwar, 2000), these have tended to look at the pleasantness of the scent, ignoring
any association of the scent with the store. As Gulas and Bloch (1995) point out, the
scent of flowers may be generally perceived as pleasant, but wholly inappropriate for a
motorcycle shop. It is this “appropriateness” that this study seeks to examine. For a
naturally odourless store, such as an electronics store, stationery shop, fashion outlet,
or bookseller, are there appropriate scents that could be used to enhance the store
environment?

Literature
Studies of in-store scent as a contributor to the store environment have concentrated on
three aspects: The first aspect is a scent’s congruency with the products sold in the
store – that is, the scent that emanates from the product such as one might find in a
florist, a bakery, or a tobacconist (Bone and Jantrania, 1992; Mitchell et al., 1995; Ellen
and Bone, 1998; Mattila and Wirtz, 2001). The second aspect is the presence of a scent –
that is, simply having a scent present may result in affective or behavioural responses
(Spangenberg et al., 1996; Bone and Ellen, 1999; Morrin and Ratneshwar, 2000). The
third aspect is the pleasantness of a scent – that is, having a pleasant scent may result
in positive affective or behavioural responses, whilst having an unpleasant scent may
result in negative affective or behavioural responses (Mitchell et al., 1995; Bone and
Ellen, 1999; Morrin and Ratneshwar, 2000).
It is clear that the presence of a pleasant scent can have a positive impact on
evaluations of, and behaviour within, a store (Gulas and Bloch, 1995; Spangenberg
et al., 1996; Mattila and Wirtz, 2001), or a shopping mall (Chebat and Michon, 2003).
It can also improve evaluations and recall for brands (Morrin and Ratneshwar, 2000).
The presence of a pleasant scent can even counteract negative aspects of a store
experience such as having to wait in a queue (McDonnell, 2007). Establishing what a
pleasant scent is though can be difficult, with scent preferences varying among
individuals (Gulas and Bloch, 1995). Furthermore, for many stores there is the
additional problem of establishing a pleasant scent that also fits with the store.
Spangenberg et al. (2006) considered the congruity of ambient scent in terms of
the perceived gender of a scent and the store’s gender based products, demonstrating
that congruency influences perceptions of the store, its merchandise, and actual sales.
 IJRDM Recent research into store scent has also taken on-board the wider atmospherics
37,5 debate about the stimulus-organism-response framework (Chebat and Michon, 2003;
Orth and Bourrain, 2005; Spangenberg et al., 2006) – for a clear discussion of this, the
various articles in store atmospherics contributing to the debate, and alternative
models of shopping experiences, see the comprehensive coverage by Fiore and Kim
(2007). To consider the stimulus-response relationship, Donovan and Rossiter (1982)
442 introduced the Mehrabian-Russell (1974) environmental psychology model to the study
of store atmosphere. Donovan et al. (1994) later pointed out that this model, whilst
based upon the stimulus-organism-response paradigm, confined response to
approach-avoidance behaviour. This narrow focus precludes the use of the
Mehrabian-Russell (1974) model in fully understanding the relationships between
stimuli and consumer responses. Furthermore, as Eroglu and Machleit (2008) point out,
Downloaded by New Mexico State University At 17:26 31 January 2016 (PT)

