See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/263542241

How does visual merchandising in fashion retail stores affect consumers' brand
attitude and purchase intention?

Article  in  The International Review of Retail Distribution and Consumer Research · May 2014
DOI: 10.1080/09593969.2014.918048

CITATIONS READS

37 15,703

3 authors:

Hyunhee Park Jung Ok Jeon

Kyungpook National University Pukyong National University
46 PUBLICATIONS   298 CITATIONS    23 PUBLICATIONS   205 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Pauline Sullivan

76 PUBLICATIONS   1,096 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

My research continues to explore fashion involvement and tourism shopping. View project

COVID 19 Consumer Behavior View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Pauline Sullivan on 11 April 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 The International Review of Retail, Distribution and Consumer Research, 2015
Vol. 25, No. 1, 87–104, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09593969.2014.918048

How does visual merchandising in fashion retail stores affect

consumers’ brand attitude and purchase intention?
Hyun Hee Parka,1, Jung Ok Jeonb* and Pauline Sullivanc,2
a
School of Business Administration, Kyungpook National University, 80 Daehakro, Buk-Gu, Daegu
702-701, South Korea; bDivision of Business Administration, Pukyong National University, 45
Yongso-ro, Nam-Gu, Busan 608-737, South Korea; cMerchandising & Consumer Sciences, School of
Family & Consumer Sciences, Texas State University-San Marcos, San Marcos, TX 78666, USA
(Received 5 August 2013; accepted 7 April 2014)
Downloaded by [Ms Pauline Sullivan] at 09:38 10 April 2015

Consumers’ perceptions of visual merchandising can arouse consumers’ in-store

merchandise exploration, such as interacting with products, differentiate a retail brand
among competitors; contribute to brand preference; and encourage purchase intentions.
However, the combination of topics, visual merchandising and cognition, remains
relatively unexplored. Thus, Study I develops measures of visual merchandising
cognition and Study II examines the impact of visual merchandising cognition on brand
preference, with a focus on fashion brands. This research used mixed methods and an
experimental design to empirically test the influence of visual merchandising cognition
on fashion brand preferences. Confirmatory factor analysis finds three dimensions of
visual merchandising cognition: in-fashion, attractiveness, and function. A structural
equation model confirms a conceptual framework for the influence of visual
merchandising cognition on brand preferences. In-fashion and attractiveness have a
significantly positive effect on brand aesthetic attributes. Function has a significantly
positive effect on brand utilitarian attributes. Favorable attitudes toward visual
merchandising directly transfer to favorable brand attitudes that are positively
associated with purchase intentions.
Keywords: visual merchandising cognition; brand salience; attitude toward visual
merchandising; brand attitude; purchase intention

Introduction
Strong visual merchandising contributes to differentiated retail brand through cultural
symbols and associations (Matthews et al. 2013). Cognitive dimensions of retail
environment visuals influence brand recognition (Stokburger-Sauer, Ratneshwar, and Sen
2012). A conceptual approach to visual merchandising considers store design and product
display (McGoldrick 1990) as strategies to stage product experiences and capture
consumers’ attention in fashion stores.
Visual merchandising’s strategic roles are communicating the brand and its offer to
similar target customers in all markets. It differentiates merchandise and the retail brand
from competitors selling comparable products (Mehta and Chugan 2013). Consumers’
perceptions of visual merchandising can pique their interest and motivate additional in-
store merchandise exploration (Cant and Hefer 2012). Mannequins used in visual
merchandising provide information that adds to consumers’ cognitive understanding of

*Corresponding author. Email: jojeon@pknu.ac.kr

q 2014 Taylor & Francis

 88 H.H. Park et al.

products and their social acceptability (Law, Wong, and Yip 2012). When executed
correctly, visual merchandising optimizes sales and profits (Bannerjee and Yadav 2012;
Kim 2013; Mehta and Chugan 2013).
Yet, there is a need for additional research about visual merchandising and cognition
as the combination of these topics is relatively unexplored (Davis, Peyrefitte, and Hodges
2012; Davison 2009). This is particularly important because postmodern consumers prefer
visual information over textual (Binkley 2003). Thus this study comprises: (1)
development of a measure of visual merchandising cognition (Study I) and (2) examining
the impact of visual merchandising cognition on brand attitude and purchase intention
(Study II), while focusing on fashion brands.
This research adds to the body of knowledge about retail merchandising and display
through the use of a visual merchandising cognition scale. This scale extends understanding
of relationships between visual merchandising and retail brand preferences and patronage
behavior. Additionally, study findings provide academics and practitioners new insights
Downloaded by [Ms Pauline Sullivan] at 09:38 10 April 2015

into the role of visual merchandising in effective fashion brand communication strategies.

Literature review
Visual merchandising and retail brands
Visual merchandising is a process that stages merchandise the customer wants in the right
place, at the right time, for the purpose of influencing consumers’ apparel purchases
(Mehta and Chugan 2013). This process coordinates all advertising, display, special
events, fashion promotions, and merchandising activities to sell merchandise or services.
Visual merchandising’s objective is to maximize efficiencies by creating an enjoyable
shopping environment, effectively organize in-store merchandise, and in doing so
differentiate brands so that sales increase (Kim 2013).
Sensory and functional features of visual stimuli include the store fac ade, store
windows, logo, color, layout, fixtures, etc. (Buchanan, Simmons, and Bickart 1999; Davies
and Ward 2002; Donnellan 1996; Kerfoot, Davies, and Ward 2003). Consumers perceive
sensory and functional visual stimuli in retail fashion stores and then decipher the stimuli
into categorical codes, such as brand name, or pictorial and textual brand information such
as packaging. Consistent use of visual design elements unites retail branding with
retailers’ promotions, both in-store or on-line (Matthews et al. 2013).
The significance of visual design is evident in the physicality of retail, such as retail
location, retail atmosphere, servicescape, and merchandise selection and display (Davies
and Ward 2005). An extensive literature exists on visual design. Display tactics such as
promotional signage and display of merchandise or store windows affect shoppers’
impulse buying behavior (Mehta and Chugan 2013). Also, increased levels of light
stimulate to consumers’ arousal and pleasure, as measured by their approach behavior
toward apparel products in a store (Summers and Hebert 2001). This is evident as they
spend more time looking at, touching, and handling apparel products when display light
levels are higher, rather than lower. Consumers want a visually warm store environment
(Brakus, Schmitt, and Zarantonello 2009). Effective visual merchandising appeals to the
consumers’ five senses, allowing them to feel and interact with products.
American Apparel’s use of radio frequency identification and visual analytics
identified areas of low sales conversion, allowing the company to concentrate on the
problem (Parks 2012). American Eagle attributes its 2012 third-quarter, 8% sales increase,
over 2011 same-store figures, to improved product content, visual merchandising, and
marketing position relative to its value proposition (Much 2012).
 The International Review of Retail, Distribution and Consumer Research 89

Qualitative research finds that strong visual merchandising helps men’s fashion
retailers create a strong brand identity through the use of cultural memes (Matthews et al.
2013). Memes are units of a cultural system with meaning, such as a logo, that are
transferable to others, and express ideas of authenticity and masculinity. Similarly, brand
icons and visual design reinforce retailers’ brand identity in men’s fashions.

Visual merchandising contributes to retail brand strategy

Retail brand personality and values should be evident in the visual design of flagship stores
(Nobbs, Moore, and Sheridan 2012). Carefully considered design and brand
communications, such as signage, in the in-store environment differentiate a retailer
from their competitors. Hence, visual stimuli are critical to branding strategies (Henderson
et al. 2003). Visual stimuli assist in building strong brands by differentiating products,
creating loyalty, allowing for premium pricing, cutting through clutter, and protecting
against competition (Schmitt and Simonson 1997).
Downloaded by [Ms Pauline Sullivan] at 09:38 10 April 2015

Therefore, smart retailers select their target market, build stores, and use advertising
strategies matched to their customers’ values and self-images. Throughout the entire store
from the lease line to the back wall and everything in between, the environment should
communicate the brand image. Every fixture, all signs, and store displays must fit the
brand. The cash wrap, lighting fixtures, wall coverings, floor coverings, and even the
restrooms should tell shoppers where they are (Bell and Ternus 2006).
Consumers have expectations about visual display and when displays do not meet their
expectations, the brand may be re-evaluated. Consumers clearly express both cognitive
and affective behavioral responses to visual merchandising (Buchanan, Simmons, and
Bickart 1999; Davies and Ward 2005). Nonetheless, they are less able to use visual
merchandising in contrast to other branding strategies, as a cue in recognizing a particular
fashion brand. More recently, Cant and Hefer (2012) find visual display adds to
consumers’ perceptions of store image and character, thus establishing a context in which
to identify and purchase fashion retail brands.

Conceptual model and hypotheses

In order to investigate the relationship between visual merchandising and brand preference
and the psychological processes involved in patronage intentions, a conceptual framework
is developed. The conceptual model shown in Figure 1 guides this study. Figure 1 adapts
the theories proposed by Keller’s (2007) customer-based brand equity model to a retail
setting and incorporates insights from conceptualization of how the store environment can

Figure 1. A conceptual model.

 90 H.H. Park et al.

influence consumers’ decision-making (Baker 1998; Bitner 1992). Bitner (1992) suggests
a variety of objective environmental factors are perceived by customers and perceived
services environment may impact consumers’ internal responses. Subsequently, those
responses affect consumer behavior. Keller (2007, 1993) argues that although different
models of brand attitudes have been proposed, the predominant approach is based on a
multi-attribute formulation in which brand attitudes are a function of associated attributes
salient brand benefits. Therefore, the overall sequence of effects in the proposed model has
two hierarchies (Li 2011; Zhou et al. 2012). One is that visual merchandising cognition
influences brand salience (Li 2011; Stokburger-Sauer, Ratneshwar, and Sen 2012). It does
so through aesthetic attributes, such as design, color, and image, etc. (Miranda 2009), and
utilitarian attributes, including easy management, comfortableness, and coordination with
other clothes (Law et al. 2012). These consumer perceptions, in turn, affect brand attitude
and purchase intention (Groeppel-Klein 2005). Another approach is that visual
merchandising cognition influences the consumer’s attitude toward visual merchandising
Downloaded by [Ms Pauline Sullivan] at 09:38 10 April 2015

and this attitude, in turn, affects brand attitude and purchase intention (Donderi 2006).

Visual merchandising cognition and brand salience

Cognition is the process of thinking, connected with brand identification (Li 2011; Zhou et al.
2012). The Gestalt approach provides a theoretical foundation for this study of consumer
images of retail stores, as it explores visual stimuli in relation to cognition (Lin 2004).
The theoretical foundation is predicated on the assumption that consumers organize
different components of display, such as visual stimuli, and relate each one to another
component when developing retail brand identity. These behavioral actions construct
meaning for the consumer and result in consumers’ overall impressions of products,
services, and brands. Cognitive dimensions (i.e., visual stimuli) influence brand
recognition (Li 2011; Stokburger-Sauer, Ratneshwar, and Sen 2012) through cognition
when a consumer relates different information to form a perception (Davison 2009; Davis,
Peyrefitte, and Hodges 2012). Cognition is important to brand equity (Li 2011).
Store atmosphere usually is thought of as having three dimensions that include social,
design, and ambient factors (Eroglu et al. 2001) or five dimensions, such as external
environment, interior atmosphere, layout/design, people, and point of purchase (POP)/
decoration variables (Turley and Milliman 2000). Kerfoot, Davies, and Ward (2003) focus
on merchandise color, type of presentation, awareness of fixtures, ease in getting around,
sensory characteristics of display materials, and the lighting effects to explore how
respondents feel and perceive these elements in relation to visual merchandising. Others
explore website atmosphere or visual appeal like a pleasing design, aesthetic appeal, and
overall appearance (Kim and Stoel 2004; Mathwick, Malhotra, and Rigdon 2001). Brand
and store image help communicate the symbolic meaning of products (Miranda 2009).
Designs surrounding brands are cultural symbols expressing societal meanings and
communal structures (Hollenbeck, Peters, and Zinkhan 2008). Color also has
psychological meaning and is a cognitive visual stimulus (Cant and Hefer 2012).
Salience, as used here, refers to the prominence or level of activation of a brand in
memory (Alba and Chattopadhyay 1986; Li 2011; Zhou et al. 2012). Not surprisingly,
marketing variables that enhance brand salience are advertising and product usage
(Hutchinson 1983). They relate to recall. The probability of a brand being retrieved from
memory in a choice situation depends on the strength and breadth of links to cues that are
used to stimulate brand retrieval (Romaniuk and Sharp 2003). However, little information
 The International Review of Retail, Distribution and Consumer Research 91

exists about the visual merchandising effect on brand salience at the point of purchase
(Bannerjee and Yadav 2012).
Visual merchandising cognition reflects a holistic and conceptual view of visual
merchandising and impacts brand salience through aesthetic and utilitarian attributes.
Moreover, it is reasonable to study the influence of visual merchandising cognition on
brand salience, based on aesthetic versus utilitarian attributes, that may differ across
dimensions. Therefore, H1 is hypothesized as follows:
H1: Visual merchandising cognition is positively linked to brand salience.
H1-1: In-fashion of visual merchandising cognition is positively linked to brand salience
through aesthetic attributes.
H1-2: Attractiveness of visual merchandising cognition is positively linked to brand
salience through aesthetic attributes.
H1-3: Function in visual merchandising cognition is positively linked to brand salience
through utilitarian attributes.
Downloaded by [Ms Pauline Sullivan] at 09:38 10 April 2015

Visual merchandising cognition and attitude toward visual merchandising

Visual merchandising cognition means that the visual perception of store characteristics
reflects the brand image (Matthews et al. 2013). Attitude toward visual merchandising is the
degree of affective response elicited by visual merchandising. Mehrabian and Russell
(1974) explore the emotional impact in one of the first empirical studies related to consumer
behavior. They examine three emotional dimensions, pleasure– displeasure, arousal – non
arousal, and dominance –submissiveness, in relation to an environment’s affective quality.
Emotional response or mood state is viewed as the key mediator influencing environment –
behavior relationships, specifically, approach and avoidance behaviors. The environmental
characteristics of a store significantly affect in-store behavior (Groeppel-Klein 2005;
Summers and Hebert 2001). After shopping, store characteristics have a significant
influence on consumers’ affective response (Yoo, Park, and MacInnis 1998). Consumers
respond to particular elements of visual merchandising stimuli differently (Pieters and
Warlop 1999). Thus, the retail environment should include stimuli matched to the needs of
consumers with both cognitive and affective fashion involvement (Sullivan, Kang, and
Heitmeyer 2012). Fashion brands need to provide customers with the type of experiential
value they desire, relative to their situational needs. This is important because in-store
unplanned purchases often occur as a result of exposure to visual merchandising (Mehta
and Chugan 2013). Therefore, H2 is hypothesized as follows:
H2: Visual merchandising cognition is positively linked to attitudes toward visual
merchandising.
H2-1: In-fashion of visual merchandising cognition is positively linked to attitudes
toward visual merchandising.
H2-2: Attractiveness in visual merchandising cognition is positively linked to attitudes
toward visual merchandising.
H2-3: Function in visual merchandising cognition is positively linked to attitudes toward
visual merchandising.

Brand salience and brand attitude

Brand salience is the ease with which a consumer retrieves the brand from their memory
and remembers it during buying situations. As the salience of specific brand increases, it
 92 H.H. Park et al.

interferes with the rival brand’s retrieval (Alba and Chattopadhyay 1985, 1986). In other
words, if visual merchandising cognition is high, the brand would be more salient at the
aspect of aesthetic or utilitarian and then consumers will retrieve the brand faster than
other brands.
Consumers recall salient brands and compare them in relationship to the competitors.
Moreover, brand salience includes cues, such as visual identity, that prompt consumers to
think of it (Romaniuk and Sharp 2004). Although the most important factors determining
brand salience varies according to the product category, it is very important to understand
how well the brand attributes and benefit associations representing a brand are formed
(Aaker 1991).
Brand attitude is a function of brand attributes and benefit associations (Keller 2007).
Therefore, a consumer will mention a highly salient brand more frequently, compared to less
salient brands, across a range of image attributes and benefits. This may be a better reflection
of the brands’ superior ability to be retrieved or evaluated positively (Romaniuk and Sharp
Downloaded by [Ms Pauline Sullivan] at 09:38 10 April 2015

2003). A highly salient brand engenders more favorable brand attitudes than a less salient
brand (Stokburger-Sauer, Ratneshwar, and Sen 2012). Sutherland and Galloway (1981)
suggest that the top of the mind brand recognition is an important factor in predicting stable
purchase behavior. That is to say, if the salience of specific brand increases, possibility of
purchase for a specific brand should increase. Moreover, brand attitudes have positively
affected purchase intention. Based on this reasoning, H3 is hypothesized as follows:
H3: Brand salience is positively linked to brand attitude.
H3-1: Brand salience through aesthetic attributes association is positively linked to brand
attitude.
H3-2: Brand salience through utilitarian attributes association is positively linked to
brand attitude.

Attitude toward visual merchandising and brand attitude

A strong positive attitude toward advertising might turn into brand preference,
consciousness, and loyalty (Mehta and Chugan 2013). Mitchell and Olson (1981) discuss
the importance of attitude toward the advertising construct and suggest the visual and
emotional effects of advertising may be mediated by an individual’s evaluation of advertising
(attitude toward advertising). Darden, Erdem, and Darden (1983) contend that a shopper’s
attitude toward a shopping mall environment may be more important in influencing their
affective response than is their attitude toward the merchandise. Overall, these studies
indicate a significant relationship between attitude toward advertising and brand attitude
(Darden, Erdem, and Darden 1983; Mehta and Chugan 2013; Mitchell and Olson 1981).
However, few studies consider the relation between attitude toward visual
merchandising and brand attitude. One study reveals the type of display window
influences on consumers’ perceptions and shopper attitudes (Yildrim, Akalin-Baskaya,
and Hidayetoglu 2007). In the current study, visual merchandising is considered as an in-
store promotion and advertising. H4 is hypothesized as follows:
H4: Attitude toward visual merchandising is positively linked to brand attitude.

Brand attitude and purchase intention

In the advertising literature, research identifies brand attitude as having a positive impact
on brand purchase intentions (Groeppel-Klein 2005). Consumers are more, as opposed to
 The International Review of Retail, Distribution and Consumer Research 93

less, likely to purchase a brand when they have favorable attitudes in evaluating the brand.
Brand attitude considers consumers’ brand evaluations contribute to the formation of
purchase intentions. As such, brand attitude plays an important role in predicting
consumer purchase intentions.
This is supported by the finding that visual merchandising has a greater influence on
shoppers without a shopping list, then those with one, when they enter a department store
(Bannerjee and Yadav 2012). A qualitative study of walk-in customers finds the sales
conversion rate for ranges from 13% to 52% (Grandhi, Singhand, and Patwa 2012). It
varies across market segments and location. Therefore, H5 is hypothesized as follows:
H5: Brand attitude is positively linked to purchase intention.

Methods
Downloaded by [Ms Pauline Sullivan] at 09:38 10 April 2015

Study I
Study I develops a measure of visual merchandising cognition. It uses a mixed methods
approach to develop scale items. A mixed methods, qualitative research design is
appropriate for the descriptive and exploratory nature of this study as it provides new
insights and validates, as well as allows deeper understanding of previously identified
dimensions associated with visual cognition (Creswell 2003). Additional benefits of mixed
methods include comprehensive understanding of research findings.

Step 1. Exploratory research

The literature related to visual merchandising, display, and the store environment
identified measurable dimensions that could describe the construct visual merchandising
cognition. The development of a survey allowed validity and reliability tests of scale items
comprising dimensions of visual merchandising cognition. The survey was pre-tested with
shoppers at fashion retail stores exits so that consumers could answer precisely for visual
merchandising after shopping in the store. Consumers’ responses were compared with
results from the qualitative study to identify items used in the final scale.

Step 2. Qualitative research

The qualitative study used an ethnographic method as it is appropriate for research and
attempts to develop new ideas (Goffin et al. 2012). It overcomes the limitations of survey
research, such as relegating consumer responses to structured questions or items, and tries
to develop new constructs. Data was collected through ethnographic interviews in the
qualitative study (Goffin et al. 2012; Yoo, Park, and MacInnis 1998). A non-probabilistic
sampling technique, namely, convenience sampling, which was purposive in nature, was
used (Onwuegbuzie and Collins 2007).
Five consecutive interviews with six informants were conducted over a month;
interviews were audio-recorded in order to capture all comments for data analysis.
Audiotapes were transcribed verbatim to perform content analysis through coding of the
data using grounded theory (Creswell 2003). During this coding procedure, concepts and
themes from the text were identified that sufficiently described the responses and
theoretical saturation was reached (Gasson 2003). The qualitative analysis did not reveal
additional constructs and confirmed the results of the pre-test.
 94 H.H. Park et al.

