Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 19 (2012) 179–185

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services

0969-69

doi:10.1

n Tel.:

E-m

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jretconser

Negative effects of ambient scents on consumers’ skepticism aboutretailer’s motives

Renaud Lunardo n

Bordeaux Management School, 680 cours de la Liberation, 33405 Talence Cedex, France

a r t i c l e i n f o

Available online 16 December 2011

Keywords:

Skepticism

Ambient scent

Attitude

Corporate attribution

Integrity

89/$ - see front matter & 2011 Elsevier Ltd. A

016/j.jretconser.2011.11.007

þ33 325 71 22 29; fax: þ33 325 71 22 38.

ail address: renaud.lunardo@bem.edu

a b s t r a c t

Ambient odors are used to enhance consumer’s emotional and attitudinal responses so that he behaves

in a way that is profitable for the retailer. However, the literature reveals that consumer’s knowledge

about such marketing tactics may make that proposition fail. This article suggests that environmental

characteristics can influence consumer skepticism and in turn emotional and attitudinal responses. We

begin by reviewing the literature on (1) ambient odors and (2) skepticism to emphasize the potential

influence of store environment on consumer skepticism. Then, we turn to a scenario-based experiment

designed to shed light on the underlying process.

& 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

Atmospherics have long been acknowledged as a key-to-success factors for retailers (Bitner, 1992) and a criteria forconsumers in choosing which malls to visit (Haytko and Baker,2004). As a result, a wide body of research has examined theirimpact and demonstrated their influence on shopping emotionsand behavior. Because of their impact on emotions (Ellen andBone, 1998), olfactory cues have been found to be an atmosphericof great interest for retailers, by positively affecting productquality perceptions (Bone and Jantrania, 1992; Morrin andRatneshwar, 2000; Chebat and Michon, 2003), recall and recogni-tion of brands (Morrin and Ratneshwar, 2003), evaluations ofthe store (Spangenberg et al., 1996) and approach behaviors(Bone and Ellen, 1999).

Despite being of great interest, most of the research to date onolfactory cues in the store environment has focused only theirpositive effects on consumer behavior. However, it may be arguedthat ambient scent would have some negative effects if they wereperceived by consumers as a marketing tactic to influence theirbehavior. According to the Persuasion Knowledge Model (PKM),consumers become active recipients of the retailer’s attempt andpossess knowledge about persuasion tactics used by marketers toinfluence their behavior (Friestad and Wright, 1994). Thus, wesuggest that ambient scent in the store environment could beinterpreted as a marketing tool used by retailers to persuade themto buy more. More specifically, we propose that when consumersare exposed to an ambient scent in a store environment in which

ll rights reserved.

they did not expect such a scent, they develop skepticism towardthe retailer’s motives. We also propose that in a skepticism-inducingenvironment, consumers feel less pleasure and develop negativeattitude, attributions and trust toward the retailer.

Based on an experiment, results show that when olfactory cuesin the atmosphere leads consumers to become skeptical aboutretailer’s motives, it decreases their pleasure and their attitudetoward the retailer, leads them to make negative corporateattributions and distrust the retailer. Prior to describing theexperiment and the result, we discuss the theoretical explana-tions of ambient odors on consumer perception, skepticism andbehavior and present hypotheses addressing those effects.

2. Theoretical background

2.1. Ambient scents and shopper responses

The need for exploring the impact of physical surroundings onconsumer behavior has long been emphasized. Among severalothers, one of the environmental dimensions of interest forretailers is ambient scent. One of the interests of ambient scentmay be due to its ability to affect the limbic system, the part ofthe brain responsible for emotional responses (Ellen and Bone,1998). Results on ambient scents in retail contexts emphasizetheir ability to affect consumers’ responses. Spangenberg et al.(1996) provide evidence of ambient scent effects in a retailenvironment, in which scent presence positively affects overallratings of a simulated store and of the store environment.Evaluations of the store overall and of the store environment,purchase intentions and approach behaviors are more positivewhen the store is scented than when it is not scented. Moreover,

R. Lunardo / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 19 (2012) 179–185180

subjects in the scented store perceive spending less time shop-ping than subjects in the unscented store. Ambient scents havealso been found to improve subjects’ moods (Ellen and Bone,1998) or arousal levels (Donovan and Rossiter, 1982).

However, such effects appear to be moderated by the con-gruency of the scent with the object (Bone and Jantrania, 1992),the in-store music (Mattila and Wirtz, 2001), the time of the year(Spangenberg et al., 2005) or the retail store (Gulas and Bloch,1995). For instance, Mitchell et al. (1995) have shown thatcongruent ambient scents (e.g., a floral scent in a flower shop)have different effects on information processing and choice thanincongruent scents (e.g., the scent of chocolate in a flower shop).

Despite their undeniable interest, these studies have allexamined the positive effects of ambient scent, and thus encou-rage the examination of its potential negative effects in the storeenvironment. Consumers may become skeptical of the motives ofthe retailer in the scented environment, by seeing ambient scentas a tool controlled by the retailer to influence their behavior.

2.2. Consumer skepticism

Skepticism is often seen as a provisional approach to claims,the application of reason to any and all ideas, implying thenecessity for skeptical persons to see compelling evidence beforebelieving (Fleming, 2005). Skeptical individuals have questionsabout whether a course of action is best, want more informationbefore making a judgment, and have the confidence to rely ontheir own judgment by separating advertising truth from adver-tising hype (Boush et al., 1994). Thus, the key mechanismoperationalizing skepticism is the process of doubts about thereality of phenomenon. For example, literature on skepticismtoward advertising defines skepticism as the feeling that the ad isneither credible nor reliable (Obermiller and Spangenberg, 1998;Tsfati and Cappella, 2003).

Although there is some debate regarding the status of skepti-cism (i.e., as a personality trait versus a response to a situation),there is good agreement that it refers to a stable belief (Berloet al., 1969). For instance, skepticism toward advertising isdefined as the tendency to disbelieve the informational claimsof advertising (Obermiller and Spangenberg, 1998). There is also adebate regarding the dimensionality of the concept (Ford et al.,1990). Obermiller and Spangenberg (1998) distinguished betweenseveral theoretical dimensions, referring to the truth of ad claims,the motives of the advertiser, the value of the information and theappropriateness of the ad. However, assessing dimensionalitythrough a scale development led them to conclude to theunidimensionality of the concept.

There has been substantial empirical evidence in previousempirical and theoretical research showing that marketing tacticscould increase consumer skepticism. Regarding pricing tactics,evidence shows that advertised price offers influence consumers’perceptions of the discount and the claim, resulting in higherskepticism toward the ad (Gupta and Cooper, 1992). Such resultsare consistent with the results of Fry and McDougall (1974),Liefeld and Heslop (1985), and Urbany et al. (1988) who alsofound that when consumers evaluate the discount claims, theirperception of the discount is likely to increase skepticism, result-ing in the discount of such claims.

Similar inferences can be drawn with respect to the influenceof store environment. When exposed to stimuli in the storeenvironment, consumers evaluate information provided to them,their perception of the information being likely to affect theirskepticism and their attitude toward the environment. In otherwords, stimuli such as atmospherics and ambient scent can beperceived and interpreted in a way that leads to skepticism whichmay affect decision processes and behavior.

2.3. Skepticism in the scented store environment

The previously discussed studies in the marketing literatureprovide support for a relationship between ambient scent as apersuasive tactic and skepticism. The novel element in ourresearch is the focus on this relationship in the specific contextof the store environment.

The relationship between persuasive tactics and skepticism iswell documented in the literature, bringing evidence that heigh-tened awareness of persuasive tactics increases skepticism(Friestad and Wright, 1994). The Persuasion Knowledge Model(PKM) seems particularly appealing to provide an explanation forthe effect of ambient scent on skepticism. Persuasion knowledgestates that consumers identify when someone is trying to per-suade them and how to react in a way that achieves their owngoals (Artz and Tybout, 1999; Friestad and Wright, 1994; Kirmaniand Zhu, 2007). Consumer’s identification of persuasion attemptsare based on beliefs about the tactics employed by marketers andthe goal such marketers seek to achieve. Since service encountersare considered by Friestad and Wright (1994, 3) as ‘‘messagesfrom which consumers can perceive of a persuasion attempt’’, thePersuasion Knowledge Model appears particularly appealing toprovide an explanation for the effect of atmospherics on shoppers’skepticism. We suggest in this research that ambient scent couldbe seen by consumers as a tactic used by retailers to persuadethem to help retailers to achieve their corporate goals. We alsosuggest that such a tactic is likely to lead consumers to becomeskeptical about retailer’s motives. Indeed, despite evidence aboutthe effects of ambient scents in the store environment on pleasure(Donovan and Rossiter, 1982; Ehrlichman and Halpern, 1988;Gulas and Bloch, 1995; Spangenberg et al., 1996), it would betheoretically possible that consumers react to them not by feelingmore pleasure but rather by developing negative reactions. Wesuggest that an ambient odor, if leading to skepticism towardretailer’s motives, could lead shoppers to react by behaving in theopposite way than the one wanted by the retailer. As a result, itmay be proposed that consumers in skepticism-inducing envir-onment feel less pleasure than in a non skepticism-inducingenvironment.

H1. The presence of a skepticism-inducing ambient scent in theenvironment, compared to a no skepticism-inducing ambientscent, decreases pleasure in the store.