in their discussion of Turley and Milliman’s (2000) review, while a number of studies
have resorted to stimulus-organism-response as their theoretical base it is considered
an approach rather than a fully-fledged theory. Notwithstanding this discussion, scent
research has concentrated on extending the response set from simple
approach-avoidance to include purchase and time-in-store (Turley and Milliman,
2000). Nothing has been done to extend the stimulus set from congruent/incongruent
scents other than to introduce variations on a theme;, e.g. the pleasantness of a
congruent scent, the presence of a congruent scent, the level of a congruent scent,
which are discussed later. Consideration of an associated scent extends the potential
stimulus set, adding to the usefulness of a stimulus-organism-response approach.
The other research to-date has focussed primarily on responses to non-ambient
scent; that is scent which is localised, such as on a card, on a product (Bone and
Jantrania, 1992) or an advertisement (Ellen and Bone, 1998). Findings suggest that
evaluations for products are enhanced when they are scented and that congruent
scents tend to improve evaluations more than incongruent scents (Bone and Jantrania,
1992). In these studies the scent has been assumed to either be emanating from the
product(s) sold or in competition with the product.
At the ambient scent level, studies have tended to focus on the pleasantness and
presence of scents (Spangenberg et al., 1996; Chebat and Michon, 2003) or the congruity
of the ambient scent – but again, this has been infused with product-orientation of
other studies. For example, in a computer-aided product-choice experiment conducted
in differently scented rooms, Mitchell et al. (1995) demonstrated that congruency of the
scent with the product category influenced various information-processing measures.
How might we move to a study of scent for normally odourless stores? Schifferstein
and Blok (2002) considered associated scents for objects, surmising that a scent which
might be associated with a normally odourless object could act as a signal in the same
way that a scent emitted by an object with an odour normally occurring signals the
presence of that object. Their results suggest that the mere presence of an associated
scent for an object does not enhance sales for the product. However, they offered an
explanation that is an important consideration for the study of associated scents; they
propose that experience of the association may be required. People need to have
learned that presentation of a particular odour coincides with a certain product (or in
the case of the present study, a certain store – paired associate learning – or that an
odour acts as a contextual cue that facilitates remembering a cue-object association.
Schifferstein and Blok (2002) further point out that the effect of a contextual odour cue
 increases if it is distinctive. Davies et al. (2003) take a similar line with their ability of Scent in
smell to communicate a sense of place, and its potential as a differentiator in a crowded a naturally
marketplace.
This thinking is also in line with the problem Mitchell et al. (1995) have put forward odourless store
concerning consumer expectations. When considering ambient scent the effects of
congruency appear to revolve around consumer expectations. Mitchell et al. (1995)
suggest that the problem with incongruent scent is that it causes cognitive interference, 443
and it seems logical that this may also translate to confusing consumer’s affect and
interfering with their behaviour. The problem is accentuated for the store that has no
expected ambient scent because the presence of any scent, by definition, is incongruous.
However, it may be that for such stores there is a scent that is congruent by association.
Just as Schifferstein and Blok (2002) show the connection between odours and objects, it
Downloaded by New Mexico State University At 17:26 31 January 2016 (PT)

is also known that people make associations between scents and events (Richardson and
Zucco, 1989; Gulas and Block, 1995). It is proposed that rather than the simple
congruent/incongruent dichotomy that earlier studies have assumed, there is a
competing proposition that allows for some scents to be associated scents, and to have a
positive relationship with consumer affect and behaviour similar to the relationship
which congruent scents have. Wirtz et al. (2007) show, in their study of service settings,
that arousal-level affective expectations are important because satisfaction in pleasant
service environments was maximised when there was congruency with the environment
expectations. Furthermore, Mattila and Wirtz (2006) show that even an intrinsically
attractive store can be perceived as unpleasant if it fails to meet the shopper’s arousal
expectations. Thus, if there is an odour that is associated with a naturally odourless
store, we might expect enhanced affective and behavioural responses.
The contention of the present study therefore is that the presence of a pleasant,
strongly associated scent, for a normally odourless store, will allow such a retailer to
also enjoy the positive affective and behavioural responses which retailers who have
been able to employ congruent scents have been taking advantage of. A laboratory
experiment followed by a field study with an existing retailer testing this contention is
discussed in the next section.

Methodology
This study involved both an experiment and a field study. The experiment was
designed to establish whether an associated scent differed from a non-associated scent
in its impact upon customers liking for the store (affect), and customers’ behavioural
intentions regarding the store. Three generic store-types were chosen as stores that
were unlikely to have product-specific scents. As these were normally odourless stores,
there were effectively three possible scent scenarios; an associated scent present, a
non-associated scent present, or no scent present at all.
The three store-types chosen were a bookstore (new books only), a lingerie store,
and a white-ware appliance store. These were chosen on the basis of three simple
criteria; the first was whether the store type in the area where the study was to be
conducted typically had an existing scent (of any sort), with the desired stores not
having scent so that there was no prior expectation. The second criterion was whether
access to the stores was readily available for participants, as actual customers were
wanted as participants. The third criterion was whether the store type could be
accurately and convincingly represented digitally for the experiment.
 IJRDM Before the experiment could be conducted, associated scents needed to be
37,5 established for use in the experiment. They were told to three generic store-types
49 customers of relevant stores and as they were to name or describe a scent that they
would associate with, or find complementary to, each store. They were also told that
the scent should not be directly congruent with, or reflective of, the products sold in the
store.
444 For the bookstore 78 per cent suggested coffee of one variant or another
(e.g. percolated coffee, coffee beans, ground coffee, coffee types such as latte, long black
etc [. . .] or a combination of coffee and biscuits/cake). 96 per cent of respondents
suggested perfume for the lingerie store, and 84 per cent suggested soap (powder or
liquid, including dishwashing and clothes washing) for the appliance store. The latter
was the most surprising as appliances that suit soap only made up 50 per cent of the
Downloaded by New Mexico State University At 17:26 31 January 2016 (PT)

