Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

A LEVEL PSYHCOLOGY > CP - CH 2 - The Physiological Environment > Flashcards

CP - CH 2 - The Physiological Environment Flashcards

1
Q

Define wayfinding

A

The ability to know where we are and plan a route to where we are going.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

Weisman (1981) - 4 groups of environmental variables for wayfinding

A
  • visual cues/landmarks
  • architectural differences within the building
  • use of signs
  • building configuration/layout
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

Dogu and Erkip 2000 Wayfinding - Design

A

aim - investigate hoe spatial factors could aid wayfinding

  • case study in a shopping mall in Ankara, Turkey
  • spatial layout analyzed
  • shopper given questionnaires on views on wayfinding
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

Dogu and Erkip Wayfinding - Features of the mall

A
  • central atrium
  • most shops lead off of main corridor
  • layout is symmetrical
  • 4 entrances and 3 floors
  • circular corridors on each level
  • elevators and escalators connect the three floors
  • pictographs mainly used - beside wc and exit
  • door number out of order
  • you are here and directory are easy to access but not visible
  • bureaucratic structure makes directory confusing
  • info desk in center of atrium
  • security guards are helpful
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

Dogu and Erkip 2000 Wayfinding - Results

A
  • although signage was not rated as more important than building configuration there was a strong relationship between evaluation of wayfinding and signage system
  • most found you are here maps to be very useful
  • 47% didn’t believe there were any (not visible or accessible)
  • slight relationship between door numbers and wayfinding
  • none of the architectural elements were significant for wayfinding
  • signage was determined as most important feature
  • building configuration, circular paths, and visual access affected individuals differently
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

Gil et al 2009 - Spatial movement patterns - Design

A
  • Examined patterns of shopper movements and behavior in a supermarket
  • Tracked 480 shopper and interviewed after to produce shopper profiles
  • Nonexperimental as no variables were manipulated
  • Wanted to find out whether store layout impacts shopper behavior, movement patterns, shopping duration, and interaction with products
  • Participants were first approached to take part in a survey. Basic info such as age, gender, and size of group was recorded.
  • CCTV was used to track shoppers. They were identified with colored tags.
  • Given a detailed interview after leaving the store. Asked them
  • purpose of their trip
  • use of a shopping list
  • satisfaction
  • amount of money spent
  • general habits such as frequency of shopping trips
  • CCTV extracted data on store areas visited, time spent on each area, and type of product interactions.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

Gil et al 2009 - Spatial movement patterns - General Results

A
  • shopper behavior is strongly affected by location of products within a store
  • Some areas more popular than others. Milk, fruit, vegetables, and bread busiest. Nonfood and baby items least busy.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

Gil et al 2009 - Spatial movement patterns - Results - Store movement patterns

A

Short trip - In and out, few targeted items, not necessarily visiting most popular items (32 shoppers)

Round trip - Most common. Moving up and along top corridor then returning along the main corridor with detours into various aisles. (173 shoppers)

Central trip - Using main corridor to enter and exit. Moving down various aisled, top first, and then bottom on the way back. (110 shoppers)

Wave trip - linear progression through main corridor. Zigzagging through aisles. Exit near far end of the store. (166 shoppers)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Gil et al 2009 - Spatial movement patterns - Specialist behavior type

A
  • Focused on a few products. Spent a lot of time on those products. Doesn’t always result in purchase.
  • top up/non food mission
  • 19 shoppers, 25% male, 58% use baskets, 85% shop for less than 20 minutes
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

Gil et al 2009 - Spatial movement patterns - Native behavior type

A
  • Long trip. Visit several aisles. Interaction leads to purchase.
  • main/ top up mission
  • 161 shoppers, 98% use a trolley
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

Gil et al 2009 - Spatial movement patterns - Tourist behavior type

A
  • Fast moving. Tend to stay near main entrance and in the main corridor.
  • They look more than buy and are on a non food mission.
  • 101 shoppers, 80% have short and medium trips. 35% are of mature profile. Only 28% are satisfied with their experience.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Gil et al 2009 - Spatial movement patterns - Explorer behavior type

A
  • Longest trip. Visit all aisles, often more than once.
  • Spend a lot and buy a lot. Main mission.
  • 67 shoppers. 62% female shoppers. 87% take a trolley. 43% have a shopping list. (Highest of all categories)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Gil et al 2009 - Spatial movement patterns - Raider behavior type

A
  • Involve fast movements and fast decisions. Show preference for main corridors but go where necessary.
  • Highest proportion of male shoppers. Top up/Food for tonight mission.
  • 113 shoppers, 33% male, 100% walking at medium or fast speed.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

Dogu and Erkip - evaluation

A
  • case study = detailed information
  • results not generalizable
  • low reliability as it is hard to replicate
  • case study plus questionnaire = holistic approach
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

Gil et al - evaluation

A

multiple methods of data collection increases validity

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

What are the key items in menu design?

A
  • biggest profit margin
  • signature dish
  • dishes that are quick and easy to prepare
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

What is the average time spent looking at a menu? (Pavesic 2005)

A

109 seconds

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

What is eye tracking? (Pavesic 2005)

A
  • The way customers look at items, helps determine placement.
  • Not fixed, can be changed using eye magnets
  • Eye magnets can be boxes, colored backgrounds, bold fonts, and photo
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

Define framing. (Pavesic 2005)

A

Method of drawing customers attention to a certain part of the menu by grouping items together. Similar items being placed together encourages them to be read as one unit.

20
Q

Negative features of menu design. (Pavesic 2005)

A
  • not investing time/underestimating impact of menu
  • hard to read/crowded
  • overemphasis on price
  • poor use of space/ not putting imp details on the front
  • incongruence/ doesn’t match
21
Q

Define primacy and recency effect

A

An effect that shows when recalling a list, items in the beginning are remembered more easily than items in the middle

22
Q

Dayan and Bar Hillel 2011 - Aim

A

Manipulated positions of items on a menu to increase or decrease frequency of choice. Predicted that items at beginning or end were more likely to be ordered

23
Q

Dayan and Bar Hillel 2011 - Design Study 1

A
  • 240 students randomly allocated in 4 conditions
  • all menus had same items ( 4 app, 10 entrees, 6 drinks, 8 desserts)
  • name and description copied from Israeli pizza chain, all items in Hebrew

4 menus
- baseline in no particular order
- mirror, complete reverse of baseline
- inside out baseline
- inside out mirror

  • participants had to choose one item from each category
24
Q

Dayan and Bar Hillel 2011 - Results Study 1

A
  • items at beginning and end had 56% advantage
  • no sig diff between primacy and recency effect
  • redid study as this was a hypothetical situation
25
Q

Dayan and Bar Hillel 2011 - Design Study 2

A
  • coffee shop in the center of Tel Aviv
  • over the period of 30 days
  • 60 items (coffee, soft drinks, desserts)
  • used baseline (existing cafe menu) and inside out
  • staff recorded orders
  • orders made without reference to the menus was excluded
26
Q

Dayan and Bar Hillel 2011 - Results Study 2

A
  • Mean advantage 55%
  • confirmed results of study 1
  • 55% = exact middle to extreme end
  • 51% = near middle to near end
  • suggested 59% advantage of being in the top half - did not use mirror condition
27
Q

Dayan and Bar Hillel 2011 - Conclusions

A
  • placing at beginning and end increase ordering frequency
  • can encourage sales of higher profit items
  • practical – promote healthier eating in customers
28
Q

Lockyer 2006 - Design

A
  • focus groups and survey
  • investigate – item name influence on purchase
  • 4 focus made up of 48 participants (mixed gender, age, and income)
  • They responded to a letter asking them to participate in research (self selecting)
  • survey used to validate focus group findings
  • 200 usable responses out of 18000 (New Zealand) - mix of gender, age, and income
29
Q

Lockyer 2006 - Procedure

A

Focus group presented with 5 different types of menus.

Same dishes described in different ways.

  • French style, English with French, Seasonal, Elaborate, Organic
  • Participants were asked to rate the menus on a scale of 1(most appealing) to 5 (very unappealing)
  • Asked for the reasons and used them in a group discussion
  • content analysis was carried out

-survey asked to choose menus for a specific occasion

30
Q

Lockyer 2006 - Results - Focus group

A
  • Results were mixed but there was no statistical difference based on age, income, or gender.
  • 42% rated the French menu very unappealing
  • 42% rated seasonal menu as most appealing
  • 27% rated organic menu as very appealing
  • 22% rated organic menu very unappealing
  • trends, organic, and season
  • pure, natural, products

highlight the importance of following current toward customer preferences of organic food

  • produce, actually expect
  • understand, language, and clear

important to customers that the language was clear and describe the dish accurately

31
Q

Lockyer 2006 - Results - Survey

A
  • elaborate style was most selected for all occasions
  • meal with mother in law - organic menu top choice
  • meal with business clients - seasonal menu was top choice

Reasons for choice from each menu

French - feels romantic and sounds sophisticated

French and English - sounds delicious and appears to have the nicest flavor

Seasonal - Not fussy and tells you what you get

Elaborate - Mouth watering and chicken sounds tender

Organic - Tells you what you are eating

32
Q

Dayan and Bar Hillel 2011 - Evaluation

A
  • lab experiment = high control = high reliability and validity
  • repeated the study to create ecological validity - proved that results are generalizable
33
Q

What are Hall’s 4 zones of personal distance?

