This article appeared in a journal published by Elsevier. The attachedcopy is furnished to the author for internal non-commercial researchand education use, including for instruction at the authors institution

and sharing with colleagues.

Other uses, including reproduction and distribution, or selling orlicensing copies, or posting to personal, institutional or third party

websites are prohibited.

In most cases authors are permitted to post their version of thearticle (e.g. in Word or Tex form) to their personal website orinstitutional repository. Authors requiring further information

regarding Elsevier’s archiving and manuscript policies areencouraged to visit:

http://www.elsevier.com/copyright

Author's personal copy

Social and spatial influence of customers on other customersin the social-servicescape

Alastair G. Tombs *, Janet R. McColl-Kennedy 1

UQ Business School, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland 4072, Australia

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Received 19 November 2009Revised 25 March 2010Accepted 13 April 2010

Keywords:ServicescapeCustomer-to-customerQualitative methods

a b s t r a c t

Drawing on Social Facilitation theory and Affiliative Conflict theory, this three study paper investigatesthe social and spatial influence customers have on other customers present in a social servicescape–cafes.Unobtrusive, naturalistic observation is used to identify, categorise and evaluate the behaviour of cus-tomers on other customers across two empirical studies. In total 242 episodes were observed and ana-lysed from 40 separate observation sessions, ranging from 60 to 150 min across three settings. A thirdstudy, comprised of four focus groups explores the why of the observed behaviours of Studies 1 and 2,and supports their key findings.

Our findings show not only that the presence of customers influences the duration of the stay (socialinfluence) of other customers, but also that customers influence other customers spatially (spatial influ-ence). Specifically, individual customers and couples chose to be spatially close to other customers pres-ent for non-business meetings. Conversely, for business meetings customers tend to choose to bespatially apart from other customers.

Managers and service personnel need to understand that customers influence other customers presenteven when there is no direct contact. First, service providers should recognise the occasion (business/social) and nature of the party (single/couples/group). Second, customers like to be spatially near othercustomers when they are on their own or as a couple and when they are there for a social, rather thanbusiness, occasion. Third, the duration of stay can be influenced either positively or negatively by othercustomers.� 2010 Australian and New Zealand Marketing Academy. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

The influence employees have on customers is well established(Bowen, 1990; Grizzle et al., 2009; Pugh, 2001). The influence ofcustomers on employees is receiving some attention (c.f. Harrisand Reynolds, 2003; McColl-Kennedy et al., 2009). Certainly, thedirect influence customers can have on other customers throughcustomer to customer communication (Davies et al., 1999; Harrisand Baron, 2004), through positive (Walsh et al., 2004) or negativeword of mouth (Lee and Youn, 2009; McColl-Kennedy et al., 2009),via market mavens (Clark and Goldsmith, 2005; Feick and Price,1987), as early adopters (Rogers, 1976), and most recently throughblogs (Mangold and Faulds, 2009) and twittering (Bielski, 2009;Smith, 2009) is important to organisations.

Customer to customer influence through communication is per-haps not surprising as the interaction is often direct, such as

through face to face interactions, or less direct by phone, email,texting, or blogging. In contrast, customer to customer influencewhere there is no interaction is not well understood. However,many services are performed in the presence of other customersand the indirect influence of customers on other customers bybeing merely present warrants investigation.

With the exception of research into crowded retail environ-ments (e.g. Eroglu et al., 2005; Hui and Bateson, 1991; Machlietet al., 2000; Zhou and Soman, 2003), where the spatial aspects ofcustomer control and the influence of social presence on productchoice receives some attention (e.g. Argo et al., 2005; Dahl et al.,2001), the social and spatial elements of the customer’s environ-ment are largely ignored. This paper seeks to address this gap byinvestigating first hand through observations, and through focusgroups, the impact customers have on other customers presentin a social servicescape where there is no direct or intentionalinteraction between the customers.

Our study contributes in three important ways. First, as the onlyempirical study of customer to customer influence where there isno direct interaction, we offer insight into how customers have asocial and spatial influence on other customers in the servicescape,

1441-3582/$ - see front matter � 2010 Australian and New Zealand Marketing Academy. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.doi:10.1016/j.ausmj.2010.04.001

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +61 7 3365 6180.E-mail addresses: a.tombs@business.uq.edu.au (A.G. Tombs), j.mccoll-kennedy@

business.uq.edu.au (J.R. McColl-Kennedy).1 Tel.: +61 7 3365 6673; fax: +61 7 33656988.

Australasian Marketing Journal 18 (2010) 120–131

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Australasian Marketing Journal

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

Author's personal copy

by observing first hand these influences across three cafes in amajor Australian city (Studies 1 and 2) and through four focusgroups (Study 3). Second, by drawing on Social Facilitation theoryand Affiliative Conflict theory we show how the influence is differ-ent depending on whether: (1) the customers are ‘singles’, ‘cou-ples’, or groups; and (2) the occasion is primarily social orbusiness. Third, we discuss the implications of our findings forpractice.

2. Literature review

2.1. Customers as social influencers

The inclusion of customers in the servicescape is particularlyimportant given that many services are performed in the pres-ence of other customers (Baker, 1987; Price and Arnould, 1999).Even when customers do not interact, the mere presence ofothers elicits monitoring of social behaviours of others (Zajonc,1965) which subsequently results in modification of the custom-ers’ own attitudes and behaviour. Social Facilitation theorysuggests that, because of the awareness of the social aspects ofthe environment, the mere presence (or absence) of individuals(e.g. spectators) has an effect on human behaviour (Platania andMoran, 2001; Zajonc, 1965). Zajonc’s (1965) drive-based view ofsocial facilitation suggests that the presence of others increasesthe drive state or level of arousal within the individual, whichin turn enhances the expression of dominant responses. Byincreasing the likelihood that dominant responses (i.e. behav-iours, feelings or moods) are enhanced, the performance of a taskis facilitated or hindered by an audience (Geen and Bushman,1989). The presence of other customers may therefore enhanceor diminish the service experience (Grove and Fisk, 1997). Forexample, the ability to join in on the excitement of the other fanspresent at a sports match facilitates the spectators’ enjoyment ofbeing at the stadium (Ng et al., 2007). On the other hand, a feel-ing of pressure to keep moving along the aisles in a crowdedsupermarket may hinder behaviours such as product evaluationand choice (Grossbart et al., 1990). Thus, the extent to whichother customers may influence the behaviour of customersappears to depend on the context of the service experience.The context or occasion for which the service is purchasedmay be specific to the environment (e.g. sports event) or specificto the individual (e.g. a social meeting within the sameenvironment).

Tombs and McColl-Kennedy (2003) adopt this view of socialfacilitation in their social servicescape. In the social servicescapethe service is provided in the presence of both the employee(s)and other customers. Mehrabian and Russell’s (1974) approach-avoidance framework suggests that social stimuli (such as othercustomers) increases the intensity (arousal) of emotions andhence approach-avoidance behaviours (whether to remain andexplore an environment or leave). The effects of conformity to so-cial norms, given the context, may also explain this phenomenon.For example, a control systems approach (Carver and Scheier,1981) suggests matching the standard behaviour of others, sothat ‘‘. . .even in the passive presence of another person, respond-ing can become socially directed, even if the person present doesnot overtly direct or cue the subject, because there are more gen-eral social expectations about how people should perform” in dif-ferent social settings (Guerin, 1993, p. 68). Empirical evidenceshows social facilitation effects in bars (e.g. Sommer, 1965), andcoffee houses (e.g. Sommer and Sommer, 1989), specifically thatgroups (where there is a high level of social interaction) staylonger than individuals (where there is a low level of socialinteraction).

Literature in psychology, sociology, education, and organisa-tional behaviour demonstrates the need to feel a sense of belong-ing, whether this is at a national level, community level, work,home or personal level (i.e. Mewett, 1999; Bendek, 2002; Souther-ton, 2002). There is some evidence in marketing that customersfeel a sense of belonging to stores and professional services, forexample, my dentist, my doctor, my beautician, my bookshop,my (department) store, and my café (Barnes, 2000). Rosenbaum(2006) in explaining the concept of the ‘‘third place” shows thatstaff and other customers even provide social and emotional sup-port to customers. Given this, we argue that customers may feela sense of belonging to a café and go there even on their ownnot merely to eat and or to drink but also to feel that they areamong friends even though they will not speak face-to-face withany of the other customers. That is, being in a café surroundedby similar customers to themselves appears to give customers asense of belonging. That is, an outcome of social facilitation is anincrease in customers’ sense of belonging. Therefore it is proposedthat customers will have a social influence on the other customerspresent and that they will stay within the environment because ofthe mere presence of other customers (Proposition 1).

2.2. Customers as spatial influencers

Given that an individual customer is likely to feel a sense ofbelonging and social affiliation with other customers within acafé setting we may also assume that the service encounter will in-volve some form of social interaction. An individual’s desire toaffiliate with or avoid others within a particular setting will influ-ence their spatial behaviour (Argyle and Dean, 1965; Knowles,1980, 1989). Affiliative Conflict theory (Knowles, 1989) suggeststhat an individual will feel greater discomfort the further theyare from others if there is an assumption of interaction with thoseother individuals. The contra side to this is that the individual willfeel less discomfort the further they are from others if there is theassumption that they will be alone. Therefore any discomfort feltdue to interpersonal distance is likely to motivate the individualto adjust that distance in order to reduce the level of discomfort(Knowles, 1989). This motivation to find a comfortable distancein relation to others within a service setting may depend uponthe degree of affiliation or isolation sought. It may also act as adetermining factor in the self-selection of seating and hence influ-ence the spatial arrangements within the environment. Moreover,seeking a comfortable distance may also conform to Osmond’s(1957) notion of sociopetal and sociofugal forces on behaviourwhere customers are drawn together or driven apart, respectively.This may however, be contingent upon the context or occasion forwhich customers use the servicescape. Therefore it is proposedthat customers will be spatially influenced by the other customerspresent in the social servicescape (Proposition 2).

3. Methodological approach

In light of the above discussion, three studies were undertakento investigate customer to customer social and spatial influence.Study 1, a field observation study, was aimed at investigating thesocial and spatial influence of customers on other customers withinthe social servicescape. Study 2, again a field observation study,was designed to further investigate issues raised in Study 1, in par-ticular the relationships between group size and social affiliation,and purchase occasion and social affiliation. This follow up studywas conducted within the same settings. The aim of this studywas to confirm that an increase in social affiliation influences othercustomers by encouraging these customers to stay longer withinthe servicescape. Finally, Study 3, a study of four focus groups,

A.G. Tombs, J.R. McColl-Kennedy / Australasian Marketing Journal 18 (2010) 120–131 121

Author's personal copy

comprising 24 participants, was undertaken with the aim ofsupporting the findings and explaining the assumptions of the fieldobservation studies.

4. Study 1

4.1. Aim

The aim of this study was to investigate the social influence ofcustomers on other customers within the same environment asthey experience a service encounter. Because services are oftencharacterised by perishability and intangibility (Shostack, 1977;Zeithaml et al., 1985) the dynamic nature of service experiencesis often difficult to investigate through traditional quantitative re-search methodologies (Grove and Fisk, 1992). Hence, this studyemployed unobtrusive naturalistic observation techniques. Thistechnique allows the researcher to enter into the complexity of aworld where the connections between people, correlations inbehaviour, and causal relationships can be observed as they occur(Adler and Adler, 1994). The advantage of this process is that itcaptures the actual phenomenon rather than relying on recon-structed or contrived versions of it (Grove and Fisk, 1992). More-over, individuals may be more responsive to others and thesetting than they are consciously aware (Rust, 1993). Thereforeobservation may uncover more data than could be explained bythe individual customer. Observation of behaviour in natural set-tings also allows the researcher ‘‘to realise the importance of time,which is typically underestimated in laboratory experiments”(Levy-Leboyer, 1988, p. 785). The ability of observation methodsto capture the time component of behaviour was crucial in thisstudy because the findings of earlier studies, that associate thelength of stay in a dining situation with group size (Clendenenet al., 1994; Sommer and Sommer, 1989; Sommer and Steele,1997), suggested that duration within the social servicescapewould be an outcome of social facilitation due to the presence ofother customers.

4.2. Procedure

Observations were made unobtrusively. The observer sat at aside table that allowed clear vision of the entire dining area, or-dered coffee and behaved simply as a customer. Adler and Adler(1994) described this methodology as simply following the flowof events where behaviour and interaction continues as it wouldwithout the presence or intrusion of the researcher thus, neithermanipulating the environment nor stimulating the participants.All of the observations were made during weekdays rather thanevenings or weekends as it is not uncommon for daytime custom-ers in these cafés to be sitting on their own and writing onto sheetsof paper. Hence the observations and note taking by the research-ers went unnoticed by other customers and staff. Although obser-vation sessions were undertaken on all days of the working weekno discernable differences in behaviour were observed betweenthese days. The observations ranged from 60 to 150 min each over15 separate sessions.

One of the strengths of unobtrusive observation is that the re-searcher can study human behaviour in a non-reactive way (Kelle-hear, 1993). This entails observing human behaviour in a publicplace without the knowledge of the subject, thus ensuring thatthey do not react to the researcher but continue with their naturalbehaviour. An implicit assumption here is that by being in a publicplace, an individual’s behaviour is open to observation and scrutinyby others in the same environment. However, as the customerswho were observed in the cafés were complete strangers to the ob-server, and no method of capturing their identity was used, their

anonymity was protected. Furthermore, as these were public envi-ronments the customers could freely leave or avoid theobservation.

4.3. Setting

Cafés were chosen as the setting for this study as they representa social servicescape: an environment where the consumption ofthe service is generally undertaken on the premises and in thepresence of other customers (Tombs and McColl-Kennedy, 2003).Cafés are also well suited to unobtrusive observation as they fallinto the social psychological classification of open regions ‘‘inwhich people have the right to make contact with others and havea general obligation to be open to contact from others” (Sommerand Sommer, 1989, p. 653).

The observations took place in three medium priced, mediumquality cafés in a major Australian capital city. Equal numbers ofobservations were conducted in each location. Observations wereconducted during the day. Each café was of similar format: fullyopen to the street with no visual barriers between the customersand passersby. Customers therefore sat in these cafés in fullknowledge that others (both other customers and the passingpublic) could observe their behaviours. Importantly, in these cafésthe customers made their own table selection rather than thewait staff directing them to a table. The self-selection of seatingarrangements was important to this study as it enabled theresearchers to observe the customers’ desired spatial affiliationor isolation.

4.4. Data collection

The data collected for this study were detailed descriptions ofthe actual behaviour and spatial movement of customers as theyentered, seated themselves at tables within the café, placed an or-der with the wait staff, consumed food and/or beverages and ex-ited. The movement, location and orientation of the customerswere also sketched onto a floor plan of the café (see Fig. 1). Thefield observations and accompanying notes were initially codedinto the observations that related to the social interactions withinthe customers at each table (social behaviour) and the behaviourthat related to where customers chose to sit within the café itself(spatial behaviour) using manual thematic analysis. A secondround of coding identified differences within each of the two clas-sifications thus, providing clearer understanding of the actualbehaviours within the social servicescape. To ensure consistency,a representative sample (10%) of the field notes was coded by asecond observer. Very high (97%) inter-coder reliability wasobtained.

4.5. Findings – social influence

Analysis of the field notes revealed factors relating to the socialand spatial influence of customers on other customers. First, interms of the social influence of others, customers appeared touse the cafés for one of three distinct purchase occasions: (1) socialmeetings, (2) business meetings and (3) personal ‘‘time-out”episodes.