appliances used to describe the store (washing machines and dishwashers; the others
being refrigerators and ovens). The expectation was that 50 per cent of the suggestions
would be food-related. Further, questioning revealed that respondents saw
soap-related scents being consistent and easier to relate to the appliances than food,
which held greater variation in all the possible scents. Respondents also reasoned that
fresh scents associated with the refrigerator would not be associated with cooking in
ovens, whereas cooked food scents would not be associated with refrigerators.
Therefore, soap was accepted as the associated scent for an appliance store.
While establishing which scents were associated with each store, discriminate
validity was also checked by ensuring that the scent associated with one store-type
was not associated with another store-type. A bonus of this check was that the scents
associated with the other store-types could be used as the non-associated scent for the
store-type in each experiment stage. For example, the scent associated with the
bookstore could be used as the non-associated scent for the lingerie store. This saved
considerable resources in conducting the experiment, which is discussed next.

Associated scent experiment

As mentioned earlier, there were three potential scent scenarios – an associated scent,
a non-associated scent, and, because the store is normally odourless, no scent. Thus,
the experiment design (which is shown in Table I) involved three store-types, each with
three scent-scenarios as the treatment.
To represent the store-types digital video movies were made showing each store,
with segments lasting approximately 90 to 120 Seconds each. This approach has
proven effective for environmental representation of visual and aural aspects (Chebat
et al., 1993; Voss et al., 1998; Machleit and Mantel, 2001; Baker et al., 2002), providing a
high degree of ecological validity (Bateson and Hui, 1992), particularly where a specific
environmental setting is required (Sweeney and Wyber, 2002). A measure used by
Voss et al. (1998), was employed asking if the videotaped scenario was realistic (on a
seven-point scale anchored by “very unrealistic” [1] and “very realistic [7]:
meanbookstore ¼ 6.2, meanlingerie ¼ 5.8 and meanappliance ¼ 6.1) to assess ecological
validity. Each store video was also pretested to ensure a reasonable level of
prototypicality, providing three distinct store types for the study (Ward et al., 1992).
The associated scents were those identified earlier – bookstore/coffee,
lingerie/perfume, and appliance/soap. The non-associated scent for each store
was one of the associated scents for the other store types, e.g. for the bookstore,
 Scent in
Bookstore Lingerie Appliance
a naturally
Associated Coffee A Perfume C Soap powder B odourless store
Affect: Affect: Affect:
Mean ¼ 5.13 Mean ¼ 5.14 Mean ¼ 4.93
SD ¼ 0.62 SD ¼ 0.67 SD ¼ 0.61
Intention: Intention: Intention: 445
Mean ¼ 4.78 Mean ¼ 4.45 Mean ¼ 4.35
SD ¼ 1.51 SD ¼ 1.42 SD ¼ 1.19
No scent (congruent) B A C
Affect: Affect: Affect:
Mean ¼ 3.82 Mean ¼ 3.85 Mean ¼ 3.81
SD ¼ 0.47 SD ¼ 0.50 SD ¼ 0.51
Intention: Intention: Intention:
Downloaded by New Mexico State University At 17:26 31 January 2016 (PT)

Mean ¼ 4.17 Mean ¼ 4.27 Mean ¼ 4.75

SD ¼ 1.51 SD ¼ 1.44 SD ¼ 1.54
Non-associated Soap powder C Coffee B Perfume A
Affect: Affect: Affect:
Mean ¼ 2.92 Mean ¼ 2.96 Mean ¼ 3.07
SD ¼ 0.45 SD ¼ 0.44 SD ¼ 0.44
Intention: Intention: Intention:
Mean ¼ 3.03 Mean ¼ 3.32 Mean ¼ 4.22
SD ¼ 1.45 SD ¼ 1.72 SD ¼ 1.55
Table I.
Note: A, B, C ¼ Group of respondents Mean affect and intention

the incongruent scent was soap powder (from the appliance store). In terms of “true
congruent” scents of the sort examined by Mitchell et al. (1995), and Mattila and Wirtz
(2001) (scents that emanate from the products sold), the “no scent” type also happened
to be the congruent scent by virtue of the fact that the typical products in each store
had little or no discernable scent (note that for the bookstore, this was a “new books”
store so there was not the musty, old-book smell often thought of for bookstores).
The design meant that there were three store-types with each store-type having
three different treatments: an associated scent, a non-associated scent, and no scent;
therefore there were nine cells. Total of 180 consumers were randomly divided into
three groups of 60. Each group was then assigned to three of the cells (the groups are
labelled A, B, and C in Table I). The order of the exposure was randomly altered for
each consumer. Paired means t-tests suggest there was no order bias. Furthermore,
there was no expectation that affect for any particular store would be likely to impact
upon affect for any other store given they are each in completely different categories.
Each respondent was asked to view the video of a store and was then presented
with a questionnaire measuring affect and behavioural intention. Whilst viewing the
video the room was darkened and the respondent wore wireless headphones playing
the normal sounds recorded in the relevant store. After completing the questionnaire
the respondent was taken to the next room and then shown the second video,
given the questionnaire to complete, and the process repeated a third time for the final
store. The relevant scent, either associated, incongruent or no scent, was present in
each room, and was renewed every 12 subjects, a conservative renewal rate indicated
in the manipulation check as maintaining the optimum level of odour.
 IJRDM The questionnaire was based on scales developed originally by Fisher (1974), for
37,5 measuring affect in terms of perceived environmental state. The 12 relevant items from
Fisher’s (1974) environmental quality scale that have been used in similar
environmental marketing studies (Crowley, 1993; Spangenberg et al., 1996) were
employed, along with a single item measure of store choice representing behavioural
intention (a seven point scale anchored by “very unlikely to shop at this store” ¼ 1 and
446 “very likely to shop at this store” ¼ 7) based on the statement “If I was shopping for
books/lingerie/appliances, I would be [. . .]”.

Experiment results
Affect for the store is examined first. The mean affect score (obtained by determining
the mean score from the 12 items for each respondent and then averaging across the
Downloaded by New Mexico State University At 17:26 31 January 2016 (PT)

cell) and the mean behavioural intention score for each experiment cell are given in
Table I, along with standard deviations. Analysis of variance for affect suggested
significant differences between scent groups for each of the three store categories
(F ¼ 277.594, significance ¼ 0.000 for Bookstore; F ¼ 241.710, significance ¼ 0.000
for Lingerie; F ¼ 191.590, significance ¼ 0.000 for Appliance) so in addition to the
post hoc tests given in Table II, t-tests were conducted to look at where the differences
lay, and the direction of the differences. The test statistic for the t-tests was set at four,
which was the mid-point of the Seven-point scales (labelled “neither”), hence neither
positive nor negative affect for the aggregated scales. The results are given in Table III.
The post hoc tests generally show significant differences. Three tests were employed
and in two of the lingerie and one of the appliance comparisons the more conservative

Significant Significant Significant

difference difference difference
Store Comparison LSD * Bonferroni * scheffe *

Affect
Bookstore Associated/no scent Yes Yes Yes
Associated/non-associated Yes Yes Yes
No scent/non associated Yes Yes Yes
Lingerie Associated/no scent Yes Yes Yes
Associated/non-associated Yes Yes No
No scent/non associated Yes No No
Appliance Associated/no scent Yes Yes Yes
Associated/non-associated Yes Yes Yes
No scent/non associated Yes No No
Behaviour
Bookstore Associated/no scent Yes No Yes
Associated/non-associated Yes Yes Yes
No scent/non associated Yes Yes Yes
Lingerie Associated/no scent No No No
Associated/non-associated Yes Yes Yes
No scent/non associated Yes No No
Appliance Associated/no scent No No No
Associated/non-associated No No No
Table II. No scent/non associated Yes No No
Post hoc tests: affect &
behaviour Note: *a ¼ 0.05, two-tailed test
 Scent in
Store Scent type t Significance * Direction of affecta (mean difference)
a naturally
Bookstore Associated 14.180 0.000 1.1308 odourless store
No scent 23.011 0.004 20.1808
Non-associated 218.541 0.000 21.0795
Lingerie Associated 13.111 0.000 1.1397
No scent 22.406 0.019 20.1551 447
Non-associated 218.455 0.000 21.0359
Appliance Associated 11.928 0.000 0.9333
No scent 22.871 0.006 20.1897
Non-associated 216.257 0.000 20.9269
Table III.
Notes: *a ¼ 0.05; aA positive number indicates positive affect, i.e. above four, towards the seven on Affect: tests of scent
the scale; a – indicates negative affect, i.e. below four, towards the one on the scale effects
Downloaded by New Mexico State University At 17:26 31 January 2016 (PT)

tests suggested no significant differences. However, in the remaining six comparisons

all three tests confirmed significant differences. The nature of the differences is
discussed later.
Behaviour through purchase intention is considered next. Analysis of variance for
intention suggested significant differences between scent groups for two of the three
store categories (F ¼ 21.320, significance ¼ 0.000 for Bookstore; F ¼ 9.458,
significance ¼ 0.000 for Lingerie; F ¼ 2.241, significance ¼ 0.109 for Appliance).
Again, following post hoc tests, t-tests were conducted following the same approach
used in examining affect, including for Appliance because it was suspected that the
results might be being impacted by weakness in the associated scent because of the
incongruence for some of the appliances (i.e. soap for refrigerators/ovens). The results
of the post hoc tests are in Table II and the t-tests are given in Table IV.
For the store that is normally odourless, use of an associated ambient scent would
appear to have strong positive effects on shopper liking for the store. However,
Table III also shows that in all three-store categories the presence of a non-associated
scent has a negative effect on affect for the store, which is consistent with Mitchell et al.
(1995), Ellen and Bone (1998), and Bone and Ellen (1999). Furthermore, having no scent
also has a negative effect on affect. Spangenberg et al. (1996), and Morrin and
Ratneshwar (2000), have suggested that merely having a scent present may have

Store Scent type t Significance * Direction of intenta (mean difference)

Bookstore Associated 4.023 0.000 0.7833

No scent 0.856 0.396 0.1667
Non-associated 25.166 0.000 2 0.9667
Lingerie Associated 2.456 0.017 0.4500
No scent 1.438 0.156 0.2667
Non-associated 23.074 0.003 2 0.6833
Appliance Associated 2.277 0.026 0.3500
No scent 3.782 0.000 0.7500
Non-associated 1.081 0.284 0.2167
Table IV.
Notes: *a ¼ 0.05; aA positive number indicates positive intent, i.e. above four, towards the seven on Behavioural intent: tests
the scale; a – indicates negative intent, i.e. below four, towards the one on the scale of scent effects
 IJRDM positive effects, but this study suggests that absence may have negative effects, rather
37,5 than the implied null effect suggested by the Spangenberg et al. (1996) study, and that
the scent present needs to be one associated with the store type.
Examining purchase intent we can see that for the book and lingerie stores the
presence of a non-associated scent has a negative effect, whereas the no scent option
(congruent) has no effect. This is consistent with Ellen and Bone’s (1998) findings. In
448 both cases, however, presence of an associated scent has a significant positive effect on
intention, again suggesting that for some stores lacking scent, associated scent may
offer constructive benefits. For some stores, however, absence of scent may have just
as significant a positive effect as the associated scent, such as in the case of the
appliance store. Interestingly, too, the presence of a non-associated scent had no
significant effect on intention. Two different possibilities may explain this finding.
Downloaded by New Mexico State University At 17:26 31 January 2016 (PT)

First, it may be that multiple associated scents are possible for this category (e.g. food
versus soap), each equally incongruent with the non-associated products, thus leading
to a reduced impact of the associated scent, and a raising of the “congruency” of the no
scent option; alternatively, the situation arose where the non-associated scent was
considered pleasant. Data were collected on the perceived “pleasantness” of each scent
used in the experiments, and analysis shows limited support for the argument that for
those who judged a non-associated scent to be pleasant, their affect and intent was in a
more positive direction (but not significantly so).
The findings from the experiment are explored further in the discussion section in
light of the findings from the field study, which are given next.

Associated scent field study

In an attempt to validate the results of the experiment, a field study was conducted.
A suburban bookstore operating in a medium-sized city was approached and they agreed
to try two different scents in their store. The store was a general bookseller, located in a
mid-sized, suburban, shopping centre and normally had no scent present in-store.
A bookstore was chosen partly because the experiment results suggested that associated
scents would be noticeable, and for the pragmatic reason that they were willing to
participate in the field study. Between 10.00 am and 2.00 pm for two days in week 1 the
scent of roses was sprayed around the store on half-hourly intervals. This was taken to be
the non-associated scent. The exercise was repeated in week 2, using the smell of fresh
cookies and a mild coffee. Coffee only had been used in the experiment, but cookies and
coffee was included as one of the “coffee-themed” scents suggested by the initial study, and
as the store was interested in opening a a small café within their store they preferred the
combination scent. This also illustrates one of the benefits of an associated scent over
a product-based congruent scent – the idea that you can have variations.
Outside the store customers were intercepted after leaving the store and asked a
series of questions concerning their book preferences, general book shopping
behaviour, and perceptions of the bookstore they had just come out of. These questions
were asked on behalf of the bookstore in return for access to the store and being
allowed to manipulate the scent in the store. However, they also meant that when asked
about their liking for the store, and their in-store behaviour, the customers were
considering the whole store experience, rather than artificially highlighting their
response to the scent. Only at the end of the survey was the customer asked whether
they had noticed any particular scent in-store.
 A single item measure was used for affect (How much did you like the store Scent in
environment?) using a ten-point semantic differential scale. The mean affect for the a naturally
store when a rose scent was used was 6.4 and for when coffee/cookies was used
the mean affect was 6.6. Using an a of 0.05 a t-test of equality of means showed there to odourless store
be no significant difference (t ¼ 2 0.52; significance ¼ 0.604). Similarly, single item
measures were used for behaviour, looking at in-store browsing (Did you spend more,
less, or about the same amount of time looking around the store as you normally would 449
for this bookstore?) and purchasing (Did you buy more, less, or about the same as you
normally would at this bookstore?). Customers who were first time shoppers at this
bookstore were omitted from this part of the analysis as the study required prior
behaviour to compare with. Results are shown in (Table V). x 2 was used to test
whether the periods differed. The store also provided year-on-year sales for both
Downloaded by New Mexico State University At 17:26 31 January 2016 (PT)