Literature on persuasion has widely emphasized that persua-sion knowledge is likely to get consumers develop resistancestrategies that prevent marketers to achieve their goals (Kirmaniand Campbell, 2004). As they understand and cope with market-ers’ actions, they form attitudes about influencers. Most of theresearch on the PKM has been conducted in advertising(Campbell, 1995; Cotte et al., 2005). Findings showed that suchpersuasive attempts have a negative effect on attitude towardboth the advertising and the advertiser. Research has also empiri-cally examined the effects of persuasive attempts on attributionsabout the sponsor. Consistent with this perspective, we posit:

H2. The presence of a skepticism-inducing ambient scent in theenvironment, compared to a no skepticism-inducing ambientscent, (a) decreases attitude toward the retailer (AttRet) and(b) influences the attribution that the retailer is primarily con-cerned with making money.

Almost all definitions of skepticism stress that for skepticismto be relevant there has to be some lack of trust on the side of theaudience (Tsfati and Cappella, 2003). Trust is the expectation thatthe interaction with the trustee would lead to gains for thetrustor, an expectation of honest and cooperative behavior.

R. Lunardo / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 19 (2012) 179–185 181

Skepticism occurs when there is no empirical way for theindividual to verify the intentions of the retailer and no way totrust him. Empirical findings in advertising research have exhib-ited that more skeptical individuals expressed more negativebeliefs about advertising’s honesty (Obermiller and Spangenberg,1998). Thus, we propose the following:

H3. The presence of a skepticism-inducing ambient scent in theenvironment, compared to a no skepticism-inducing ambientscent, decreases the consumer’s perceived integrity of the retailer.

3. Research method

3.1. Procedure

We collected the data for this study from an experiment.Because we wanted to examine the influence of skepticism onshopper’s responses, we used scenarios to simulate a storeenvironment experience.

This choice has been done for two reasons. The first reason, asMattila and Wirtz (2006) highlight, is that such a scenario methodprovides two main advantages, first by injecting sufficient var-iance into the independent variables, and second by reducingissues involving personal circumstances to the research context.Thus and of importance, simulating a standardized setting alsoenables to control manipulated variables and to reduce randomnoise for all respondents, which consequently enhances internalvalidity. The second reason guiding the use of scenario refers toits proven ecological validity even in the context of complexcognitive processes. Indeed, in a research dealing with theconcept of perceived control, Bateson and Hui (1992) provedthe ecological validity of the scenario method. Since we deal inthe current research with such a complex – and close – cognitiveconcept, that is skepticism, we decided to use this method whichappears well suited for the context of the present research.

To create variation in the skepticism-inducing environmentalstimuli, two scenarios have been created. Before creating thesescenarios, two questions had to be answered. Since shopperskepticism was the factor to be manipulated in the scenario, thefirst related to the reasons why an ambient scent could generateskepticism in the store environment. The second dealt with thetype of retail store in which such an ambient scent may induceshopper skepticism. To answer these questions, a pretest wasconducted. A convenience sample of 18 undergraduate studentswas asked to describe a retail store in which an ambient scentcould lead them to be skeptical. Concerning the ambient scent,the pretest revealed that shoppers could be skeptical if anambient was so pleasant that it was not credible to find such ascent in the air. This result of the pretest echoes the conceptua-lization of skepticism as a process of doubt and lack of credibility.Based on this pretest, we selected a bakery as the type of retail

Table 1Sociodemographic profiles of experimental groups.

Questionnair

1. Low skeptCondition (n

Gender Men 39

Women 37

Age 16–30 years old 54

31–45 years old 14

46–75 years old 8

Job position Executive 2

Government officers 13

Students, retired and others 61

store. Indeed, respondents indicated that shoppers may developskepticism when they cannot notice any element in the storeenvironment that can make the presence of a smell of fresh breadcredible (for example, a baker or an oven). On the contrary,shoppers may be less skeptical when they can notice in the storeenvironment some elements that justify the presence of such ascent, in other words a baker and an oven. Thus, a ‘‘good smell offresh bread’’ was the ambient scent manipulated in our scenarios.As suggested by the pretest, the ambient scent in the highskepticism experimental condition was not associated with anycue making it credible. On the contrary, the ambient scent in thelow skepticism condition was the one associated with elementsmaking it credible, here the presence of a baker and an oven in thebakery. This choice also finds supports in current retailingpractices, with supermarkets which already hit shoppers withthe smell of freshly baked bread as they enter (Rosenthal, 2008).The scenarios were the following: ‘‘It’s four o’clock in the after-noon on a Saturday and you’re entering a bakery which you don’tknow. In this bakery, you notice that there is no oven or baker,and a good smell of fresh bread (vs. ‘‘you can see the oven and abaker working, and smell a good scent of fresh bread’’¼no

skepticism treatment).’’The study was conducted during December 2008 and January

2009. All the participants were French people. They were firstrandomly given one of the two scenarios about the hypotheticalbakery and then asked to complete a questionnaire. In eachscenario, we provided the information that the bakery wasunfamiliar to respondents. Then, participants were asked toanswer a survey. The questionnaire took 8 min to complete, onaverage. One hundred seventy four completed questionnaireswere obtained and used in analyses reported below. Subjectswere 56% female and 44% male, 73% being 16–30 years old.Subjects were randomly assigned in one of the two scent condi-tions (n¼98 in the skepticism-inducing condition and n¼76 inthe no skepticism-inducing condition).

Chi-square analyses were run to check that the two experi-mental samples did not differ in terms of sociodemographiccharacteristics. The chi-square statistics were reassuring. Partici-pants in the low- and high-skepticism conditions did notsignificantly differ and can be considered as having similarsociodemographic profiles (Table 1).

3.2. Measures

Measurements of the constructs were all drawn from theexisting literature and were adapted for our context. We usedseven-point scale items to measure each variable. We presentpsychometric properties of the scales used in Table 2. Since thestudy has been conducted in France, we employed a double-translation process with two bilingual translators. One translatedthe scales into English and then the second translator reversed

e

icism¼76)

2. High skepticismcondition (n¼98)

w2 p

38 2.72 .099

60

73 2.09 .352

11

14

7 2.53 .281

21

70

Table 2Psychometric properties.

Construct measure Mean (SD) Factor

loading

Average variance

extracted

Construct

reliability

Skepticism

Makes the bread seem better than it really is 3.46 (1.86) .95 .92 .91

Want me to buy things I don’t really need 3.68 (1.89) .96

Pleasure

Happy/unhappy 4.69 (1.39) .74 .59 .86

Satisfied/dissatisfied 4.22 (1.53) .76

Hopeful/despairing 4.11 (1.37) .72

Contented/melancholic 4.47 (1.55) .85

Pleased/annoyed 4.64 (1.34) .80

Relaxed/bored 4.39 (1.27) .70

Attitude toward the retailer

Good 4.61 (1.33) .89 .87 .93

Favorable 4.24 (1.51) .96

Positive 4.29 (1.45) .95

Integrity

Sincere 3.32 (1.62) .89 .78 .86

Honest 3.98 (1.71) .93

Consumers’ best interests at heart 3.27 (1.51) .84

R. Lunardo / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 19 (2012) 179–185182

the process and translating back into French without seeing theoriginal version.

Regarding existing measures of skepticism, they have onlybeen designed to assess skepticism toward advertising. Amongthem, the most accurate scale seemed to be the SKEP scaledeveloped by Obermiller and Spangenberg (1998). This scale hasbeen developed to assess a general tendency toward disbelief inadvertising claims. Despite good psychometric properties andunidimensionality (Obermiller and Spangenberg, 1998, 2000),the scale has not been included in the questionnaire becauseof its nine-item length. A review of measures of skepticism insocial sciences research showed that skepticism may be measuredthrough two items. For example, Ford et al. (1990) askedsubjects to rate their degree of skepticism toward claims through‘‘How likely is it that this claim is true?’’ and ‘‘How skeptical areyou about the truth of this claim?’’. Weintraub-Austin et al.(2006) measured skepticism toward alcohol claims through‘‘Alcohol ads make drinking seem better than it really is’’ and‘‘Companies that make ads want me to buy things that I don’treally need.’’ In our research, we adapted items from Weintraub-Austin et al. (2006) to the retail context and asked respondents torate the extent to which they were skeptical through ‘‘The smellin this bakery makes the bread seem better than it really is’’ and‘‘Through the smell of bread, this bakery want me to buy thingsthat I don’t really need.’’ As made in other research, a mean scorerepresented overall skepticism. The scale was unidimensional,reliable (alpha of .91) and its convergent validity (rvc of .86) wasproved.

Literature from environmental psychology (Mehrabian andRussell, 1974) and retailing (Donovan and Rossiter, 1982) pro-vided the basis for the emotional response of pleasure. Weassessed pleasure with Mehrabian and Russell’s (1974)pleasure–arousal–dominance (PAD) semantic differential sub-scale of pleasure (alpha of .86 and rvc¼ .49).

We followed the dominant research tradition on the measure-ment of attitude and measures for attitude toward the retailer(ARet) come from MacKenzie and Lutz (1989). As for the measuresof skepticism, it was necessary to adapt the items to the retailfield. The scale was unidimensional, reliable (alpha of .93) andexhibited convergent validity with rvc of .82.

We assessed corporate attributions through a single-item scaletaken from Coulter and Pinto (1995) and we adapted to the retailcontext (M¼4.50; S.D.¼1.62).

To measure integrity of the retailer, we applied a three-itemscale from Gurviez and Korchia (2002). The scale was unidimen-sional with a Cronbach alpha of .86 indicating good reliability. Theconvergent validity of the scale was established (rvc of .70).

4. Results

4.1. Manipulation checks

We checked that the absence of any element justifying thegood smell (an oven and a baker) induced more skepticism. Usingthe skepticism scale, we found that the skepticism-inducing cuecondition (i.e., absence of elements justifying the good smell)was inducing as significantly more skepticism than the noskepticism-inducing cue condition (presence of an oven and abaker justifying the good smell) (SkepticismOvenþBaker¼3.15,SkepticismNo Oven or Baker¼5.31, F(1, 173)¼110.60, po .001). Thus,we succeeded in creating atmospheres that varied significantlywith regard to skepticism.

4.2. Hypotheses testing

We compared skepticism with low-skepticism conditions inour tests of hypotheses, which expected greater increased plea-sure, attitude, trust and more favorable corporate attributions inlow-skepticism condition.

We conducted a MANOVA overall F-test of pleasure, followedby univariate tests of individual measures (e.g., Table 3). Themultivariate tests were significant (F(1, 166)¼23.30, po .001),alleviating concern regarding Type I error for Hypothesis 1, whichenabled us to proceed with the univariate comparisons. Thedegree of pleasure in the store environment was higher(MNoSkepticism¼4.86; MSkepticism¼4.09) when the atmosphere didnot induce skepticism, thus providing support for Hypothesis 1.Individual F-tests show that, in the no skepticism-inducing cuecondition, the atmosphere had a positive impact on each itemof pleasure, with the exception of the feeling of being hopeful(F(1, 166)¼1.90, p4 .05).

The MANOVA overall F-test for attitude measure was statisti-cally significant (F(1, 166)¼47.56, po .001). Results indicate thatsubjects reported a better attitude in the no skepticism-inducingcue condition (MNoSkepticism¼5.10) than in the skepticism-inducing

Table 3Mean evaluative reactions in the presence versus absence of skepticism-inducing ambient odors in the environment.

Overall F-tests Individual F-tests

Low skepticism High skepticism F p Items Low skepticism High skepticism F p

Pleasure 4.86 4.09 23.30 .000 Happy 5.18 4.31 17.86 .000

Satisfied 4.75 3.83 16.14 .000

Hopeful 4.29 4.00 1.90 .170

Contented 5.14 4.02 24.96 .000

Pleased 5.07 4.34 13.78 .000

Relaxed 4.69 4.17 7.45 .007

AttRet 5.10 3.81 47.56 .000 Good 5.19 4.14 30.50 .000

Favorable 5.07 3.63 48.83 .000

Positive 5.04 3.73 42.46 .000

Corp. att. 3.92 4.93 16.31 .000 Make money 3.92 4.93 16.31 .000

Integrity 4.54 2.71 108.06 .000 Sincere 4.42 2.46 96.91 .000

Honest 4.94 3.21 55.15 .000

Interest 4.25 2.50 82.23 .000

R. Lunardo / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 19 (2012) 179–185 183

cue condition (MSkepticism¼3.81). These results provide support forHypothesis 2a. Hypothesis 2b proposes an effect of skepticism onthe attribution made by the consumers about the retailer’s inten-tions of making money. Results of the MANOVA overall F-tests wereF(1, 166)¼16.31, po .001, showing a significant impact of con-sumer skepticism on corporate attribution. Results show thatconsumers made more attribution of making money in the skepti-cism-inducing cue condition (MSkepticism¼4.93) than in the noskepticism-inducing cue condition (MNoSkepticism¼3.92). Theseresults provide support for Hypothesis 2b.

The MANOVA overall F-test for integrity was statisticallysignificant (F(1, 166)¼108.06, po .001). Difference betweenmeans regarding the no skepticism-inducing cue condition(MNoSkepticism¼4.54) or the skepticism-inducing cue condition(MSkepticism¼2.71) show that skepticism decreases the integritythat the consumer perceives in the retailer. These results providesupport for Hypothesis 3. More specifically, if we compare theF-values for each dependant variable, the highest occurs in thecase of integrity (FIntegrity¼108.06; FPleasure¼23.30; FAttRet¼47.56;FAttribution¼16.31) indicating that integrity is the variable onwhich skepticism has the greatest impact. This result is consistentwith evidence in advertising that skepticism is by nature stronglyassociated with a lack of trust on the side of the audience (Tsfatiand Cappella, 2003). Among the three components of integrity,results show that under skepticism-inducing cue conditions, thesincerity of the retailer is the most affected (FSincere¼96.91,po .000), respectively, followed by the feeling that consumer’sinterest are a priority for the retailer (FInterests¼82.23, po .000),and honesty (F¼55.15, po .000).

5. Conclusion and discussion

5.1. Theoretical implications

In advertising research, Liefeld and Heslop (1985) stated that‘‘perhaps the sale context is so overused that the intent of thesepractices is readily transparent to consumers leading them todistrust and greatly discount the claims implied by such adver-tising practices’’ (p. 874). They criticized the attempts of market-ers to persuade consumers without understanding howconsumers perceive advertised price offers. Similar problemscan be highlighted in the retail context, where marketers try topersuade consumers through in-store atmosphere without under-standing how consumers perceive the atmosphere. Our rationalewas, because the use of atmosphere has become so overused by

retailers, consumers may distrust it and develop skepticism,leading to negative responses. Thus, in this study, we have takenissue with the idea that the atmosphere has only positive impacton consumers. The focus of this study is on the construct ofconsumer skepticism. We hypothesized that, when sensory cuesare not relevant in the store environment, the atmosphere leadsconsumer to become skeptical, decreasing their pleasure, theirattitude toward the retailer, leading them to make negativecorporate attributions and distrust the retailer. We first exploreddifferences in the levels of these constructs for low and highskepticism-inducing cue conditions. As predicted, there are sig-nificant differences in these constructs according to skepticismcondition.

Our findings suggest that consumers’ skepticism negativelyimpacts pleasure. As we reviewed earlier, there are strong androbust results stating that in-store atmospheres lead to positiveemotional responses, such as pleasure. However, recent researchhas found that environmental cues lead to more pleasure onlyunder specific conditions. For example, Kaltcheva and Weitz(2006) found that the relationship between arousing environ-mental characteristics and pleasure was moderated by consumermotivational orientation: when consumers are recreationallyoriented, arousal has a positive effect on pleasantness, whereasit has a negative influence when consumers are task-oriented. Thepresent research demonstrates that the negative impact of atmo-sphere on pleasure can also be explained by consumers’ skepti-cism. Indeed, our results show that if the atmosphere isskepticism-inducing, it can lead to less pleasure. One possibleexplanation for this result may be that, under skepticism-condi-tions, consumers may see the atmosphere as a manipulative toolcontrolled by the retailer. Although we did not assess consumer’sperception of control in this research, it is possible that someconsumers are more prone to feel under retailer’s control, thislack of control preventing them to feel pleasure in the shoppingexperience (Ward and Barnes, 2001; Hui and Bateson, 1991;Csikszentmihalyi, 1990)

Our results also suggest that skepticism impacts subsequentattitudes toward the retailer and corporate attributions. Specifi-cally, if consumers develop skepticism, they are more likely tohold a negative attitude toward the retailer, and develop negativecorporate attributions. Conversely, if consumers are not skeptical,they are more likely to hold a positive attitude toward theretailer. Furthermore, in this case, they develop less negativecorporate attributions.

More important, this study confirms that skepticism is highlyrelated to trust, and thus that the in-store atmosphere can

R. Lunardo / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 19 (2012) 179–185184

jeopardize the long-term relationship with consumers if it leadsto more skepticism. Indeed, as seen in Table 3, of the fourthdependant variables examined in the present study, integrityexhibited the highest F-value the test and thus the highestdifferences of means scores according to the no-skepticism cuecondition or the cue skepticism-inducing cue condition. Skepti-cism primary affects perception of retailer’ sincerity, followed byperception of retailer’s care of consumer’s interest, and then byperception of retailer’s honesty.

5.2. Managerial implications

The practical implications of our theoretical and empiricalcontributions obtained thus far to a retailer are clear. This articleprovides support to the notion that an atmosphere must notgenerate skepticism. In this regard, the atmosphere consumersare exposed to can have significant effects on skepticism andsubsequent emotional and attitudinal responses. Our resultssuggest strong negative effects of skepticism on pleasure, attitudetoward the retailer, attributions and perceived integrity. Thus,marketers should carefully consider the skepticism-inducingpotential of their in-store atmosphere since it has been foundthat skepticism has a detrimental effect on the consumer’sresponses. If a retailer wants to provide a pleasurable atmosphereto enhance the quality of the shopping experience, doing some-thing that prevents skepticism from being induced is required. Asolution to prevent atmospheres from inducing skepticism wouldbe to display explicit information about the provenance of thesensory cues. For example, in a bakery that does not produces thebread but only sells it, displaying information that the smell ofbread comes from artificial flavors would be likely to improve theperceived integrity of the retailer. By knowing the truth, con-sumers may not be skeptical, and may be more likely to developpositive attitudinal responses toward the retailer. A less contro-versial solution would be to encourage retailers not to useartificial sensory cues in the store environment, but ratherto find natural sources of sensory stimuli. Indeed, artificial cues(e.g., perfumes and air fresheners) could be interpreted byconsumers as a tool to enhance perceived product quality in amanipulative way. For instance, the use by retailers of artificialsmells in the aim of increasing the perceived quality of theirproducts (e.g., some smells of leather to make consumers thinkimitation leather is actually authentic leather) would lead con-sumers to develop skepticism and could be of very detrimentalconsequences. Indeed, consumers may evaluate the discrepancybetween the real quality of the product and the perceived qualitygiven by the artificial scent, and thus may develop highly negativeresponses. For instance, Japan’s NTT Communications is testing anInternet-connected scent-delivery system designed to attractcustomers for the retailers and restaurants (Boyd, 2008). A testhas been conducted in an underground mall in Tokyo, where theintention is to pull passersby through the scents emitted by thescent-delivery system (lime aroma for men). If passersby realizethat scents are made to influence them in a profitable way forretailers and restaurants, the effects could be the opposite aswanted by these companies. It is beyond the scope of this study toanalyze such practices as a fraud and a violation of businessethics. Nevertheless, the goal then would be for the retailer to findthe best trade-off to optimize the overall potential of the atmo-sphere without generating skepticism and violating ethics.

5.3. Limitations and further research

Our research has a few important limitations, which maystimulate future research. An immediate concern is that the studydid not include actual shopping behavior regarding the no-

skepticism cue condition or the cue skepticism-inducing cuecondition. It would be beneficial to incorporate real consumerbehavioral responses into the study, as well as the effect ofproduct quality. Indeed, it is not sure at all that consumer’skepticism may result in less favorable behavior. In other words,skeptical consumers may even purchase some products in a storein which sensory cues are skepticism-inducing. For instance, in astudy conducted by Weintraub-Austin et al. (2006), no significantrelation between skepticism and product use was found. Onereason for lack of significance may be explained by productquality. Product quality may have been judged good enough tocounterbalance the negative effect of skepticism. Such a phenom-enon could be found in the case of skepticism toward the atmo-sphere. Skepticism may not have a strong impact when theconsumer exhibits a high involvement toward the product cate-gory and attributes a great importance to its quality.

Several research ideas can be generated from the issuesregarding ecological validity, that is the fact that the applicabilityof the results of laboratory analogs to real life settings (Batesonand Hui, 1992), and external validity. Indeed, the study involves awritten simulated shopping experience. It may be possible thatsome respondents have not been able to fully project themselvesinto the imaginary scenarios, and not respond in an identicalmanner as they would in a real life situation. For instance, someeffects of in-store atmospheric cues may be based on non-conscious effects, and scenario-based manipulations do not lendthemselves to such effects. Moreover, we used only one typeretail store (a bakery) and only one type of atmospheric cue(a scent). Thus, the generalizability of the present results islimited and caution must be exercised before generalizing theseresults to situations beyond that study. Further research is neededto carry out either controlled experiments or studies in realstores. Research is also required in other retail settings (grocerystores, supermarkets, etc.) and other countries to test potentialcultural moderating effects.

References

Artz, N., Tybout, A.M., 1999. The moderating impact of quantitative information onthe relationship between source credibility and persuasion: a persuasionknowledge model interpretation. Marketing Letters 10 (1), 51–62.

Bateson, J.E.G., Hui, M.K., 1992. The ecological validity of photographic slides andvideotapes in simulating the service setting. Journal of Consumer Research 19(2), 271–281.

Berlo, D.K., Lemert, J.B., Mertz, R.J., 1969. Dimensions for evaluating the accept-ability of message sources. Public Opinion Quarterly 33 (4), 563–576.

Bitner, M.-J., 1992. Servicescapes: the impact of physical surroundings oncustomers and employees. Journal of Marketing 56 (2), 57–71.

Bone, P.F., Ellen, P.S., 1999. Scents in the marketplace: explaining a fraction ofolfaction. Journal of Retailing 75 (2), 243–262.

Bone, P., Jantrania, S., 1992. Olfaction as a cue for product quality. MarketingLetters 3 (3), 289–296.

Boush, D.M., Friestad, M., Rose, G.M., 1994. Adolescent skepticism toward TVadvertising and knowledge of advertiser tactics. Journal of Consumer Research21 (1), 165–175.

Boyd, J., 2008. NTT develops a smell-o-phone. IEEE Spectrum 45 (1) 14–14.Campbell, M.C., 1995. When attention-getting advertising tactics elicit consumer

inferences of manipulative intent: the importance of balancing benefits andinvestments. Journal of Consumer Psychology 4 (3), 225–254.

Chebat, J.-C., Michon, R., 2003. Impact of ambient odors on mall shoppers’emotions, cognition, and spending: a test of competitive causal theories.Journal of Business Research 56 (7), 529–539.

Cotte, J., Coulter, R.A., Moore, M., 2005. Enhancing or disrupting guilt: the role ofad credibility and perceived manipulative intent. Journal of Business Research58 (3), 361–368.

Coulter, R.H., Pinto, M.B., 1995. Guilt appeals in advertising: what are their effects?Journal of Applied Psychology 80 (6), 697–705.

Csikszentmihalyi, M., 1990. Flow: The Psychology of Optimal Experience. Harper &Row, New York.

Donovan, R.J., Rossiter, J.R., 1982. Store atmosphere: an environmental psychologyapproach. Journal of Retailing 58 (1), 34–57.

Ellen, P.S., Bone, P.F., 1998. Does it matter if it smells? Olfactory stimuli asadvertising executional cues. Journal of Advertising 27 (4), 29–39.

R. Lunardo / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 19 (2012) 179–185 185

Ehrlichman, H., Halpern, J.N., 1988. Affect and memory: effects of pleasant andunpleasant odors on retrieval of happy and unhappy memories. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology 55 (5), 769–779.

Fleming, P., 2005. Metaphors of resistance. Management Communication Quar-terly 19 (1), 45–66.

Ford, G.T., Smith, D.B., Swasy, J.L., 1990. Consumer skepticism of advertisingclaims: testing hypotheses from economics of information. Journal of Con-sumer Research 16 (4), 43–441.

Friestad, M., Wright, P., 1994. The persuasion knowledge model: how people copewith persuasion attempts. Journal of Consumer Research 21 (1), 1–31.

Fry, J.N., McDougall, G.H., 1974. Consumer appraisal of retail price advertisements.Journal of Marketing 38 (3), 64–67.

Gulas, C.S., Bloch, P.H., 1995. Right under our noses: ambient scent and consumerresponses. Journal of Business and Psychology 10 (1), 87–98.

Gupta, S., Cooper, L.G., 1992. The discounting of discounts and promotion thresh-olds. Journal of Consumer Research 19 (3), 401–411.

Gurviez, P., Korchia, M., 2002. Proposition of a multidimensional brand-trust scale.Research and Applications in Marketing 17 (3), 41–61.

Haytko, D.L., Baker, J., 2004. It’s all at the mall: exploring adolescent girls’experiences. Journal of Retailing 80 (1), 67–83.

Hui, M.K., Bateson, J.E.G., 1991. Perceived control and the effects of crowding andconsumer choice on the service experience. Journal of Consumer Research 18(2), 174–184.

Kaltcheva, V.D., Weitz, B.A., 2006. When should a retailer create an exciting storeenvironment? Journal of Marketing 70 (January), 107–118.

Kirmani, A., Campbell, M.C., 2004. Goal seeker and persuasion sentry: howconsumer targets respond to interpersonal marketing persuasion. Journal ofConsumer Research 31 (3), 573–582.

Kirmani, A., Zhu, R.J., 2007. Vigilant against manipulation: the effect of regulatoryfocus on the use of persuasion knowledge. Journal of Marketing Research 44(4), 688–701.

Liefeld, J., Heslop, L.A., 1985. Reference prices and deception in newspaperadvertising. Journal of Consumer Research 11 (4), 868–876.

MacKenzie, S.B., Lutz, R.J., 1989. An empirical examination of the structuralantecedents of attitude toward the ad in an advertising pretesting context.Journal of Marketing 53 (2), 48–65.

Mattila, A.S., Wirtz, J., 2001. Congruency of scent and music as a driver of in-storeevaluations and behavior. Journal of Retailing 77 (2), 273–289.

Mattila, A.S., Wirtz, J., 2006. Arousal expectations and service evaluations. Inter-national Journal of Service Industry Management 17 (3), 229–244.

Mehrabian, A., Russell, J.A., 1974. An approach to environmental psychology. MITPress, Cambridge.

Mitchell, D.J., Kahn, B.E., Knasko, S.C., 1995. There’s something in the air: effects ofambient odor on consumer decision making. Journal of Consumer Research 22(2), 229–238.

Morrin, M., Ratneshwar, S., 2000. The impact of ambient scent on evaluation,attention, and memory for familiar and unfamiliar brands. Journal of BusinessResearch 49 (2), 157–165.

Morrin, M., Ratneshwar, S., 2003. Does it make sense to use scents to enhancebrand memory? Journal of Marketing Research 40 (1), 10–25.

Obermiller, C., Spangenberg, E., 1998. Development of a scale to measureconsumer skepticism toward advertising. Journal of Consumer Psychology 7(2), 159–186.

Obermiller, C., Spangenberg, E., 2000. On the origin and distinctness of skepticismtoward advertising. Marketing Letters 11 (4), 311–322.

Rosenthal, J., 2008. Led by the nose. The Economist, 00130613, 12/20/2008.Spangenberg, E.R., Crowley, A.E., Henderson, P.W., 1996. Improving the store

environment: do olfactory cues affect evaluations and behaviors? Journal ofMarketing 60 (2), 67–80.

Spangenberg, E.R., Grohmann, B., Sprott, D.E., 2005. It’s beginning to smell(and sound) a lot like Christmas: the interactive effects of ambient scentand music in a retail setting. Journal of Business Research 58 (11),1583–1589.

Tsfati, Y., Cappella, J.N., 2003. Do people watch what they do not trust?: exploringthe association between news media skepticism and exposure. Communica-tion Research 30 (5), 504–529.

Urbany, J.E., Bearden, W.O., Weilbaker, D.C., 1988. The effect of plausible andexaggerated reference prices on consumer perceptions and price search.Journal of Consumer Research 15 (1), 95–110.

Ward, J.C., Barnes, J.W., 2001. Control and affect: the influence of feeling in controlof the retail environment on affect, involvement, attitude, and behavior.Journal of Business Research 54, 139–144.

Weintraub-Austin, E., Meng-Jinn, C., Grube, J.W., 2006. How does alcohol adver-tising influence underage drinking? The role of desirability, identification andscepticism. Journal of Adolescent Health 38 (4), 376–384.