A

intimate distance - less than 18 inches (touching or whispering) - close or even romantic connections

personal distance - 18 inches to 4 ft - interactions between good friends and family

social distance - 4 - 12 ft - interactions with acquaintances

public distance - 12 ft or more - public speaking or formal interactions

34
Q

Explain the effects of invasion of personal space

A

overload - personal space is used to reduce and maintain control over. being too close to others means processing more information and losing control

arousal - sitting close to others can cause heightened sense arousal. it can be positive like a concert or negative like being too close to a stranger

behavior constraint - lack of personal space can cause increase in aggression of crowds and decrease in pro social behavior

35
Q

Robson et al 2011 - Personal Space - Context

A
  • there are significant individual differences in how much personal space people require
  • men and older people typically require more space than women and younger people
  • lack of personal space can lead to discomfort and avoidance behaviors
  • large groups require more space per person than small groups
  • more personal space is required in the front and back as compared to sides
36
Q

Robson et al 2011 - Personal Space - Main theories

A
  • financial pov - more tables = mor customers = more money
  • less personal space = less time spent = less money spent and less likely to recommend
  • this study looks at space between tables rather than space between chair like previous study
37
Q

Robson et al 2011 - Personal Space - Aim

A

Aim to find out how diners perceive specific table distances during particular dining experiences, and the impact that those perception have on attitudes and preferences. Wanted to give guidance on spacing to restaurant industry.

38
Q

Robson et al 2011 - Personal Space - Results

A

A web-based questionnaire was used to gather diner responses to images of tables at different distances.

IV -
- table spacing (6,12,24 inches)
- scenario (business. friend, or romantic)

DV-
- measure of emotional and behavioral responses measured by Likert scales

  • Participants were randomly allocated to one of the 9 scenarios/combinations
  • same images and statements were used for all participants to control any extraneous variables
  • sample was just over 1000 people (mix of different gender, residences, ages, and ethnicities)
  • used volunteer sampling
39
Q

Robson et al 2011 - Personal Space - Procedure

A
  • first part of questionnaire asked about gender, race, ethnicity, place of residence, restaurant use frequency, and whether they had worked in the restaurant industry
  • second part measure emotional, intentional, and anticipated behavioral reactions to the images
  • Likert scales (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree) were used on a series of 32 statements about their emotional and behavioral responses
  • statements relating to emotional responses were derived from the Stress Arousal Check List
  • statements regarding behavioral responses included question about the constructs of perceived control, physical and sensory privacy, goal blocking, general comfort, and perceived crowding
40
Q

What is SACL?

A

Stress arousal checklist is an instrument that accurately reflects a respondent’s stress and arousal and clearly differentiates between the two.

41
Q

Robson et al 2011 - Personal Space -Results

A

Close table spacing
- less privacy
- more crowded
- less satisfied
- less positive experience
- concerned about being overheard by or disturbing others
- arousal score didn’t vary significantly
- stress levels were higher for 6 inches
- feelings of comfort and control were lower

  • scenario had increased impact on dining satisfaction
  • romantic scenarios had higher discomfort, higher stress and less control in close tables
  • business scenarios weren’t affected besides decrease in comfort
  • dining with a friend caused moderate stress and discomfort in tight spaces
  • in general women showed more stress, more discomfort, and less control than men
  • men showed greater arousal in all conditions
  • frequent diners showed more comfort across all table spacing than less frequent diners
  • diners feel strongly negative towards 6in gap tables
  • 70% diners would ask to be reseated if they were seated that closely
  • 12in was also less desirable than further distanced tables especially for those imagining a romantic situation
42
Q

Robson et al 2011 - Personal Space - Evaluation

A
  • large and varied sample = representative and results can be generalized
  • all participants from use and may not appl to other cultures
  • the Likert scale is beneficial as it collects quantitative data
  • relies on subjective interpretation of the data
  • can be applied to real life situations
43
Q

Milgrim et al - Queuing - Design

A
  • field experiment
  • range of settings in NYC (ex, train station)
  • A confederate would approach the point between the third and fourth person. they would say “Excuse me. I would like to get in here”. They would enter without waiting for a response. If they were asked to leave they would leave. Otherwise, they would stand for a minute and then leave. An observer stood nearby to record and physical, verbal, or non verbal reactions to the intrusion.
  • total of 129 intrusions were observed
  • number of intruders was also varied
  • buffers were used to see if responsibility for objecting would be displaced from person directly at point of intrusion to others

IV (6 conditions)
- number of intruders (one or two)
- number of buffers (zero, one, or two)

44
Q

Milgrim et al - Queuing - Results

A
  • queuers behind the intruder were far more likely to object than queuers in front of the intruder
  • two intruders provoked a far more intense reaction
  • buffers significantly dampened the response to intrusion
  • verbal objections from polite to hostile were most common (21.7%)
  • physical action (tapping or shoving) 10% - from person immediately behind
  • non verbal looks and gestures - 14.7%
  • a queue is a social structure that most people abide by - not abiding by the structure causes frustration
  • the queue does not act as a whole
45
Q

Milgrim et al - Queueing - Evaluation

A
  • covert observation helps record natural behavior
  • ethical issue lack of informed consent
  • observation better than self report due to elimination of social desirability bias
  • observation is subjective and some things may be missed
  • observer bias - things may be interpreted in a way that supports the hypothesis this lowers reliability
  • only 1 observer = low interobserver reliability
  • subject to cultural differences

A LEVEL PSYHCOLOGY (5 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions