physical environment

Question 1

what is wayfinding

Answer 1

Wayfinding (or finding your way) is part of daily life, such as moving from where you sleep to where you eat or navigating from shop to shop in a mall.

Shoppers typically feel more comfortable when they have an approximate understanding of their location relative to familiar stores or restaurants and when they know where to find the nearest exit, restroom/toilet, food and drink area and so on.

Question 2

what is sinage

Answer 2

Signage using pictograms (to overcome language barriers) helps shoppers to navigate their way around the shopping
environment and may convey other important information.

Question 3

what is legibility

Answer 3

When people enter a new or familiar a space, indoors or outdoors, they use their
information-processing abilities to take ni environmental information, understand and use it.

meaning a space which ‘facilitates obtaining and understanding of environmental information’

Question 4

Environmental features that influence wayfinding ?

Answer 4

Visible cues : Access to visible, familiar cues
or landmarks within or outside a building.

Architectural design: Architectural differentiation between
different areas of a building that aid orientation and spatial recall.
Creating a sense of identity/character for different zones wil help shoppers
to break the mal down into smaller chunks, making ti easier ot recall.

Signage: Using signs and room numbers for identification or directional
information.

Building layout: The building configuration can
influence how easy it is to understand the overall plan of the building. Awell-organised, simple floor plan wilhelp shoppers move easily around theshopping environment.

Question 5

dou and erkip aim

Answer 5

This study aimed to investigate the effect of spatial factors on wayfinding and orientation in a shopping mall in Turkey.

Question 6

methodology of dogu and erkip

Answer 6

Questionnaires were given to 155 adult shoppers at
Karum, a mall in Ankara, Turkey. The data collection took place on weekends when the mall was busy. Karum has a
fountain at the main entrance, which leads shoppers to a central atrium (a skylighted area where the main elevator
(lift) delivers shoppers to the three floors of stores. Signs use pictograms except the words WC’ (toilet) and
‘Exit’ and shops are numbered, although the system is
described as ‘confusing’. “You Are Here’ (YAH) maps are located on all three floors. These maps have an arrow
placed at the location of the map within the mall to help

shoppers orient themselves. The YAH maps at Karum were not very noticeable and the accompanying directory of stores was poorly organised.
The questionnaires included closed multiple choice and included items about familiarity and perception of the
setting le.g. legibility, including usefulness of the ‘You Are Here’ maps) and wayfinding strategies, including
self-confidence regarding ability to give directions to a stranger. Shoppers were asked to point in the direction of a randomly chosen store.

Question 7

results for dugu and erkip

Answer 7

Shoppers did not find signage more helpful than building configuration for wayfinding and orientation,

those
who found the signs sufficient were more likely to say they found wayfinding easy

Sixty per cent
said the signs were insufficient and 68 per cent found
the
YAH maps insufficient.

47 per cent claimed there were no
such maps at Karum, showing the maps were not well positioned.

there was no gender difference in the accuracy of the pointing task; both males and females showed around
63 per cent accuracy. However, more males than females made close guesses

Question 8

what is space syntax

Answer 8

Space syntax research models and analyses the relationship between spatial design and social, organisational and economic performance.

Question 9

gil et al aim

Answer 9

Gil et al. (2009) aimed ot investigate the extent to which spatial configuration impacts movement around the store, duration of store visit and interaction with other shoppers and staff. They were also interested to reveal whether certain
groups of shoppers showed distinctive movement patterns.

Question 10

methodology for gil et al

Answer 10

Data
was gathered using interviews and
naturalistic observations of shoppers at a supermarket. The
researchers also created a detailed plan of the shop
floor, which identified the location of different products. An opportunity sample of more than 480 shoppers was
recruited at the store. The shoppers were asked for
basic details including age, gender, group size, carrier type and clothing. Coloured tabs were provided so
that the shoppers could be identified when exiting the store. As the shoppers moved around the store, their
movements were tracked by
the CCTV camera operators. On leaving the supermarket, the shoppers were
interviewed about their spending, whether they used a
list and other shopping habits. Using the CCTV footage,
the researchers were able to record many dependent
variables, including time spent in each location, total
duration of visit, average walking speed, duration of interaction with products, the percentage of the store
sections visited more than once and the percentage of the store they visited.

Question 11

what were the results of gil et al

Answer 11

Analysis of the shop floor plan revealed that the central aisle was the most accessible space in the store,
followed by the two parallel aisles, while the non-food aisles (e.g. CDs, DVDs, books, etc.) were the most segregated spaces. Although spatial layout was linked to
movement needs, shopper behaviour was mainly based on product location. Milk, bread, fruit and vegetable sections had the greatest level of shopper interaction, whereas baby products and non-food products were interacted with least. There was a correlation between spatial accessibility and movement patterns but
not between accessibility and product interactions. The researchers identified four different types of
supermarket visit (short, round, central and wave; see Table 7.71 and five distinct types
of shopper (specialist,
native, tourist, explorer and raider; see Table 7.8). There were wide individual differences in terms of the
demographics of the shopper in each type/category. although raiders were more likely to be male and lone females were more likely to be explorers.

Question 12

what is a silent sales person

Answer 12

Pavesic describes a restaurant’s menu as a silent
salesperson. The menu is one of the first things customers see outside or inside the restaurant. This is
why menus are such an important marketing tool. Awell- designed menu can create a positive mindset, educate and even entertain, as well as increase the average spend per
diner. They may also increase customer loyalty, meaning diners are more likely to return and recommend the
restaurant or café to others.

Question 13

how is a menu a restraunts busniess card

Answer 13

Pavesic also calls
the menu the restaurant’s business card, stating that colour and style should be congruent with the decor
and price range
of
the dishes. Like business cards, customers often take print menus home as souvenirs or
reminders
of their visit. As such, an attractive and well- organised menu may also be an important advertisement
for
the restaurant. The main message of this article is that the time, effort and money spent on the restaurant decor should be matched by that spent on the menu
design. Asimple overhaul of the layout and design can cheaply and rapidly increase profits and bring greater
customer loyalty. Pavesic provides a useful checklist of common menu mistakes (see Table 7.9),
all of which could have a negative impact on the restaurant’s
success.

Question 14

what are common menu design mistakes

Answer 14

Common mistakes
Inadequate management commitment
Hard to read
Overemphasised prices Monotonous design
Poor salesmanship Poor use of space
Incongruent
To big

Explanation
- Not treating the design of the menu as important, not being involved with it, not realising the impact on sales.
- Not checking font size, crowding and background colour so the print fails to stand out clearly and items may not be seen.
- Putting prices in a column so people reading will choose a dish based on price, possibly ignoring more costly items.
- Not varying the graphic design to make certain items stand out, not making the menu look interesting.
- Not emphasising ni a visual way the items you most want to sell so they may be overlooked.
- Not using part of the menu, such as the back, ot identify the restaurant, address and contact details, as some guests wil take the menu away. Menus can eb your business cards.
- Failing to match the menu design to the restaurant, communicating alack of care about the business.
- This can make the menu difficult to hold, flap around or get ni the way.

Question 15

what are the organisation and sequencing of menu designs ?

Answer 15

Pavesic refers to the use of ‘eye
magnets’, graphic techniques which attract the diners’ eyes to specific areas of the menu. Careful use of boxes,
borders, different colours, interesting fonts, shadows and arrows, for example, help organise the menu items, speeding up the processing time needed to make a selection. Items which are gluten-free or suitable for vegans can be signposted with a graphic/icon. Anything that decreases time spent looking at the menu helps
to increase revenue as it means customers receive, consume and pay for their orders more quickly, leaving tables free for further diners.

Question 16

what is lightening the cognitive load in menu design?

Answer 16

One reason organisation is so important is that Pavesic
suggests diners spend an average of 109 seconds before choosing their meal, suggesting that fi menus are too
long and complicated, diners simply won’t process all of the information. Pavesic notes that 60-70 per cent of
menu choices come from the same 18-24 dishes; limiting
the number of options to this number will cut the cost of ingredients for dishes that are rarely ordered. Therefore, shorter menus make sense economically as well as
psychologically, as they are easier to process and less overwhelming.

Question 17

what is eyetracking in menu design ?

Answer 17

Eye-tracking si commonly used by Consumer Psychology researchers as an objective measure of visual attention. Trackers often use pupil centre corneal reflection (PCCR), whereby the exact location of a person’s gaze can be detected and monitored by projecting an invisible beam of light into the eye and tracking the direction of the reflection using a camera.
Eye-trackers can be fitted into glasses so that they are wearable, meaning that eye-tracking studies can be conducted both in the laboratory and also in more naturalistic settings, such as supermarkets or restaurants.

Eye-trackers can also be used to create gaze motion plots or maps to show how the eyes move around or scan a
document such as a menu

Question 18

what is the primacy and recency effect

Answer 18

Cognitive psychologists have long known that people tend to remember items from the beginning and the end of a list more than they remember the items from the middle

restaurateurs would be wel advised to place their most profitable, cost-effective, dishes into these positions ni order to nudge diners into making choices that wil benefit the restaurant the most.

The term edge bias refers to the tendency to choose menu items in these positions; however, previous research has also suggested that, when confronted with similar items to choose between, people have
a tendency to select items from the middle, ni a phenomenon called edge avoidance

Question 19

dayan and bar hillel aim

Answer 19

This study aimed to investigate the extent to which the position of food items in a menu (e.g. top or bottom versus central] affects customer choices.

Question 20

methodolgy of dayan and bar hillel

Answer 20

Two studies were conducted. The first was a laboratory
experiment: 240 students were randomly allocated to one
of four conditions and presented with a menu displaying
four appetisers, ten entrées, six soft drinks and eight desserts (without prices). The independent variable
was the way that the items were sequenced within each group (see Table 7.10). Participants were asked to choose
one item from each group (appetiser, entrée, soft drink, dessert).
The second study was a field experiment carried out
in a café in Tel Aviv, Israel. Participants were genuine customers who were presented with the standard menu
or an experimental menu where three of the categories
of items (coffees, soft drinks and desserts) had been manipulated so that edge items were now in the middle and vice versa. Each menu was trialled for 15 days and the
café staff recorded the number of times the target items were purchased (the dependent variable).

Question 21

resultsfor bar hillel

Answer 21

The initial laboratory experiment revealed that all but four
of the menu items were chosen significantly more often when they were presented at either end of the list (first or
last) compared with the middle. The increased popularity of the items at the edge of the list extended to second and penultimate items, which were as popular as first and last items.
As with the laboratory study, the findings from the field experiment also supported an edge bias not a middle bias, with the majority of items being chosen more often when positioned at the extremes versus the middle of each list. For example, croissant was chosen 18 times when it was first in a list of ten items but only nine times when it was in fifth position.

Question 22

what did lockyer investigate?

Answer 22

study explores how menu engineering through the manipulation of food descriptions impacts consumers’ attitudes and likelihood of choosing certain dishes The qualitative data that was gathered was analysed using content
analysis, a technique that can be conducted manually by the researcher or digitally, as was the case in this study. Computer software was used to detect patterns in the words used by participants to communicate their ideas, grouping them into categories in a technique
known as cluster analysis.

Question 23

what was the aim of lockyer

Answer 23

Lockyer (2006) aimed to investigate how the choice of wording on a restaurant menu affects the selection of menu items.

Question 24

methodology of lockyer

Answer 24

Letters were
sent to random addresses in Hamilton, New Zealand, offering book vouchers and refreshments for
participation in a focus group. Forty-eight participants replied (72 per cent female) and were divided into four
groups. The groups discussed five versions of a menu
offering the same dishes but with different descriptions (see Table 7.11). Before the discussion, participants were asked
to indicate how appealing they found each menu, from :1 most appealing, to 5: very unappealing. They were
then asked to write why they had rated the menus in this way on a big sheet of paper
which was used as a focus for
the discussion. Demographic details were also gathered using a questionnaire and all data was anonymous.
Following the focus groups, the researchers used the information gathered to create a survey to test the validity
of the initial findings. The surveys included open and closed questions, including Likert-type rating scales.
Approximately 1800 surveys were distributed to randomly selected homes in Hamilton and there were 200 usable
r e s p o n s e s .

Question 25

results for lockyer

Answer 25

the majority of the participants favoured the seasonal menu (42 per cent), whereas
the French menu was favoured by just one person.
The French menu was in fact the least favourite (very
unappealing) for the majority; likewise, only 2 per cent rated the seasonal menu as very unappealing. presents a selection of key words that were identified in the cluster analysis of the transcripts. Overall, the participants agreed on the importance of explanations
as long as they are simple, precise and appealing, and
that dishes that are mouth-watering and sound fresh and natural are preferred.

Question 26

context of robson et al

Answer 26

customers felt being closely packed together reduced satisfaction
with their dining experience (Smithers, 2010) and this dissatisfaction may translate into
avoidance behaviours, such as leaving earlier than anticipated. This can lead to decreased spending and less likelihood of returning and/or recommending the venue to others.
Dissatisfaction associated with tightly packed tables may result from invasion of diners’ personal space and reduced privacy. Individual, situational and cultural differences affect
the amount of personal space individuals require

Question 27

what are the facts that affect personal space

Answer 27

Situational:

Familiarity with others ni the group
Size
of party
Balance of social status/power
Overall size of the environment

Individual

Age Gender
Cultural differences
Experience of reduced personal space

Question 28

aim for robson et al

Answer 28

This study aimed to determine how much space between tables is seen as ‘adequate in different dining scenarios, such as dining with a friend versus a business colleague. Specifically, Robson et al. examined whether tight table
spacing influences guest attitudes and preferences (2011, page 411) and whether this is influenced by cultural
differences.

Question 29

methodolgy of robsone t al

Answer 29

This study was an experiment as there were two independent variables that were manipulated by the
experimenters: firstly, the distance between restaurant
tables and, secondly, who they were dining with. Participants were randomly allocated to one of the
nine groups in this independent measures design. The dependent variables were the participants’ emotional, intentional and anticipated behavioural reactions to the
various scenarios. The data was gathered using a two- part, web-based questionnaire.

Question 30

sample for robson et al

Answer 30

A link to a web-based survey was shared with a diverse national sample via a professional sampling company.
There were 1013 American respondents: 81 per cent identified as white, with the remainder identifying as
either black (7 per cent), Hispanic: any race (4 per cent), Asian (3 per cent) or other (4 per cent); 53 per cent
identified as female and 45 per cent as male. Ages ranged from less than 21 (6.1 per cent) to over 50(39 per cent).
The majority lived in suburban areas and dined out once or twice a month.

Question 31

procedure of rosbosn et al

Answer 31

Participants provided demographic details in the first part
of the internet questionnaire (see above). The next section
started with an image of restaurant tables placed either
6 or 12 inches (15 or 30 cm) apart (corresponding to Hall’s
intimate zone) or 24 inches (60 cm) apart (Hall’s personal zone] (see page 417 for more on Hall’s zones of personal
space). Robson et al. chose these distances having studied the floor plans of new restaurants featured in hospitality industry magazines (see Table 7.15).
Before completing the questionnaire, respondents were told whether they should answer as though they were having dinner with a business colleague, friend or romantic partner, each of whom would be
associated with different levels of stress/arousal. Next,
participants completed 32 seven-point rating scales,
where 1= strongly disagree and 7= strongly agree (see Table 7.16 for example items). Robson et al. constructed
the questionnaire using 12 items to measure emotional responses from the Stress Arousal Check List (SACL)
and 16 items to measure perceived control, privacy and comfort.

Question 32

results for robson et al

Answer 32

Table spacing
Participants consistently reported that they felt more uncomfortable and dissatisfied when tables were 6
inches apart compared with 12 inches and 24 inches;
the less distance between the tables, the more they reported feeling crowded and that they had less privacy.
Respondents in the 6 inches group also reported worries about being overheard and/or disrupting other diners and reported higher stress scores. The majority of
Individual differences
respondents in this group (70 per cent) agreed that they would ask to be reseated fi possible.
In the 12 inches group, most respondents still reported negative feelings. However, this was the distance where respondents reported feeling most in control compared with 6 or 24 inches. Although respondents in the 24 inches
group reported the least negativity, 35 per cent reported that they would still feel crowded and uncomfortable even
at this greater distance

Question 33

what are the inidivudal differnces that affect thoughts abouyt personal spacing

Answer 33

Factor Age
Gender
Ethnicity
Frequency of restaurant visits
Area where respondent currently lives

No consistent outcomes regarding emotional and behavioural responses, except younger respondents felt:
- more stressed at 24 inches than older respondents
- more positive, comfortable and ni control at 6 inches than respondents aged over 35.
*
Male participants were more aroused and comfortable than women with the increased proximity with fellow diners.
*
Female participants were more stressed and felt less ni control with increased proximity ni
comparison with males.
*
Little impact on diners’ reported stress or arousal levels.
* *
Asian participants were more comfortable and ni control at both increased proximity (6 inches) and decreased proximity (24 inches) than other groups.
Hispanic participants expressed greater control and comfort at 12 inches than other groups, who still found this interpersonal distance to be too close.
Frequent diners were more comfortable with al table spacing distances than less frequent visitors.
*
No difference between respondents from urban versus rural areas in terms of stress, control or comfort.
*
People from urban areas experienced greater arousal at all table distances than people from less densely populated areas.

Question 34

what are the situational factors that affect thoufhts on table spacing

Answer 34

Situational differences
Closely spaced tables in the date scenario (dinner with a romantic partner led to more stress and discomfort
being reported. Closer table spacing for dining with a

friend led to moderate levels of discomfort and stress in
comparison with a romantic partner. Close table spacing
had little impact in a business scenario, although comfort was rated as lower.

Question 35

what is personal space

Answer 35

When our personal space is invaded by other individuals coming too close to us, we feel uncomfortable and experience increased arousal and negative emotions. We may respond by attempting to move away from them to maintain our ‘personal space’.

Question 36

Individual differences and personal space

Answer 36

The size of our personal space bubble varies depending on both individual factors and situational factors. Individual factors include gender, age, culture and examples of
neurodiversity, such as autism and traumatic brain
injury (TBI), which may also affect personal space requirements. The size of the personal space bubble is also smaller at
the sides and larger at the front and behind us, meaning we may be more comfortable with someone sitting close to us on the bus but not if they are sitting right in front of us, not least because eye contact may also be uncomfortable at this angle.

Question 37

Sociocultural context and situational factors

Answer 37

Social context can also affect who we allow to enter our personal space. For example, when
we are on a crowded commuter train, we may not feel threatened by strangers stepping into our personal space, but we would feel uncomfortable fi the same person sat ‘too close’ to us ni an empty train carriage.
In the 1960s, anthropologist Edward .T Hall used the term proxemics to refer to the study of how humans use personal and public space. He identified four zones of personal space (see Figure 7.24 and Table 7.18 below) (Hall, 1966) and noted how our relationship and familiarity with others affects how close they can come before we begin to feel uncomfortable. As an anthropologist, Hall travelled widely and was particularly interested in cultural differences
ni proxemics, noting that ni many Middle Eastern cultures ti si common for people to stand much closer to one another without feeling any sense of discomfort. In fact, efforts to maintain interpersonal distances may
be seen as abnormal and hostile.
Hal divides cultures into ‘contact’ and ‘non-contact’ cultures, where the norm ni ‘contact’ cultures is for closer interpersonal distances and more touching, and in ‘non-contact’ cultures it is for greater distances and less touching between people. He also used the terms alpha personal space for objective, measurable external distances between people and beta

personal space for the individual’s subjective distance assessment.

Question 38

Arousal, overload and behavioural constraint

Answer 38

When people invade our personal space, our brains become highly active as we try to process whether the person si a threat and how we should manage the situation. This may lead to increased biological arousal as our body prepares to respond. Whether the response is positive or negative will depend on how the situation is interpreted. In situations where the desire for privacy and personal control over our surroundings is high, invasion of our personal space may lead to more negative emotions. Under these circumstances, there is the potential for sensory and cognitive overload, meaning the individual may be unable to cope with the amount and rate of environmental inputs (Milgram, 1970). This may lead the individuals to employ various forms of behavioural constraint to reduce further stimulation, such as averting eye contact, reducing social interaction and making attempts to maintain interpersonal distance.

Question 39

Defending your place in a queue

Answer 39

The concept of queuing involves waiting for a ‘turn’ ni a line or sequence - for example, to be served at a supermarket till or to buy a ticket at the cinema. Typically, people join the end of the line when they arrive, meaning that people are served ni chronological order, ‘first come, first served’. Queues are an accepted social organisation of waiting and we
benefit by being ni front of those who arrive later, and generally accepting that we lose out to those before us. In cultures where queuing si common, people expect al of the members of the queue to respect the social norms and queue-jumpers can cause indignation and trigger deensive behaviour

Question 40

how do you define a queue

Answer 40

queue, therefore, can be defined as a small-scale social system which:
» regulates the order in which people can gain access to goods or services
possesses a distinctive, usually linear, spatial form
» requires those involved to have pre-existing knowledge of this form and how it functions

Question 41

milgraim aim

Answer 41

To observe the reactions to an intruder who attempts to jump the queue in a public place. The researchers predicted
that people would be less likely to show defensive behaviour fi other members of the queues also behaved passively, apparently accepting the behaviour.

Question 42

methodology of milgram

Answer 42

This field experiment took place at railroad ticket counters, betting parlours and other locations in New
York, in the United States of America. Data was collected by observation. Confederates attempted to intrude into
129 naturally occurring queues at the point labelled 0
(see Figure 7.26) by saying, ‘Excuse me, I’d like to get in here. The independent variable was whether or not the
people at positions 1+ and +2 were also confederates or
whether they were genuine, unsuspecting participants. These additional confederates were referred to as buffers, as they stood between the next genuine participant and the intruder. They faced forward and
behaved passively, not objecting to the intrusion. Milgram et al. (1986) also manipulated the number of intruders; in
some trials, two intruders attempted to join the queue in position 0. An observer stood nearby, collecting physical, verbal and non-verbal responses, and the dependent variable was the number of times other queue members
demonstrated defensive behaviour - that is, objecting to the intruder (s).

Question 43

results for milgram

Answer 43

Objections were made in 54 per cent of queues with one intruder and no buffer and this decreased to 25 per cent
with one buffer and only 5 per cent with two buffers. The presence of a second intruder (with no buffer) increased
objections by 37 per cent; objections were made in nearly all of the queues observed (21/23). However, when there was a buffer, this figure dropped to 25 per cent, meaning the number of objections was unaffected by the number
of intruders fi there was a buffer. In the queues with two intruders and two buffers, there was a slight, unexpected increase in objections (30 per cent).