two-day periods. Year-on-year sales for the non-associated scent “Rose” period were up
3.2 per cent (adjusted for inflation); year-on-year sales for the associated scent “Cookies
and Coffee” period were up 8.4 per cent (adjusted for inflation).
Overall, while the field study results were not conclusive, they do suggest that the
experiment findings have reasonable validity. Browsing was more thorough, sales
were up (both perceived and actual), and while customers did not like the store any
more than without a scent, they didn’t dislike it either. From the retailer’s viewpoint,
this is a very satisfactory result.

Discussion
Scent is becoming a commonplace addition to the toolbox of retailers in their efforts to
create an environment attractive to shoppers and conducive to shopping. The presence
of a pleasant scent alone, however, is not enough. Previous studies have shown that
in the case of a store with a natural scent, the expected congruent scent is required.

In-store scent
Rose Coffee
non-associated associated
In-store browsing level Less than usual 36 (13%) 50 (18%)
Same as usual 58 (20%) 28 (10%)
More than usual 44 (15%) 68 (24%)
Asymptotic significance
Value df (two-sided)
Pearson x 2 17.676 2 0.000
Purchase level Less than usual 64 (23%) 26 (9%)
Same as usual 32 (11%) 56 (19%)
More than usual 42 (15%) 64 (23%)
Asymptotic significance
Value df (two-sided)
Pearson x 2 26.952 2 0.000
Rose Coffee t-test of equality of means
Mean affect non-associated associated a ¼ 0.05
t ¼ 2 0.520;
6.4 6.6 significance ¼ 0.604
Table V.
Note: Cross-tabulation of in-store scent type and shopper behaviour and mean affect observed count with Field study of associated
percentage of grand total in parentheses pearson x 2 for each scent/behaviour cross-tabulation scent
 IJRDM This study has shown that in the case of the normally odourless store, an appropriate
37,5 scent in the form of an associated scent can enhance shopping behaviour. Furthermore,
associated scents, at least for the three store types considered, were easily identified
and held almost universal appeal, allowing the retailer to avoid falling into the trap of
providing a non-associated scent that may be pleasant to some but a turn-off to others.
A retailer talking with their customers and some simple experimentation in-store could
450 lead to a very cost effective way of increasing sales and, in some cases, also enhancing
the liking for their store.
Another advantage of scent is the transient nature of the stimuli. On first glance this
may appear to be a disadvantage, but some research suggests that when it comes to
in-store stimuli designed to create an atmosphere, shoppers can become desensitised
very quickly when repeatedly exposed to the stimuli (Parsons, 2004). Those same
Downloaded by New Mexico State University At 17:26 31 January 2016 (PT)

customers respond positively to change or renewal. Unlike wall colours, lighting,

flooring, fixtures and layout, scent for a normally odourless store can be “switched off”
and “switched on” easily. So, if only one scent is found to be appropriate for the store,
restricting the use to one week a month may prove even more effective than constantly
having it present. If two scents can be used because of their associations with the store,
alternating those scents may better stimulate the customers because of the regular
change. This study has demonstrated that scent can be “switched on” in the case of the
bookstore, with resulting changes in consumer responses.
This study suggests that competitively the normally odourless store has a potential
advantage that naturally scented stores do not. All florists, for example, are expected to
and do smell of flowers. Thus, a florist smelling of flowers gains no advantage through
normal scent over other florists. A lingerie store that smells of perfume, however, gains
an advantage over the lingerie store that does not have a scent present. The logical
conclusion to this is that all the lingerie retailers might eventually start placing
perfume scent in their stores and the advantage is lost. However, variations on a theme
may be possible; for example the heavily wood-panelled, library-like, reference
bookstore may be best associated with strong coffee, while customers may associate a
cappuccino and cakes odour as the appropriate scent for an airy, novel-filled, literary
specialist. Thus, at least over a category some competitive advantage can be retained.
This is not restricted to the odourless store; for example a bakery might specialise in
health-oriented products so have as a signature scent the smell of wholegrain breads
rather than doughnuts. This study shows that the normally odourless store can create
similar advantages.
Scent is recognised as a powerful trigger of memories. Potentially, a shopper
catching a whiff of a scent associated with a store when in another setting may
stimulate them to at least think about the products available at that store, and may
even urge them to pay a visit to the store – not because of a desire for the scent per se
but because the retailer has been brought to the forefront of their memory. This is a
possible area of future research involving scent, and probably other stimuli as well.
Does seeing a colour combination, smelling a scent, or hearing a song that memory
associates with a particular store stimulate a shopper to visit that store, in the same
way that other marketing communications encourage a shopper response?
Finally, a note of caution: the results of this study highlight the gains a retailer might
achieve through the use of an associated scent in a normally odourless store. The study
also shows, however, that an inappropriate scent may result in undesirable responses.
 Thus, the retailer considering infusing their normally odourless store with a scent must Scent in
ensure that it is associated, and therefore appropriate. Otherwise, the retailer may be in a naturally
for a nasty surprise:
odourless store
[. . .] But ne’er the rose without the thorn (Robert Herrick, “The rose”, 1647).

References 451
Baker, J., Parasuraman, A., Grewal, D. and Voss, G.B. (2002), “The influence of multiple store
environment cues on perceived merchandise value and patronage intentions”, Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 66, April, pp. 120-41.
Bateson, J.E.G. and Hui, M.K. (1992), “The ecological validity of photographic slides and
videotapes in simulating the service setting”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 19,
Downloaded by New Mexico State University At 17:26 31 January 2016 (PT)

pp. 271-81.
Bone, P.F. and Ellen, P.S. (1999), “Scents in the marketplace: explaining a fraction of olfaction”,
Journal of Retailing, Vol. 75 No. 2, pp. 243-62.
Bone, P.F. and Jantrania, S. (1992), “Olfaction as a cue for product quality”, Marketing Letters,
Vol. 3 No. 3, pp. 289-96.
Chebat, J-C., Gelinas-Chebat, C. and Filiatrault, P. (1993), “Interactive effects of musical and
visual cues on time perception: an application to waiting lines in banks”, Perceptual and
Motor Skills, Vol. 77 No. 3, pp. 995-1021.
Chebat, J-C. and Michon, R. (2003), “Impact of ambient odors on mall shoppers’ emotions,
cognition, and spending: a test of competitive causal theories”, Journal of Business
Research, Vol. 56, pp. 529-39.
Crowley, A.E. (1993), “The tow-dimensional impact of color on shopping”, Marketing Letters,
Vol. 4, January, pp. 59-69.
Davies, B.J., Kooijman, D. and Ward, P. (2003), “The sweet smell of success: olfaction in
retailing”, Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 19, pp. 611-27.
Donovan, R.J. and Rossiter, J.R. (1982), “Store atmosphere: an environmental psychology
approach”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 58, Spring, pp. 34-57.
Donovan, R.J., Rossiter, J.R., Marcoolyn, G. and Nesdale, A. (1994), “Store atmosphere and
purchasing behaviour”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 70 No. 3, pp. 283-94.
Ellen, P.S. and Bone, P.F. (1998), “Does it matter if it smells? Olfactory stimuli as advertising
executional cues”, Journal of Advertising, Vol. 27 No. 4, pp. 29-39.
Eroglu, S.A. and Machleit, K.A. (2008), “Theory in consumer environment research”,
in Haugtvedt, C.P., Herr, P.M. and Kardes, F.R. (Eds), Handbook of Consumer
Psychology, Taylor and Francis Group, New York, NY.
Fiore, A.M. and Kim, J. (2007), “An integrative framework capturing experiential and utilitarian
shopping experience”, International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, Vol. 35
No. 6, pp. 421-42.
Fisher, J.D. (1974), “Situation-specific variables as determinants of perceived environmental
aesthetic quality and perceived crowdedness”, Journal of Research in Personality, Vol. 8,
pp. 177-88.
Gulas, C.S. and Bloch, P.H. (1995), “Right under our noses: ambient scent and consumer
responses”, Journal of Business and Psychology, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 87-98.
McDonnell, J. (2007), “Music, scent and time preferences for waiting lines”, International Journal
of Bank Marketing, Vol. 25 No. 4, pp. 223-37.
 IJRDM Machleit, K.A. and Mantel, S.P. (2001), “Emotional response and shopping satisfaction: moderating
effects of shopper attributions”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 54, pp. 97-106.
37,5 Mattila, A.S. and Wirtz, J. (2001), “Congruency of scent and music as a driver of in-store
evaluations and behaviour”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 77, pp. 273-89.
Mattila, A.S. and Wirtz, J. (2006), “Arousal expectations and service evaluations”, International
Journal of Service Industry Management, Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 229-44.
452 Mehrabian, A. and Russell, J.A. (1974), An Approach to Environmental Psychology, MIT Press,
Cambridge, MA.
Mitchell, D.J., Kahn, B.E. and Knasko, S.C. (1995), “There’s something in the air: effects of
congruent or incongruent ambient odor on consumer decision making”, Journal of
Consumer Research, Vol. 22, September, pp. 229-38.
Morrin, M. and Ratneshwar, S. (2000), “The impact of ambient scent on evaluation, attention, and
Downloaded by New Mexico State University At 17:26 31 January 2016 (PT)

memory for familiar and unfamiliar brands”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 49, pp. 157-65.
Orth, U.R. and Bourrain, A. (2005), “Ambient scent and consumer exploratory behaviour: a causal
analysis”, Journal of Wine Research, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 137-50.
Parsons, A.G. (2004), “The influence of in-store, experience mediated, non-utilitarian sensory
stimuli on shopper affect and shopper behaviour”, unpublished PhD thesis, University of
Auckland, Auckland.
Richardson, J.T.E. and Zucco, G.M. (1989), “Cognition and olfaction: a review”, Psychological
Bulletin, Vol. 105 No. 3, pp. 352-60.
Schifferstein, H.N.J. and Blok, S.T. (2002), “The signal function of thematically (in)congruent
ambient scents in a retail environment”, Chemical Senses, Vol. 27 No. 6, pp. 539-49.
Spangenberg, E.R., Crowley, A.E. and Henderson, P.W. (1996), “Improving the store
environment: do olfactory cues affect evaluations and behaviours?”, Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 60, April, pp. 67-80.
Spangenberg, E.R., Sprott, D.E., Grohmann, B. and Tracy, D.L. (2006), “Gender-congruent
ambient scent influences on approach and avoidance behaviours in a retail store”, Journal
of Business Research, Vol. 59, pp. 1281-7.
Sweeney, J.C. and Wyber, F. (2002), “The role of cognitions and emotions in the
music-approach-avoidance behaviour relationship”, Journal of Services Marketing,
Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 51-69.
Turley, L.W. and Milliman, R.E. (2000), “Atmospheric effects on shopping behaviour: a review of
the experimental evidence”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 49 No. 2, pp. 193-211.
Voss, G.B., Parasuraman, A. and Grewal, D. (1998), “The roles of price, performance, and
expectations in determining satisfaction in service exchanges”, Journal of Marketing,
Vol. 62, October, pp. 46-61.
Ward, J.C., Bitner, M.J. and Barnes, J. (1992), “Measuring the prototypicality and meaning of retail
environments”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 68 No. 2, pp. 194-220.
Wirtz, J., Mattila, A.S. and Tan, R.L.P. (2007), “The role of arousal congruency in influencing
consumer’s satisfaction evaluations and in-store behaviours”, International Journal of
Service Industry Management, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 6-24.

Corresponding author
Andrew G. Parsons can be contacted at: [email protected]

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

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
 This article has been cited by:

1. Charles Spence. 2015. Leading the consumer by the nose: on the commercialization of olfactory design
for the food and beverage sector. Flavour 4. . [CrossRef]
2. Charles Spence, Nancy M. Puccinelli, Dhruv Grewal, Anne L. Roggeveen. 2014. Store Atmospherics: A
Multisensory Perspective. Psychology & Marketing 31:10.1002/mar.2014.31.issue-7, 472-488. [CrossRef]
3. Kemal Yildirim, Nur Ayalp, Gozen Guner Aktas, M. Lutfi Hidayetoglu. 2014. Consumer perceptions and
functional evaluations of cash desk types in the clothing retail context. International Journal of Retail &
Distribution Management 42:6, 542-552. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
4. Arpita Khare, Dhiren Achtani, Manish Khattar. 2014. Influence of price perception and shopping motives
on Indian consumers' attitude towards retailer promotions in malls. Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and
Logistics 26:2, 272-295. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
5. Tina Poon, Bianca Grohmann. 2014. Spatial density and ambient scent: effects on consumer anxiety.
Downloaded by New Mexico State University At 17:26 31 January 2016 (PT)

American Journal of Business 29:1, 76-94. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

6. Michela Mari, Sara Poggesi. 2013. Servicescape cues and customer behavior: a systematic literature review
and research agenda. The Service Industries Journal 33, 171-199. [CrossRef]
7. Daniel Wade Clarke, Patsy Perry, Hayley Denson. 2012. The sensory retail environment of small
fashion boutiques. Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management: An International Journal 16:4, 492-510.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
8. Bertil Hultén. 2012. Sensory cues and shoppers' touching behaviour: the case of IKEA. International
Journal of Retail & Distribution Management 40:4, 273-289. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
9. 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]
10. Paul W. Ballantine, Richard Jack, Andrew G. Parsons. 2010. Atmospheric cues and their effect on the
hedonic retail experience. International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management 38:8, 641-653.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]