Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

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


See full index

a levels - history, psychology, literature > 🧠psychology - psychological environment studies > Flashcards

🧠psychology - psychological environment studies Flashcards

1
Q

What study identified the 4 groups of environmental variables that can help with wayfinding?

A

Weisman

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

What were the 4 groups of environmental variables Weisman found?

A
  • Visual cues
  • Architectural differences between parts
  • Use of signs and room numbers
  • Building configuration
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

Example study on the impact of spatial factors on wayfinding

A

Dogu and Erkip

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

Research method of Dogu and Erkip

A

Case study

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

Location of Dogu and Erkip

A

Karum, a shopping mall in Ankara, Turkey

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

Aim of Dogu and Erkip

A

To investigate the effect of spatial factors on wayfinding and orientation

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

Hypothesis of Dogu and Erkip

A

Signage would be more important than building configuration in helping people navigate the mall

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

Sample of Dogu and Erkip

A

155 adult shopping

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

Prodcedure of Dogu and Erkip

A

On weekends, questionnaires given to shoppers asking them about views on the shopping mall, as well as being asked to point in the direction of a randomly chosen store

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

Questionnaires of Dogu and Erkip included…

A
  • MCQs which included items about familiarity and perception of the setting
  • Legibility
  • Usefulness of YAH maps
  • Wayfinding strategies
  • Self confidence in ability to give direction to stranger
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

(non quantitative) Results of Dogu and Erkip

A
  • Shoppers didn’t find signage more helpful than building configurations for wayfinding and orientation, but there was a relationship between evaluation of mall and signage system
  • Those who found signs sufficient were more likely to find wayfinding easy
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Dogu and Erkip: % who didn’t believe there were any YAH maps

A

68%

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Dogu and Erkip: % who said YAH maps were insufficient

A

68%

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

Dogu and Erkip: % Accuracy of pointing task for both genders

A

63%

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

Describe the mall in Dogu and Erkip

A
  • Central atrium at main entrance with many shops leading off main corridor
  • Almost symmetrical
  • 3 floors
  • Consistent style for graphic information: pictographs (except WC and Exit)
  • Confusing door numbers: ground floor all in the 100s but not all in floor 2 / 3 in the 200s / 300s. Numbers not in order
  • YAH map sits parallel to direction of approach at main entrance so hard to see
  • Bureaucratic hierarchy makes directory confusing
  • Helpful info desk and security guards
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Conclusions of Dogu and Erkip

A
  • Central open space allowed high visual perception of space, improving Karum’s legibility
  • Majority of shoppers positivelt evaluated wayfinding
  • Signage most important feature: other features influence individuals differently
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

Example study on shopper movement

A

Gill et al

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

Sample of Gil et al

A

480 shoppers

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

Type of study: Gil et al

A

Non experimental, variables not manipulated

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

Aim of Gil et al

A

To identify distinctie movement patters and see if these patterns can be associated with certain shopper groups

Investigate whether store layout has an impact on shopper behaviors, specifically movement patterns, shopping duration, interaction with products

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

Procedure of Gil et al

A
  1. Shoppers approached to take part in a survey, basic information like age, gender, and size of group recorded
  2. CCTV information used to track their journey around the shop with a colored tag to identify them
  3. As they left the store, they are given a more detailed interview about the purpose of their trup their use of a shopping list satisfaction with shopping, amount of money spent
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
22
Q

Results and conclusions of Gil et al

A
  • Shopper behavior is strongly affected by location of products in store
  • Four distinct patterns of movement identified
  • Five types of spatial behavior patterns found
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
23
Q

Gil et al: What were the 4 patterns of movement identified?

A
  • Short trip: Short simple trip for a few targeted items, not necessarily visiting most popular products
  • Round trip: Moving up and along the top corridor, then returning along the main corridor with detours into various aisles
  • Central trip: Using the main corridor for entering and exiting the building and moving down various ailses, mostly the top, then the bottom on the return
  • Wave trip: Linear progression along main corridor, zigzagging through aisles, mostly exiting near far end of store
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
24
Q

Gil et al: What were the 5 types of spatial behavior patterns?

A
  • The Specialist
  • The Native
  • The Tourist
  • The Explorer
  • The Raider
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
25
Q

Gil et al: describe the Specialist

A
  • Focus on a few products, spending a lot of time with each product - not necesarilly purchasing
  • Mainly on top up or non food mission
  • 19
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
26
Q

Gil et al: Describe the Native

A
  • Long trip visiting relevant aisles, interactions most likely to lead to purchases
  • Mainly on main or top up mission
  • Most use trolley
  • 161
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
27
Q

Gil et al: Describe the Tourist

A
  • Fast moving shoppers who dont stray too far from the entrance and stay on the main corridor
  • Look more than they buy, some on non food mission
  • 101
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
28
Q

Gil et al: Describe the Explorer

A
  • Longest trip, visiting all aisles in the store and visiting places more than once
  • Spending a long time with products and buying a lot, main shopping mission
  • Most of all categories with shopping list
  • 67
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
29
Q

Gil et al: Describe the Raider

A
  • Fast movements and decisions, preference for main corridor but goes where necessary
  • Highest proportion of male
  • Top up or food for tonigh missions
  • 113
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
30
Q

Example Study that described eye movement patterns, framing, menu mistakes

A

Pavesic

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
31
Q

Pavesic: Avg seconds before meal choice

A

109s

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
32
Q

Pavesic: statistic about limited choices

A

60-70% of menu choices come from same 18-24 dishes

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
33
Q

PCCR

A

Pupil Centre Corneal Reflection

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
34
Q

Define:
- Eye tracking
- Eye magneet
- Framing

A
  • Method using a computer to record pattern of eye movment of a participant
  • Anything interrupting eye movement patterns drawing attention to particular item
  • Use of borders or boxes to group certain items together and draw eyes to it
35
Q

Pavesic: Common menu design mistakes

A
  • Inadequete management commitment
  • Hard to read
  • Overemphasising prices
  • Poor use of space
  • Incongruence
36
Q

What was the eye movement pattern Pavesic found?

A

center - upper right - upper left - bottom left - upper right - bottom right - center

37
Q

Example study on primacy effects in menus

A

Dayan and Bar-Hillel

38
Q

Aim of Dayan and Bar-Hillel

A

To investigate the extent to which the position of food items in a menu affects customer choices

39
Q

Sample of Dayan and Bar-Hillel

A

240 students

40
Q

Procedure of Dayan and Bar-Hillel study 1

A
  • Students randomly allocated into 4 conditions with 4 different menu designs varying in order of items within each category
  • Students each given one version of menu and asked to choose one item from each category
41
Q

Dayan and Bar-Hillel study 1: different types of orders

A
  • Baseline (arbitary)
  • Mirror (complete reverse of baseline)
  • Inside out baseline (reversed the baseline order within the top and bottom half of each category seperately)
  • Inside out mirror (self explanatory)
42
Q

What country was Dayan and Bar-Hillel in?

A

ISRAEL

43
Q

Results of Dayan and Bar-Hillel study 1

A
  • Participants were significantly more likely to select items at the beginning or end of the list than they were to select items placed in the middle
  • Overall advantage of being placed at beginning and end was 56%
  • No significant difference of impact of primacy vs recency effect
44
Q

Procedure of Dayan and Bar-Hillel study 2

A
  • In a small coffee shop, 60 items in 3 differnt categories existed
  • Baseline menu alternated with inside out version
  • Staff recorded orders during this time, excluding those who didn’t refer to the menu
45
Q

Results of Dayan and Bar-Hillel study 2

A
  • Menu advantage: 55%
  • Larger gain from being moved from exact middle to extreme end than to near end
  • Advantage (59%) of being in top half (but no mirror condition)
46
Q

Conclusion of Dayan and Bar-Hillel

A

There is evidence that it is beneficial to place items at the beginning and end of the category if you want them to be ordered more often

47
Q

Example study on effect of food name on menu item choice

A

Lockyer

48
Q

Aim of Lockyer

A

To investigate how the choice of wording on a restaurant menu affects the selection of menu items

49
Q

Research method of Lockyer

A

Focus groups, surveys

50
Q

Sample of Lockyer

A

48 self selecting participants, volunteer from letter - Focus groups
200/1800 usable survey responses

NZ

51
Q

Lockyer: Focus group menu styles

A
  • French style
  • English with French
  • Seasonal
  • Elaborate
  • Organic
52
Q

What were participants of Lockyer asked in the focus groups?

A

Scale of 1-5 how appealing each menu was

Then they were asked to write reasons for finding appeal / unappeal

53
Q

Most vs Least appeal menu in Lockyer

A

42% rated French style menu as very unappealing
42% rated seasoned menu as highest appeal

54
Q

Results of Lockyer

A

The words used on a menu do have an impact on the likelihood of potential diners to choose a dish

Most prefered clear, tasty, fresh, natural descriptions

But broad differences in preferences

55
Q

What does Hall call proxemics?

A

The study of how humans use personal and public space

56
Q

Hall’s 4 zones

A

Intimate
Personal
Social
Public

57
Q

Key study on personal space in diners

A

Robson et al

58
Q

Aim of Robson et al

A

To investigate how much space between tables is seen as adequate in different scenarios

59
Q

Research method of Robson et al

A

Experiment

60
Q

IVs of Robson et al

A
  • Distance between tables (46cm or 15cm)
  • Who they were dining with
61
Q

DVs of Robson et al

A

Participants’ emotional intentional and anticipated behavioral reaction to the scenarios

62
Q

Sample of Robson et al

A

1013 Americans

63
Q

How was the sample for Robson et al gathered

A

A professional sampling company sent out a link

64
Q

Robson et al racial classification of sample

A

81% white
7% black

65
Q

Robson et al gender distribution

A

53%F, 45%M

66
Q

Procedure of Robson et al

A
  1. Participants provided demographic details
  2. Participants told to answer as though they were having dinner with a business colleague, friend, or romantic partner
  3. Shown an image or restaurant tables placed either 15 or 30cm apart (intimate zone) or 60cm apart (personal zone)
67
Q

Describe questionnaire of Robson et al

A

32 statements rated on a 7 point scale with 1 being strongly disagree and 7 being strongly agree

12 items for emotional responses, 16 for percieved control privacy and comfort

68
Q

Reasons for each distance chosen in Robson et al

A

Intimate 15cm: Common in NY restaurants
30cm: Mean intertable distance based on floor plan review from hospitality magazines
Personal 60cm: Distance preferred by diners based on previous research

69
Q

Results of Robson et al

A
  • Close table spacing: feeling less private, more crowded, less likely to have positive experience, more dissatisfied with their assigned table
  • 6 inch: more concerned about being overheard or about disturbing others, more stressed, less feelings of control and comfort
  • Arousal score didn’t vary significantly
  • Romantic: higher stress, less control, more discomfort effect
  • Business: did not affect responses except for comfort
  • Friend: moderate stress and discomfort for right spacing
  • Women showed more stress, less control, more discomfort. Men felt more arousal.
  • Frequent diners showed more comfort
70
Q
A
71
Q

Conclusion of Robson et al

A

Diners feel strongly negative towards tightly spaced tables of 6 inches

72
Q

Percent of diners that would have asked to be reseated if so close Robson

A

70%

73
Q

Example study on queueing

A

Milgram et al (1986)

74
Q

Aim of Milgram et al (1986)

A

To observe the reactions to an intruder who attempts to jump a queue in a public place

75
Q

Prediction of Milgram et al (1986)

A

People would be less likely to show defensive behaviors if others were passive

76
Q

Location of Milgram et al (1986)

A

Range of settings in NYC

77
Q

Procedure of Milgram et al (1986)

A
  1. Confederate calmly approaches between third and fourth person in queue and says in a neutral tone, “excuse me, i would like to get in here” - then simply joins the queue regardless of response.
  2. If asked to leave explicitly, they did. Otherwise they wait a minute
  3. Observer recorded physical verbal and nonverbal reactions
  4. Varied number of intruders and used buffers who were between intrusion point and naive queuer
78
Q

IVs of Milgram et al (1986)

A

Number of intruders (1/2)
Number of buffers (1/2/3)

79
Q

Milgram et al (1986) - quantitative results

A

Physical defense: 10%
Nonverbal defense: 15%
Verbal objection: 22%

80
Q

Results (non quant) of Milgram et al (1986)

A
  • Queuers behind intruder far more likely to object than those ahead
  • Two intruders: greater reaction than one
  • Buffers dampened queues response
81
Q

Percent of queues with objections made with one intruder based on buffer count

A

0: 54%
1: 25%
2: 5%

82
Q

Percent of objections made in queues with two intruders based on buffer count

A

0: 91%
1: 25%
2: 30% (HUH?)

83
Q

Conclusions of Milgram et al (1986)

A

Queue is considered a social system with a shared set of believed governing behavior of participants. A way of instilling social order. Most people believe it is unacceptable to break norms.

a levels - history, psychology, literature (31 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2025 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions