Elsevier

Journal of Retailing

Volume 75, Issue 2, Summer 1999, Pages 243-262
Journal of Retailing

Original Articles
Scents in the marketplace: explaining a fraction of olfaction

https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-4359(99)00007-XGet rights and content

Abstract

The popular and business press is enamored with the idea that the sense of smell can have strong effects on consumer responses to retail environments. The claims that odors have strong persuasive powers tantalize retailers looking for the competitive edge. Herein, we review the current paradigm of retailing-relevant olfaction research and find that “conventional wisdom” does not allow researchers or retailers to reliably predict olfaction effects. We suggest accessibility and availability theories as a way of explaining the current empirical research and as a method by which we can increase the reliability of capturing olfactory effects. We conclude by identifying fruitful areas of research in this interesting stimuli–that which we smell.

Introduction

“A growing number of marketers are recognizing that the sense of smell can … be a powerful motivator for sales…”

–Maxine Wilkie (1995)

“Research is now making strides to discover and manufacture odors that can be used … to control the consumer’s emotions and thought processes.”

–Dr. Alan Hirsch (1989)

It’s in the news, prevalent in folklore and increasingly in the business press: “Smell sells.” It is clear that many retailers believe that the right scent can positively impact customers’ behavior. The business press reports that scent increased the desirability of Nike athletic shoes (press reports of Hirsch and Gay’s 1991 investigation), resulted in consumers spending greater amounts of time in a jewelry store (press reports of Knasko’s 1989 investigation), and increased bakery sales by 300% (Hirsch, 1991). Indeed, retailers have, in recent years, used olfaction to try to influence consumers in a variety of ways such as in-store displays that scent the surrounding air (Macy’s use of scent-dispensing kiosks; Power, 1998) and planned distribution systems for in-store odors (e.g., Superdrug’s use of an ambient chocolate odor during Mother’s Day promotions; Brand Strategy, 1998).

Yet, while odors seemingly pervade the marketplace, there is limited academic research that captures odor effects. Indeed, controlled experimental examinations more often (63.2%) report null effects than significant effects. The problem for retailers and academic researchers, then, becomes one of separating what is really likely to happen from the hyperbole surrounding touted odor effects.

Here, we examine the effects of scents in the retail environment, excluding scents that are central attributes of products (e.g., perfumes and air fresheners). We develop a paradigm representative of current olfactory research effects relevant to a retail setting and examine the evidence supporting that paradigm. We then review 206 tests of olfactory effects found in 22 studies of the delineated relationships. The details for classifying the studies and results are provided in the Appendix. We offer a theoretical rationale for the observed olfaction effects (or the lack thereof) and, finally, identify areas of promising research.

Section snippets

Conventional academic wisdom

The myth associated with odor’s potential effect on consumers is strong that odors operate subliminally, that they directly affect emotion and that they strongly influence sales. Those propositions do not hold up under the scrutiny of experimental research. However, upon exploring the studies in this area, it appears that academic researchers have collectively expressed some common beliefs about how odors can operate to influence consumers. A representation of that “conventional wisdom” is

Integration and synthesis of olfactory findings: applying accessability and availability theories

Can we make sense of the large number of null and contradictory results, while accounting for some of the consistencies? The conventional wisdom is not significantly upheld in the empirical results. Instead, it seems that important variables are missing from our current model. To enhance our understanding, we suggest accessibility and availability theories, with their components, valence and diagnosticity.

Accessibility (Feldman and Lynch, 1988) and availability (Kisielius and Sternthal 1984,

Exploring alternative explanations

While accessibility/availability may improve prediction, greater consideration must also be given to some of the moderated effects and methodological differences found in the existing studies. Table 4 includes data for some moderators (i.e., gender and directed attention to odors), method (i.e., sample size), and measurement differences. Results are for all tests across the independent variables (i.e., combining presence, pleasantness, and congruity). T-tests of proportions and means are used

Future directions for research

We offer two basic recommendations to guide researchers to more fruitful opportunities to understand and use odors in retail strategies. The first is to focus on accessibility and availability theories as a means to more reliably “capture” olfaction effects. The second recommendation is to develop methodical approaches to explore the gaps in our literature and resolve the discrepancies in the research findings. This explicitly includes the testing of mediating processes.