Step 3. Confirmatory research

The final questionnaire was developed by integrating the results from exploratory and
qualitative studies (Creswell 2003). Then, a survey again was conducted with shoppers at
fashion retail stores exits and this resulted in 120 useable questionnaires for analysis.
Confirmatory factor analysis indicated visual merchandising cognition had three
dimensions: in-fashion, attractiveness, and functionality.
The previous literature identifies key features in merchandise display as layout
(Jeffrey, Bradlow, and Fader 2005), fixtures (Donnellan 1996), merchandise (Davies and
Ward 2002), presentation techniques (Buchanan, Simmons, and Bickart 1999), and color
(Kerfoot, Davies, and Ward 2003). Review of the literature reveals these elements receive
varying amounts of individual attention. Thus, few studies consider these elements
together in the context of visual merchandising cognition.
Also, there are few studies investigating how visual merchandising and display
influence consumers. Specifically, there is limited information about how cognition
Downloaded by [Ms Pauline Sullivan] at 09:38 10 April 2015

influences brand attitudes and purchase intentions. Some studies look at display and visual
merchandising from an environmental psychology approach (Donderi 2006) or service
environment perspective (Kerfoot, Davies, and Ward 2003). These two related bodies of
literature provide a foundation to integrate theories to consider visual merchandising and
its influence on consumer behavior.

Study II: The influence of visual merchandising cognition on consumers’ brand

preference
Stimuli development
First, previous research was reviewed in order to select experimental stimuli. The
literature reveals relationships between visual merchandising cues and brand image (Kim
2013; Matthews et al. 2013) and the importance of price or value for the money (Mehta
and Chugan 2013; Much 2012) and fashion (Matthews et al. 2013; Mehta and Chugan
2013) to apparel shoppers. Therefore, the experimental stimuli were limited to casual
brands that were well known among females in their 20s. Fifty females in their 20s
considered the following criteria: price (high/low) and brand characteristic (traditional/
contemporary) (Young, Ott, and Feigin 1978). Respondents were instructed to retrieve at
least three brand names in each cell. The highest frequency brand in each cell was chosen
as an experimental stimulus. In addition, the content validity of experimental brands was
confirmed by five fashion specialists.
Next, moving pictures of four selected brands were produced. Shops located in
Busan’s (metropolitan city in South Korea) central business district were the resource used
to take pictures and video for the study. The content ranged from the fac ade to the inside of
stores. Each video was two minutes long. The four stores had two display windows at the
front, the shapes were square, and the sizes were similar.

Research design
An experiment was conducted on a sample of females in their 20s in Busan, South Korea,
with a 2 (price: high/low) £ 2 (brand characteristics: traditional/contemporary) research
design. A total of 160 questionnaires, allocating 40 females to each experimental group
were distributed. The subjects were asked to answer the items regarding their prior brand
knowledge, prior brand attitude, and brand experience. Next, they were required to
complete the questions on visual merchandising cognition, brand salience, attitude toward
 The International Review of Retail, Distribution and Consumer Research 95

visual merchandising, brand attitude, and purchase intention after they were exposed to a
moving picture of the experimental brand.

Measures
A five-point Likert scale (1 ¼ strongly disagree to 5 ¼ strongly agree) was adopted to
measure the concepts. a co-efficient scores for each concept met the acceptability criterion
(Fornell and Larcker 1981). The items for visual merchandising cognition were developed
using three processes in Study I and consistent with previous research by Arnold and
Reynolds (2003). Visual merchandising cognition is composed of three dimensions: in-
fashion, attractiveness, and function. Measurement items of each dimension are as
follows: In-fashion included: ‘innovative type of presentation,’ ‘is interesting,’ ‘up-to-date
fashion,’ ‘was nicely presented through an effective color scheme and presentation skills,’
and ‘the store nicely conveys a new fashion image because of effective visual
merchandising’ (a ¼ 0.745). Attractiveness statements were: ‘the interior design in the
Downloaded by [Ms Pauline Sullivan] at 09:38 10 April 2015

store is attractively arranged,’ ‘I am motivated to walk into the store because of its external
appearance, signs and advertising screen images,’ ‘color combinations are nicely
coordinated,’ and ‘use of appropriate lighting makes merchandise attractive’ (a ¼ 0.797).
Function dimensions were: ‘the position of the dress forms, mannequins, theme-related
properties, and POP are appropriate,’ ‘POP displays and sale promotion signs nicely
deliver merchandise information,’ and ‘enough space is given between aisles to allow the
customer to move around easily’ (a ¼ 0.667).
Brand salience was composed of two dimensions: ‘brand salience in aesthetic
attributes’ and ‘brand salience in utilitarian attributes.’ The measure of brand salience was
adopted from previous research studies (e.g., Abraham-Murali and Littrell 1995; Eckman,
Damhorst, and Kadolph 1990).
Study I informed the development of the following sale items. Aesthetic attributes
were: ‘the design is excellent and the color is good’ (a ¼ 0.656). Utilitarian attributes
included: ‘it is comfortable,’ ‘it is nicely coordinated with other clothes,’ and ‘it is easy to
manage’ (a ¼ 0.623). Attitude toward visual merchandising was measured using two
scales, ‘appealing’ and ‘fascinating’ (a ¼ 0.927). Brand attitude was measured with four
items, ‘like,’ ‘in favor of,’ ‘pleased about,’ and ‘satisfied with’ (a ¼ 0.842). Purchase
intention was measured with two items, ‘in the future, I intend to buy,’ and ‘I readily will
purchase the brand in a store shown in the video presentation’ (a ¼ 0.855).

Manipulation check
A body of literature acknowledges that brand familiarity is a critical element that can
influence consumer processing (Alba and Hutchinson 1987), including the relationships
among affective responses and brand evaluations. Familiar and unfamiliar brands differ in
terms of the knowledge regarding the brand that a consumer has stored in memory
(Campbell and Keller 2003). Thus, the inference is prior brand knowledge could influence
recognition stores selected for the experiment because real brands in the market, not
virtual brands were used. Prior brand knowledge was measured using a five-point scale
before the exposure to experimental stimuli by four items. The items were: ‘know well,’
‘have a lot of knowledge,’ ‘very familiar,’ and ‘enough knowledge for purchasing.’ There
was no differences in prior brand knowledge between groups for the four experimental
brands (F ¼ 2.377, p ¼ 0.072). Results confirmed the four experimental brands were
selected appropriately (see Table 1).
 96 H.H. Park et al.

Table 1. Manipulation check by prior brand knowledge and prior brand attitude.

Prior brand knowledge Prior brand attitude

Group Mean SD F value Mean SD F value
Price (high)/traditional 2.58 0.77 2.377 ( p ¼ 0.072) 2.89(A) 0.74 6.182 ( p ¼ 0.001)
casual (40)
Price (high)/contemporary 2.47 0.68 2.87(A) 0.78
casual (40)
Price (low)/traditional 2.21 0.50 2.29(B) 0.69
casual (40)
Price (low)/contemporary 2.58 0.88 2.62(B) 0.66
casual (40)
Notes: The alphabets indicate the results of the Scheffe test (A . B). AB denotes the results of post hoc analysis,
and the same letters denote a homogeneous group.
Downloaded by [Ms Pauline Sullivan] at 09:38 10 April 2015

Next, this study tested prior brand attitude for four experimental brands. Prior brand
attitude was measured before exposure to experimental stimuli by four items (like/in favor
of/be pleased about/be satisfied with), using a five-point Likert scale. As a result, the four
brands selected by the pre-test were identified correctly (F ¼ 8.182, p ¼ 0.01).
Traditional/contemporary brands with a high price elicited more favorable brand attitudes
than traditional/contemporary brands with a low price. The four brands utilized in this
experiment were found to reflect their own brand characteristics (see Table 1).

Results
Validity and reliability test of the scales
The confirmatory factor analyses individually estimated exogenous and endogenous
factors. Results indicated an acceptable fit for the confirmatory measurement model
(Hair et al. 1995) (exogenous factors: x 2 ¼ 44.84 ( p ¼ 0.065), degrees of freedom
(df) ¼ 32, x 2/df ¼ 1.40, root mean square residual (RMR) ¼ 0.026, standardized RMR
(SRMR) ¼ 0.040, goodness-of-fit-index (GFI) ¼ 0.96, adjusted goodness-of-fit-index
(AGFI) ¼ 0.93, normed fit index (NFI) ¼ 0.96, non-normed fit index (NNFI) ¼ 0.98,
comparative fit index (CFI) ¼ 0.99, endogenous factors: x 2 ¼ 94.82 ( p ¼ 0.00068),
df ¼ 55, x 2/df ¼ 1.72, RMR ¼ 0.032, SRMR ¼ 0.053, GFI ¼ 0.93, AGFI ¼ 0.89,
NFI ¼ 0.97, NNFI ¼ 0.98, CFI ¼ 0.99). Composite reliabilities surpassed the rec-
ommended level of 0.7 (Nunnally 1978) (exogenous factors: 0.784 – 0.848, endogenous
factors: 0.769 –0.951). To assess convergent validity, magnitude and significance of
factor loadings were considered. All items were loaded on their respective constructs
(exogenous factors: l $ 0.57, endogenous factors: l $ 0.50), and each loading was
significant ( p , 0.001), thus providing evidence of convergent validity (Bagozzi and Yi
1988). The average variance extracted, which reflects the overall amount of variance in
indicators accounted for by the latent construct, exceeded the recommended level of 0.50
(exogenous factors: 0.550– 0.587, endogenous factors: 0.533 –0.831) (Hair et al. 1995)
(see Tables 2 and 3).
A construct should share more variance within its measures than it shares with other
constructs in the model (Hair et al. 1995). The average variance extracted should exceed
the square of the correlation coefficient of the construct (Fornell and Larcker 1981). None
of the squares of correlation coefficients for constructs exceeded the average variance
extracted for constructs. Consequently, all constructs exhibited satisfactory discriminant
 The International Review of Retail, Distribution and Consumer Research 97

Table 2. Confirmatory factor analysis for exogenous variables.

Standardized Average
loading Composite variance
Construct Scale (t-value) SE reliability extracted
In-fashion New manner of presentation is 0.79a 0.35 0.809 0.587
interesting
Up-to-date fashion was nicely 0.66 (8.06) 0.34
presented through an effective
color scheme and presentation
skill
The store nicely conveys a new 0.66 (8.11) 0.36
fashion image because of
effective visual merchandising
Attractiveness The interior design in the store is 0.78a 0.25 0.848 0.585
attractively arranged
Downloaded by [Ms Pauline Sullivan] at 09:38 10 April 2015

I am motivated to walk into the 0.72 (9.55) 0.40

store because of its external
appearance, signs, and
advertising screen images
Color combinations are nicely 0.73 (9.72) 0.33
coordinated
Use of appropriate lighting 0.61 (8.05) 0.46
makes merchandise attractive
Function The positions of the dress forms, 0.69a 0.23 0.784 0.550
mannequins, theme-related
properties, and POP are
appropriate
POP displays and sale promotion 0.63 (6.26) 0.32
signs nicely deliver
merchandise information
Enough space is given between 0.57 (5.89) 0.43
aisles to allow the customer to
move around easily
a
Fixed at 1.

validity. In sum, confirmatory analyses indicated the scales had sound psychometric
properties (Table 4).

Hypothesis testing and discussion

The overall fit of the structural model was confirmed after assessing its reliability,
convergent, and discriminant validity (Hair et al. 1995). Fit statistics show that almost all
values are exceeding the recommended level: x2 ¼ 375.42( p , 0.01), df ¼ 217, x2/
df ¼ 1.73, RMR ¼ 0.041, SRMR ¼ 0.066 GFI ¼ 0.86, AGFI ¼ 0.82, NFI ¼ 0.95,
NNFI ¼ 0.97, CFI ¼ 0.98 (Hair et al. 1995). Thus, the model was found acceptable and
the proposed hypotheses were tested (see Table 5).
The estimated standardized coefficients and their associated t-values were examined in
testing the hypothesized relationships. First, in-fashion and attractiveness had a
significantly positive effect on brand aesthetic attributes, whereas function had a
significantly positive effect on brand utilitarian attributes. These results support H1. This
implies consumers with high perceptions of in-fashion and attractiveness in visual
merchandising tend to strongly recognize the aesthetic attributes of the brand. On the other
 98 H.H. Park et al.

Table 3. Confirmatory factor analysis for endogenous variables.

Standardized Average
loading Composite variance
Construct Scale (t-value) SE reliability extracted
Brand salience The design is excellent 0.82a 0.17 0.776 0.640
in AA The color is good 0.60 (8.15) 0.41
Brand salience It is comfortable 0.73a 0.22 0.769 0.533
in UA It is nicely coordinated with 0.58 (5.10) 0.40
other clothes
It is easy to manage 0.50 (4.81) 0.36
a
Attitude toward VM appeals to me 0.89 0.13 0.898 0.816
VM VM is fascinating 0.82 (12.44) 0.20
Brand attitude I like xxx brand 0.89a 0.16 0.951 0.831
I am in favor of xxx brand 0.89 (18.51) 0.14
Downloaded by [Ms Pauline Sullivan] at 09:38 10 April 2015

I am pleased about xxx brand 0.88 (18.04) 0.14

I am satisfied with xxx brand 0.84 (16.30) 0.18
Purchase In the future I intend to buy the 0.90a 0.14 0.889 0.802
intention brand in the store shown in
the video presentation
I will readily purchase the 0.83 (14.34) 0.23
brand in the store shown in
the video presentation
Notes: AA, aesthetic attributes; UA, utilitarian attributes; VM, visual merchandising.
a
Fixed at 1.

hand, consumers with high perceptions of the function in visual merchandising tend to
positively recognize the utilitarian attributes of the brand. Findings suggest one fact should
be noted, visual merchandising cognition is a good predictor of brand salience. Previous
studies did not consider merchandising cognition as an antecedent construct of brand
salience (Lin 2004; Stokburger-Sauer, Ratneshwar, and Sen 2012).
Second, both attributes associations – aesthetic and utilitarian – positively influence
brand attitude. Specifically, the aesthetic attributes of a brand had a stronger impact, than
utilitarian attributes, regarding favorable brand attitude. Results support H2. The result
means brand attributes association is a valid predictor of consumers’ brand attitudes and
additional attention should focus on aesthetic attributes, more than utilitarian attributes, in
order to engender favorable brand attitudes in fashion retail.
Third, in-fashion and attractiveness have a significantly positive effect on attitude
toward visual merchandising. Function did not have a significant effect on attitudes toward
visual merchandising. These results partially support H3 and imply that visual
merchandising practitioners need to focus on eliciting perceptions of ‘in-fashion’ and
‘attractiveness’ in order to engender consumers’ favorable attitudes toward visual
merchandising in their store.
Fourth, attitude toward visual merchandising is positively associated with brand
attitude. The result supports H4. It means that favorable attitudes toward visual
merchandising directly transfer to favorable brand attitudes. Therefore, attitude toward
visual merchandising must be regarded as a mediating variable between visual
merchandising cognition and brand attitude.
Finally, consumers’ favorable brand attitude is positively associated with purchase
intention. This result supports H5.
 Downloaded by [Ms Pauline Sullivan] at 09:38 10 April 2015

Table 4. The squared correlations and average variance extracted of constructs.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
In-fashion (1) 0.587
Attractiveness (2) 0.311 (0.558) 0.585
Function (3) 0.112 (0.335) 0.213 (0.462) 0.550
Brand salience in AA (4) 0.223 (0.473) 0.202 (0.450) 0.109 (0.330) 0.640
Brand salience in UA (5) 0.003 (0.056) 0.029 (0.171) 0.057 (0.239) 0.138 (0.372) 0.533
Attitude toward VM (6) 0.349 (0.591) 0.386 (0.622) 0.156 (0.395) 0.338 (0.582) 0.016 (0.127) 0.816
Brand attitude (7) 0.214 (0.463) 0.262 (0.512) 0.088 (0.297) 0.410 (0.641) 0.092 (0.304) 0.408 (0.639) 0.831
Purchase intention (8) 0.211 (0.460) 0.181 (0.426) 0.049 (0.221) 0.328 (0.573) 0.054 (0.233) 0.289 (0.538) 0.602 (0.776) 0.802
Notes: Bold values in the diagonal are the average variance extracted and values in parentheses are significantly correlated. AA, aesthetic attributes; UA,utilitarian attributes; VM,
visual merchandising.
The International Review of Retail, Distribution and Consumer Research
99
 100 H.H. Park et al.

Table 5. Model estimation.

Path Construct Standardized coefficient(SE) t-Value

Beta # Brand salience in AA ! brand attitude 0.53 (0.13) 4.84
Brand salience in UA ! brand attitude 0.16 (0.10) 2.43
Attitude toward VM ! brand attitude 0.32 (0.11) 3.41
Brand attitude ! purchase intention 0.87 (0.06) 14.49
Gamma # In-fashion ! brand salience in AA 0.32 (0.11) 2.40
Attractiveness ! brand salience in AA 0.47 (0.13) 3.64
Function ! brand salience in UA 0.37 (0.12) 3.46
In-fashion ! attitude toward VM 0.38 (0.10) 3.25
Attractiveness ! attitude toward VM 0.54 (0.14) 3.93
Function ! attitude toward VM 2 0.00 (0.14) 2 0.01
Fit statistics: x 2 ¼ 375.42 ( p ¼ 0.00), df ¼ 217, x 2/df ¼ 1.73
RMR ¼ 0.041, SRMR ¼ 0.066 GFI ¼ 0.86, AGFI ¼ 0.82, NFI ¼ 0.95, NNFI ¼ 0.97, CFI ¼ 0.98
Downloaded by [Ms Pauline Sullivan] at 09:38 10 April 2015

Note: AA, aesthetic attributes; UA, utilitarian attributes; VM, visual merchandising.

Conclusions
There are several important theoretical and managerial implications that differentiate this
study from previous studies. First, the current study develops a measure of visual
merchandising cognition. Previous research has examined the effect of each element of
visual merchandising such as the layout, presentation techniques, color, etc. (Buchanan,
Simmons, and Bickart 1999; Cant and Hefer 2012; Jeffrey et al. 2005; Law et al. 2012;
Mehta and Chugan 2013). However, these approaches were limited in identifying the
effect of visual merchandising on brand preference because a wide variety of display-
related factors have the potential to influence (Kerfoot, Davies, and Ward 2003).
Arguably, consumers do not view visual merchandising in isolation. Rather, they consider
additional factors in combination with visual display when developing perceptions.
Therefore, this study contributes a measure for visual merchandising cognition that
reflects a holistic and conceptual perspective. This scale can be used to evaluate visual
merchandising and investigate relationships between visual merchandising and brand
preference in future studies.
Second, although most previous research related to visual merchandising emphasize
the importance of brand identification through visual merchandising (Davies and Ward
2002; Kerfoot, Davies, and Ward 2003; Matthews et al. 2013), the process of eliciting
consumers’ purchase intentions has been neglected within the context of these studies.
This is one of the few studies that empirically demonstrates the effect of a store’s visual
merchandising on brand attitude and purchase intention. The model validated in this study
suggests two paths that identify the relationship between visual merchandising and brand
preference. One path is visual merchandising cognition influences brand salience (i.e.,
brand aesthetic association and utilitarian attributes association) that in turn affects brand
attitude and then purchase intention. The other path shows visual merchandising cognition
influences attitude toward visual merchandising and this variable, in turn and sequentially,
affects brand attitude and purchase intention. Both paths indicate visual merchandising
can be utilized as a cue to stimulate brand retrieval. Therefore, fashion retailers need to
make an effort to connect visual merchandising and retail branding. Also, they should
enhance the aesthetic and utilitarian quality of visual merchandising.
Third, the results for relationships between visual merchandising cognition and brand
salience suggest fashion retailers creating visual merchandising strategies should consider
 The International Review of Retail, Distribution and Consumer Research 101

visual display dimensions in consumers’ associations of their brands. For example, if a

fashion brand emphasizes aesthetic attributes, the fashion retailer should focus on
stimulating the consumer’s interest through the attractiveness characteristics in their visual
merchandising in order to attract consumers into their stores and engage them in the
shopping experience. On the other hand, for a fashion brand that emphasizes utilitarian
attributes, the company needs to consider the functional aspects of visual merchandising,
such as signage, to appeal to their customers. This supports Matthews et al.’s (2013)
position that visual display reinforces a strong retail brand identity.
Results indicate the Gestalt approach provides new insight into consumer behavior in
store environments for retailers and marketers to use in strategy building. Results show
visual merchandising characteristics, such as in-fashion, attractiveness, and function,
inform visual merchandising attitudes considered in purchase decisions.
Future research should consider differences in the effective model of visual
merchandising, according to the consumer’s clothing involvement or shopping value,
Downloaded by [Ms Pauline Sullivan] at 09:38 10 April 2015

because visual merchandising is closely related to shopping behavior. Additional

investigations of prior brand knowledge will enhance our understanding visual
merchandising cognition. Finally, influence of visual merchandising cognition on brand
salience and patronage intentions need to be explored in different situational contexts.
This study has limitations. The first limitation pertains to measurement brand salience
which has low factor loadings resulting and fit statistics in the structural model. This poor
validity may be attributed to subjects’ time constraints during the survey and/or number of
questions contained in the survey. Accordingly, researchers should interpret the effects of
these dimensions with caution. Second, as the sample is limited to females in their 20s, the
sample in the current study does not adequately represent the general population or include
males. Accordingly, additional caution should be exercised when interpreting and
generalizing the results because of the potential for gender and geographic bias.