In social meetings with groups of two or more customers, theprimary focus of attention was on the members within the group,although customers also appeared to take notice of the other cus-tomers within the café. An almost continuous stream of conversa-tion accompanied the consumption of food and or beverages. Asexpected, the volume of conversation appeared to increase withgroup size. These meetings appeared to be non-private and non-confidential purchase occasions. An example of social meetings isprovided in this extract from the field diary.

122 A.G. Tombs, J.R. McColl-Kennedy / Australasian Marketing Journal 18 (2010) 120–131

Author's personal copy

There were a few instances when materials or props (shoppingbags, articles of clothing, handbags, phones, and occasionally mag-azines) used by the customers were seen on the table, althoughonce placed on the table they were generally not used. The natureof props provided one method of distinguishing between social andbusiness meetings.

Business meetings were operationalised as situations where theparticipants’ apparent purpose for using the café was to workrather than socialise or just have a quiet break. They were also typ-ically comprised of groups of two or more customers. They weredistinguished from social meetings both by the type of props onthe table and the behaviour of the customers. Unlike the personal

items that accompanied social meetings the props in businessmeetings comprised documents, diaries, folders and laptop com-puters. Also, unlike the social meeting groups these materials wereused during the dining episode. The focus of the customers’ atten-tion appeared to alternate between the props and the other mem-bers of the group. These customers also took little notice of theother customers in the café. They tended to sit around the periph-ery of the dining areas or away from the other customers. Thesemeetings appeared to be more private and confidential than the so-cial meetings. The following field diary extracts describe twoobservations typical of small groups of customers using the caféfor the purchase occasion of a business meeting.

Time Field observations Field thoughts

Café 1: 28 January12.05 pm Table 16. Group of three (1 woman, 2 men) arrived. Aged

late 20s. This is a large table but they spread themselvesaround it. . .Conversation is quite loud and the content canbe heard and easily understood. Distance from the observeris 3–4 m. There is quite a lot of laughter. Hand and bodymovements quite pronounced. Smiles. Lots of eye contact

Spread evenly around large table means they have to talklouder – not worried if others hear conversation.Conversation appears not that private. This is different fromother sessions where small groups (2 or 3) sat discussingdocuments or books – they kept very tight together, lowvoices, eyes focused more on books than each other.Conversation appeared more private these other cases12.10 pm Table 16. Two male customers (similar age) arrive and join

the group. The seating arrangements change to be spreadevenly around the table again. New arrivals absorbedstraight into existing conversation. Conversation levelincreases with new arrivals

12.15 pm Table 16. Meals arrive. Seating position changes, thecustomers now sit forward and close to the table.Conversation still remains animated and in good humour

Table size stays the same but density increases withincreased numbers. All inclusive conversation – does notsplit into smaller conversations

12.20 pm Table 16. Another man arrives. The others move their chairsaround to make space for him. He is soon absorbed into theconversation

12.35 pm Table 16. Talking loudly Very social meeting typified by all inclusive conversation,animated gestures, laughter, smiles, eye contact, notconcerned that conversation was loud enough for others tohear

12.40 pm Customers from Table 7 leave. They have to squeeze pastTable 16. Two of the customers at Table 16 notice, pull theirchairs in closer to the table, turn and smile at the onespushing past

Time Field observations Field thoughts

Café 1: 5 February12.00

noonTable 18. Two male customers sitting next to each other. Their backs are to the counterand entrance. They appear to be working together on some paper work. There is littlebody movement but hand gestures are directed toward the book in front of them.These two are about 8–9 m away so cannot tell if the conversation is quiet or loudenough for others to hear

These two are ignoringeverything that is happeningaround them

12.50 pm Table 18. The two customers are still working over some books and papers in front ofthem. They are leaning over the table. Their focus is on the books rather than eachother or the other customers around them

Body language says: ‘‘Do NotDisturb”

Café 2: 11 February10.15 am Table 47. There are four customers (2 men, 2 women) sitting one on each side of a

square table. This table is positioned on the sidewalk – there is no barrier between thediners and the people walking up and down the street. The table is on an angle to thestreet so that all the customers can get a good view up (or down) the street withoutturning their heads although none of these customers are paying any attention topassers by. They are all sitting forward in their chairs looking at papers spread out onthe table. They appear to be discussing these

These customers could be in anempty café for all the notice theyare taking of either the othercustomers or people on the street

10.24 am A woman walks down the pavement, she slows as she goes past Table 37 and looks atthe two customers sitting there and what they are doing (working on some papers onthe table). There is no reaction from either customer to this behaviour

Even thought there is someinterest from other customersthey completely ignore this

A.G. Tombs, J.R. McColl-Kennedy / Australasian Marketing Journal 18 (2010) 120–131 123

Author's personal copy

The main differences between the social and business occasionswere observed to be the customers’ body posture, level of conver-sation and focus of the customers. In the business meetings cus-tomers appear to be physically oriented inward toward thetables, speak quietly and remain focused within the group. Theyare in an environment open to the public but appear not to be

interested in anything happening around them, nor do they appearto welcome any intrusion from others. These customers give thedistinct impression that this is consumption occasion is private.

Social meetings on the other hand appear far more relaxed, thelevel of conversation is generally louder yet these customers do notseem concerned about other customers overhearing them.

Fig. 1. Café – time sequenced floor layout 10.00 am–11.15 am.

124 A.G. Tombs, J.R. McColl-Kennedy / Australasian Marketing Journal 18 (2010) 120–131

Author's personal copy

Although interaction between the different social groups was ob-served only occasionally, customers showed no signs that theydo not welcome any intrusion. The difference, therefore, appearsto lie in the observed degree of openness to others. The socialmeeting customers appear to enjoy being part of a larger groupoccasion.

In addition to social meetings and business meetings, a thirdpurchase occasion was observed: ‘‘time-out” occasions. Duringtime-out occasions customers tended to sit and consume alone,although occasionally couples exhibited similar behaviour. Thecustomers would come in and survey the entire dining area beforemaking a table selection. Despite there being a large selection of ta-bles available they would tend to choose a seat near existing din-ers. These customers appear to position themselves at a table soas to get the greatest view of the other diners and passing pedes-trians, sit quietly and either observe the activities within the caféor read. Many of these customers used some form of reading mate-rial (newspapers, magazines or books). Often the customer ap-peared to use a newspaper to obscure him/her self from theother customers, hence, enabling the customer to subtly observeothers without being observed themselves. For example the fol-lowing field diary notes show how props are used by time-out cus-tomers.

The behaviour of customers using the café for time-out occasionsappeared similar to the social group in their openness to others.The way these customers tended to seat themselves near to othercustomers suggests an attempt to blend into or appear to blendinto a larger group rather than sit conspicuously out on theirown. Being seen as part of a larger group may have added to asense of belonging and it was this group experience that theysought. As the physical layout and table arrangement of the cafésremained constant across all observations the patterns of cus-tomer behaviour can be regarded as being dependent on groupsize and purchase occasion rather than the physical layout ofthe environment. Therefore other customers appeared not onlyto have some social influence on customers but also some spatialinfluence.

4.6. Findings – spatial influence

Spatial influence of others, i.e. the patterns of behaviour relatedto the distance and seating arrangements of customers within theenvironment, appeared to be driven by the purchase occasion. Thetwo most observable patterns follow Osmond’s (1957) notion ofsociopetal (where people are drawn together) and sociofugal(where people are kept apart) spatial arrangements. The physicalproximity and orientation of individuals appeared to either facili-

tate (sociopetal) or impede (sociofugal) interaction. Sociopetalseating arrangements encouraged interaction and facilitated affili-ation (Forsyth, 1999). While direct affiliation was evident betweencustomers sitting at the same table, direct interaction betweencustomers at different tables was not common. However, theredid seem to be some degree of unspoken affiliation as the cafésfilled concentrically around existing customers. For example:

A single female customer enters; she stands near the centre ofthe café and looks around at the other customers already seatedthere. Time about 13 s. Finally she goes over and sits at table 14.This (table) is next to one occupied table (three customers) andthree vacant tables. She is still looking around, doesn’t seem set-tled. Now gets up and shifts to table 16. This one has occupiedtables on three sides and a vacant one on the other. She sitsback in her chair waiting for her order. Appears quite relaxed.Looks back into café and other customers. (Field note: Café 1,31 January, 12.25 pm)

On a number of occasions, especially when the density of cus-tomers in the café was low, the researchers observed customerschoosing a table adjacent to existing customers rather than outon their own. This behaviour appeared to be most common withlone individuals and couples rather than groups. These individuals

and couples also tended to fit the same profile as the ‘time-out’customers. An implication drawn here is that although these cus-tomers visit the café to relax and have a break from their regularactivities there is still a need for a sense of belonging that bringsthem into the café and to sit near other people. Hence, we use affi-liative conflict theory (Knowles, 1989) to explain this behaviour. Toreduce internal conflict they clearly appeared to want to be seen aspart of the larger group of café customers. Fig. 1 provides a time se-quenced floor layout for café 2. Each floor plan represents thechange in customer numbers and location that occurred withinthe previous 15 min period.

Sociofugal seating behaviour describes a choice of table thatseparated the arriving customer(s) from the existing customersin the café. In contrast to the behaviour associated with sociopetalpatterns, sociofugal patterns are more likely to discourage interac-tion and can in some cases drive participants out of the situationaltogether (Forsyth, 1999). This behaviour appeared most commonin individuals and couples rather than groups. However the differ-ence appeared to be largely related to the customers’ purchase oc-casion, that is, these customers tended to fit the same profile as the‘business meeting’ customers. This may not be surprising consider-ing their conversation topics were more likely to be private andconfidential. Many of the individuals in this category appeared tocarry out business meetings on their mobile phones (phone con-

Time Field observations Field thoughts

Café 1: 28 January12.21 pm A single male customer arrives. He has a newspaper under

his arm. He looks around the dining area, appears to bepaying particular attention to where other customers aresitting. Walks through the dinning area to Table 8. Sits downfacing into the café, side onto the table. Opens newspaperand starts to read. Newspaper is held up partially obscuringother customers’ view of him. Appears to be frequentlylooking over top of paper toward the other customers

Table 8 is on the side of the dining area. There is a low walland garden behind. He seems quite relaxed andcomfortable. Seems like he wants to see but not be seen. Thenewspaper may be used to justify sitting on his own – givesimpression this is a normal natural thing to do: time-out inthe middle of the day

12.45 pm Table 8. Man still reading newspaper. Holding high up infront of him. Cannot see his face. Still sitting facing the othercustomers. His chair is side onto the table

A.G. Tombs, J.R. McColl-Kennedy / Australasian Marketing Journal 18 (2010) 120–131 125

Author's personal copy

versations while writing into folios or diaries), so again locatedthemselves at a table away from others, where their conversationscould not be overheard. The field diary notes below provide anexample of a business meeting.

10:23 am Single man arrives. Stands near the entrance andlooks around the café briefly as if deciding where to sit. Sitsdown at table 41 back to side of café, facing toward entrance.There are no other customers at any of the adjacent tables.Opens out a diary or folio on the table and makes a phone call.Starts writing into the diary. Pays no attention to other custom-ers or passing pedestrians. 10:35 am Man still on phone.Appears to be concentrating on papers in front of him.10:42 am Man stands up, picks up phone and folio, looksaround and then walks further back into the café. Sits backdown at table 22. Nearest customer 4 tables away. Makesanother phone call. (Field note: Café 2, 14 February, 10:23 am)

The third form of spatial behaviour related to larger groups(three or more customers). These groups appeared to sit at randomin the café without any reference to other customers. These cus-tomers tended to fit the same profile as the ‘social meeting’ cus-tomers. The lack of reference to the other customers appeared tobe largely due to the group size being large enough to meet the so-cial needs of the customers, being a self-contained social unit.While they had little interaction with the other customers theydid attract the sociopetal customers to tables adjacent to thesegroups.