Conclusion

The empirical evidence reviewed suggests that conventional wisdom makes predicting specific odor effects (i.e., specific moods, thoughts, attitudes, or behaviors) a risky business. Counting on such effects is an unwise strategy at this point in time. Yet, more methodical attention to odor use may change the current situation and allow retailers in the future to use odor in a strategic manner in a cluttered competitive environment.Feldman and Lynch (1988); Engen 1982, Baron 1981, Baron 1983,

References (51)

  • M.D Kirk-Smith et al.

    Unconscious Odour Conditioning in Human Subjects

    Biological Psychology

    (1983)
  • R.A Baron

    Olfaction and Human Social BehaviorEffects of a Pleasant Scent on Attraction and Social Perception

    Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin

    (1981)
  • R.A Baron

    “‘Sweet Smell of Success?’

    The Impact of Pleasant Artificial Scents on Evaluations of Job Applicants,” Journal of Applied Psychology,

    (1983)
  • R.A Baron

    Environmentally-Induced Positive AffectIts Impact on Self-Efficacy, Task Performance, Negotiation, and Conflict

    Journal of Applied Social Psychology

    (1990)
  • Baron, R.A. (1992). “Exposure to Pleasant Fragrances as a Technique for Reducing the Effects of Work-Related Stress,”...
  • Joseph A Belizzi et al.

    The Effects of Color in Store Design

    Journal of Retailing

    (1983)
  • Paula Fitzgerald Bone et al.

    Olfaction as a Cue for Product Quality

    Marketing Letters

    (1992)
  • Brand Strategy. (1998). “Sensory Design” July 24....
  • Arnie Cann et al.

    Olfactory Stimuli as Context Cues in Human Memory

    American Journal of Psychology

    (1989)
  • DeBono, Kenneth G. (1992). “Pleasant Scents and Persuasion: An Information Processing Approach,” Journal of Applied...
  • Ehrlichman, Howard, and Linda Bastone. (1992). “Olfaction and Emotion.” Pp. 410–438 in Michael Serby and Karen Chobor...
  • Howard Ehrlichman et al.

    Affect and MemoryEffects of Pleasant and Unpleasant Odors on Retrieval of Happy and Unhappy Memories

    Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

    (1988)
  • Pam Scholder Ellen et al.

    Olfactory Stimuli as Advertising Executional Cues

    Journal of Advertising

    (1999)
  • Trygg Engen

    The Perception of Odors

    (1982)
  • Jack M Feldman et al.

    Self-Generated Validity and Other Effects of Measurement on Belief, Attitude, Intention and Behavior

    Journal of Applied Psychology

    (1998)
  • R Harper et al.

    Odour Description and Odour ClassificationA Multidisciplinary Examination

    (1968)
  • K.E Henion

    Odor Pleasantness and IntensityA Single Dimension

    Journal of Experimental Psychology

    (1971)
  • Paul M Herr et al.

    Effects of Word-of-Mouth and Product-Attribute Information on PersuasionAn Accessibility-Diagnosticity Perspective

    Journal of Consumer Research

    (1991)
  • Rachel S Herz et al.

    An Experimental Characterization of Odor-Evoked Memories in Humans

    Chemical Senses

    (1992)
  • Rachel S Herz et al.

    Odor MemoryReview and Analysis

    Psychonomic Bulletin & Review

    (1996)
  • Hirsch, Alan R. (1989). Expert testimony given at a December 5 public hearing of the State of New York...
  • Hirsch, Alan R. (1991). “Nostalgia: A Neuropsychiatric Understanding,” presented at the annual meeting of the...
  • Hirsch, Alan R., and Gay, S. E. (1991). “The Effect of Ambient Olfactory Stimuli on the Evaluation of a Common Consumer...
  • Loredana Hvastja et al.

    Recognition of Nonexplicitly Presented Odors

    Perceptual and Motor Skills

    (1991)
  • Alice Isen et al.

    The Effect of Feeling State on Evaluation of Positive, Neutral and Negative StimuliWhen You‘Accentuate the Positive,’ Do You‘Eliminate the Negative’?

    Social Psychology Quarterly

    (1982)
  • Cited by (174)

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text