Notes
1. Email: c21ircle@hanmail.net
2. Email: ps48@txstate.edu

References
Aaker, D. A. 1991. Managing Brand Equity: Capitalizing on the Value of a Brand. New York:
The Free Press.
Abraham-Murali, L., and M. A. Littrell. 1995. “Consumers’ Conceptualization of Apparel
Attributes.” Clothing and Textiles Research Journal 13 (2): 65 – 74.
Alba, J., and A. Chattopadhyay. 1985. “Effect of Context and Part-Category Cues on Recall of
Competing Brands.” Journal of Marketing Research 22 (3): 340– 349.
Alba, J. W., and A. Chattopadhyay. 1986. “Salience Effects in Brand Recall.” Journal of Marketing
Research 23 (4): 363– 369.
Alba, J. W., and J. W. Hutchinson. 1987. “Dimensions of Consumer Expertise.” Journal of
Consumer Research 13 (4): 411–454.
Arnold, M. J., and K. E. Reynolds. 2003. “Hedonic Shopping Motivations.” Journal of Retailing
79 (2): 77 – 95.
Bagozzi, R. P., and Y. Yi. 1988. “On the Evaluation of Structural Equation Models.” Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science 16 (1): 74 – 94.
Baker, J. 1998. “Examining the Informational Value of Store Environments.” In Servicescapes: The
Concept of Place in Contemporary Markets, edited by J. F. Sherry Jr, 55 – 80. Chicago, IL:
American Marketing Association.
Bannerjee, S., and P. Yadav. 2012. “Analysis of Visual Merchandising: Affect on Buying Behavior.”
International Journal of Retailing and Rural Business Perspectives 1 (2): 209– 217.
 102 H.H. Park et al.

Bell, J., and K. Ternus. 2006. Silent Selling. 3rd ed. New York: Fairchild.
Binkley, S. 2003. “The Seers of Menlo Park: The Discourse of Heroic Consumption in the Whole
Earth Catalog.” Journal of Consumer Culture 3 (3): 283– 313.
Bitner, M. J. 1992. “Servicescapes: The Impact of Physical Surroundings on Customers and
Employees.” Journal of Marketing 56 (2): 57 – 71.
Brakus, J. J., B. H. Schmitt, and L. Zarantonello. 2009. “Brand Experience: What Is It? How Is It
Measured? Does It Affect Loyalty?” Journal of Marketing 73 (3): 52 – 68.
Buchanan, C., C. J. Simmons, and B. A. Bickart. 1999. “Brand Equity Dilution: Retailer Display and
Context Brand Effects.” Journal of Marketing Research 36 (3): 345– 355.
Campbell, M. C., and K. L. Keller. 2003. “Brand Familiarity and Advertising Repetition Effects.”
Journal of Consumer Research 30 (2): 292–304.
Cant, M. C., and Y. Hefer. 2012. “Visual Merchandising Displays: Waste Effort or Strategic Move?
The Dilemma Faced by Apparel Retail Stores.” The Journal of applied Business Research
28 (6): 1489– 1496.
Creswell, J. H. 2003. Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches.
2nd ed. Thousand Oak, CA: Sage.
Darden, W. R., O. Erdem, and D. K. Darden. 1983. “A Comparison and Test of Three Causal Models
Downloaded by [Ms Pauline Sullivan] at 09:38 10 April 2015

of Patronage Intentions.” In Patronage Behavior and Retail Management, edited by W. R.

Darden and R. F. Lusch, 29 – 43. New York: North-Holland.
Davies, B., and P. Ward. 2002. Managing Retail Consumption. London: Wiley.
Davies, B., and P. Ward. 2005. “Exploring the Connections Between Visual Merchandising and
Retail Branding: An Application of Facet Theory.” International Journal of Retail &
Distribution Management 33 (7): 505– 513.
Davis, L., J. Peyrefitte, and N. Hodges. 2012. “From Motivation to Store Choice: Exploring
Northwest Chinese Consumers’ Shopping Behavior.” International Journal of China Marketing
3 (1): 71 – 87.
Davison, J. 2009. “Icon, Iconography, Iconology: Visual Branding, Banking and the Case of the
Bowler Hat.” Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal 22 (6): 883– 906.
Donderi, D. C. 2006. “Visual Complexity: A Review.” Psychological Bulletin 132 (1): 73– 97.
Donnellan, J. 1996. Merchandise Buying and Management. New York: Fairchild.
Eckman, M., M. L. Damhorst, and S. J. Kadolph. 1990. “Toward a Model of the In-Store Purchase
Decision Process: Consumer Use of Criteria for Evaluating Women’s Apparel.” Clothing and
Textiles Research Journal 8 (2): 13 –22.
Eroglu, S. A., K. A. Machleit, and L. M. Davis. 2001. “Atmospheric Qualities of Online Retailing:
A Conceptual Model and Implications.” Journal of Business Research 54 (2): 177– 184.
Fornell, C., and D. F. Larcker. 1981. “Evaluating Structural Models with Unobservable Variables
and Measurement Error.” Journal of Marketing Research 18 (1): 39 – 50.
Gasson, S. 2003. “Rigor in Grounded Theory Research: An Interpretive Perspective on Generating
Theory from Qualitative Field Studies.” In Handbook for Information Systems Research, edited
by M. Whitman, and A. Woszczynski. Hershey, PA: Idea Group Publishing.
Goffin, K., C. J. Varnes, C. van der Hoven, and U. Koners. 2012. “Beyond the Voice of the
Customer: Ethnographic Market Research.” Research-Technology Management 55 (4): 45 – 54.
Grandhi, B., J. Singhand, and N. Patwa. 2012. “Navigating Retail Brands for Staying Alive.”
EuroMed Journal of Business 7 (1): 66 – 82.
Groeppel-Klein, A. 2005. “Arousal and Consumer In-Store Behavior.” Brain Research Bulletin
67 (5): 428– 437.
Hair, J. F., R. E. Anderson, R. L. Tatham, and W. C. Black. 1995. Multivariate Data Analysis with
Reading. 4th ed. New York: Prentice-Hall.
Henderson, P. W., J. A. Cote, S. M. Leong, and B. Schmitt. 2003. “Building Strong Brands in Asia:
Selecting the Visual Components of Image to Maximize Brand Strength.” International Journal
of Research in Marketing 20 (4): 297– 313.
Hollenbeck, C. R., C. Peters, and G. M. Zinkhan. 2008. “Retail Spectacles and Brand Meaning:
Insights from a Brand Museum Case Study.” Journal of Retailing 84 (3): 334– 353.
Hutchinson, J. W. 1983. “Expertise and the Structure of Free Recall.” Advances in Consumer
Research 10: 585– 589.
Jeffrey, S. L., E. T. Bradlow, and P. S. Fader. 2005. “An Exploratory Look at Supermarket Shopping
Paths.” International Journal of Research in Marketing 22 (4): 395– 414.
 The International Review of Retail, Distribution and Consumer Research 103

Keller, K. L. 1993. “Conceptualizing, Measuring, and Managing Customer-Based Brand Equity.”

Journal of Marketing 57 (1): 1 – 22.
Keller, K. L. 2007. Strategic Brand Management: Building, Measuring and Managing Brand Equity.
3rd ed. New York: Prentice Hall.
Kerfoot, S., B. Davies, and P. Ward. 2003. “Visual Merchandising and the Creation of Discernible
Retail Brands.” International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management 31 (3): 143– 152.
Kim, J. 2013. “A Study on the Effect that VMD (Visual Merchandising Design) in Store Has on
Purchasing Products.” International Journal of Smart Home 7 (4): 217– 223.
Kim, S., and L. Stoel. 2004. “Apparel Retailers: Website Quality Dimensions and Satisfaction.”
Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 11 (2): 109– 117.
Law, D., C. Wong, and J. Yip. 2012. “How Does Visual Merchandising Affect Consumer Affective
Response? An Intimate Apparel Experience.” European Journal of Marketing 46 (1/2):
112– 133.
Li, W. 2011. “How Virtual Brand Community Influences on Consumer-based Brand Equity.” 2011
International Conference on E-Business and E-Government (ICEE), 1 – 4, Shanghai, China, May
6 – 8. IEEE.
Lin, I. Y. 2004. “Evaluating a Servicescape: The Effect of Cognition and Emotion.” International
Downloaded by [Ms Pauline Sullivan] at 09:38 10 April 2015

Journal of Hospitality Management 23 (2): 163– 178.

Mathwick, C., N. Malhotra, and E. Rigdon. 2001. “Experiential Value: Conceptualization,
Measurement and Application in the Catalog and Internet Shopping Environment.” Journal of
Retailing 77 (1): 39 –56.
Matthews, K., I. I. Hancock, H. Joseph, and Z. Gu. 2013. “Rebranding American Men’s Heritage
Fashions through the Use of Visual Merchandising, Symbolic Props and Masculine Iconic
Memes Historically Found in Popular Culture.” Critical Studies in Men’s Fashion 1 (1): 39 – 58.
McGoldrick, P. J. 1990. Retail Marketing. Maidenhead: McGraw-Hill.
Mehrabian, A., and J. A. Russell. 1974. An Approach to Environmental Psychology. Cambridge,
MA: MIT Press.
Mehta, N., and P. Chugan. 2013. “The Impact of Visual Merchandising on Impulse Buying Behavior
of Consumer: A Case from Central Mall of Ahmedabad India.” Universal Journal of
Management 1 (2): 76 – 82.
Miranda, M. J. 2009. “Engaging the Purchase Motivations to Charm Shoppers.” Marketing
Intelligence & Planning 27 (1): 127– 145.
Mitchell, A. A., and J. C. Olson. 1981. “Are Product Attribute Beliefs the Only Mediator of
Advertising Effects on Brand Attitude?” Journal of Marketing Research 18 (3): 318– 332.
Much, M. 2012. “Retailer Shoots for Straight A’s in Back-To-School Sales.” Investor’s Business
Daily, August 29. www.lexisnexis.com/hottopics/lnacademic
Nobbs, K., C. M. Moore, and M. Sheridan. 2012. “The Flagship Format Within the Luxury Fashion
Market.” International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management 40 (12): 920– 934.
Nunnally, J. C. 1978. Psychometric Theory. 2nd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Onwuegbuzie, A. J., and K. M. Collins. 2007. “A Typology of Mixed Methods Sampling Designs in
Social Science Research.” Qualitative Report 12 (2): 281–316.
Parks, L. 2012. “Retail Next’s LP Solution Adds Visual Intelligence to the Mix.” Stores, January.
http://www.stores.org/STORES%20Magazine%20July%202012/watch-and-learn
Pieters, R., and L. Warlop. 1999. “Visual Attention During Brand Choice: The Impact of Time
Pressure and Task Motivation.” International Journal of Research in Marketing 16 (1): 1 –16.
Romaniuk, J., and B. Sharp. 2003. “Brand Salience and Customer Defection in Subscription
Markets.” Journal of Marketing Management 19 (1-2): 25 –44.
Romaniuk, J., and B. Sharp. 2004. “Conceptualizing and Measuring Brand Salience.” Marketing
Theory 4 (4): 327– 342.
Schmitt, B. H., and A. Simonson. 1997. Marketing Aesthetics. New York: The Free Press.
Stokburger-Sauer, N., S. Ratneshwar, and S. Sen. 2012. “Drivers of Consumer-Brand Identification.”
International Journal of Research in Marketing 29 (4): 406– 418.
Sullivan, P., J. Kang, and J. Heitmeyer. 2012. “Fashion Involvement and Experiential Value: Gen Y
Retail Apparel Patronage.” The International Review of Retail, Distribution and Consumer
Research 22 (5): 459– 483.
Summers, T. A., and P. R. Hebert. 2001. “Shedding Some Light on Store Atmospherics: Influence of
Illumination on Consumer Behavior.” Journal of Business Research 54 (2): 145– 150.
 104 H.H. Park et al.

Sutherland, M., and J. Galloway. 1981. “Role of Advertising: Persuasion or Agenda Setting?”
Journal of Advertising Research 21 (5): 25 – 29.
Turley, L. W., and R. E. Milliman. 2000. “Atmospheric Effects on Shopping Behavior: A Review of
the Experimental Evidence.” Journal of Business Research 49 (2): 193– 211.
Yildrim, K., A. Akalin-Baskaya, and M. L. Hidayetoglu. 2007. “The Effects of the Store Window
Type on Consumers’ Perception and Shopping Attitudes Through the Use of Digital Pictures.”
Gazi University Journal of Science 20 (2): 33 – 40.
Yoo, C., J. Park, and D. J. MacInnis. 1998. “Effects of Store Characteristics and In-Store Emotional
Experiences on Store Attitude.” Journal of Business Research 42 (3): 253– 263.
Young, S., L. Ott, and B. Feigin. 1978. “Some Practical Considerations in Market Segmentation.”
Journal of Marketing Research 15 (3): 405– 412.
Zhou, Z., Q. Zhang, C. Su, and N. Zhou. 2012. “How Do Brand Communities Generate Brand
Relationships? Intermediate Mechanisms.” Journal of Business Research 65 (7): 890– 895.
Downloaded by [Ms Pauline Sullivan] at 09:38 10 April 2015

View publication stats