While previous studies have shown that behaviour such as affil-iation and communication may be determined by manipulatingseating arrangements (Sommer, 1965; Patterson et al., 1979) theobservational nature of this study prevented any intervention bythe researchers. Customers themselves determined the behaviourand seating arrangements. As both sociopetal and sociofugalbehaviours appeared to occur simultaneously within the sameenvironment these observations suggest that spatial density with-in areas of the cafe is more likely to be determined by the context(purchase occasion) than the physical layout of the café environ-ment. This suggests also that the mere presence of other customershas some influence on the spatial behaviour of customers. Thus theoccasion acts as the internal driver, in Affiliative Conflict theory(Knowles, 1989), that determines a customer’s comfort level rela-tive to the closeness of others. The observation that larger groupstended to show no such patterns supports observations by Burgess(1983) that distances between strangers in shopping malls wereessentially random. Moreover, these observations also suggest thatwhile groups are self-contained, having their social needs fulfilledwithin the group, they had a social influence on couples and indi-viduals, providing a sense of belonging.

5. Study 2

5.1. Aim

To further investigate issues raised in Study 1, in particular rela-tionships between group size and social affiliation, and purchaseoccasion and social affiliation, a follow up study in the same set-tings was conducted. Study 2 aims to investigate more deeply ifcouples’ behaviour differed from that of groups in terms of socialand spatial influence.

5.2. Method

The behaviour of customers, the location of tables within thecafé, the customer’s choice of table in relation to tables occupiedby existing customers, the gender, apparent age and activity (eat-

ing, reading, drinking) of the customers were recorded using abehavioural mapping chart designed for this purpose. The arrivalsand departures of customers and the number of people seated ateach table were also recorded. As we were interested in customers’choice of seating in relation to other customers (spatial influence)we limited our observations to times when the cafés were less than60% full. Observation sessions ranged from 60 to 150 min each over25 sessions. A total of 242 completed episodes where the entireservice process was recorded (customers arrived, consumed theservice and departed) were obtained. A further 115 observationswere made where the customers stayed in the café longer thanthe observer. In these latter observations all items were recordedexcept duration of stay. The location and group size of the custom-ers who were in the café at the time each observation sessionstarted were recorded. However as the duration and table choiceof these customers could not be determined these observationswere not included in the analysis. While we could not obtain anaccurate age from observed participants they were classified byapparent deciles. Customers between 30 and 39 years made upthe greatest percentage of those observed (33%) followed by 40–49 years (28%), 20–30 years (21%), 50–60 years (16%) and over 60(2%). Where length of time was recorded the only significant differ-ence in duration of stay was between the 60+ cohort and the othercohorts. There were no significant differences in duration betweenany of the other cohorts. The gender mix of observed customerswas 56% female, 44% male. There were no significant differencesin duration between genders. The quantifiable data were analysedusing SPSS.

5.3. Findings

The episodes were analysed in terms of whether social facilita-tion (social influence) influenced the duration of the café experi-ence and whether the location of other customers (spatialinfluence) affected where customers chose to sit. Building on Study1, we classified the occupants of each table according to the size ofthe group at the table. Namely, ‘‘isolates” (customers sitting alone),‘‘couples” (groups of two), ‘‘groups” (three or more customers) and‘‘joined parties” (these were where other customers joined existingcustomer(s) at the same table). This classification followed Som-mer and Sommer’s (1989) study of social facilitation in coffeehouses with the exception that in that study couples were includedin the group classification. Our study viewed couples as a separateclassification following the findings of Study 1 where it was ob-served that couples tended to sit at tables adjacent to or near exist-ing diners, whereas groups appeared to select tables morerandomly. Therefore, Study 2 aimed to investigate more deeply ifcouples’ behaviour differed from that of groups in terms of socialand spatial influence.

Table 1 clearly shows that in situations where the customershad some form of social interaction (groups of 2 or more) theystayed longer than those who did not (isolates). Surprisingly how-ever this trend did not continue as groups became larger. Therewas no significant difference in duration between couples and lar-ger groups. In situations where others joined existing customersthe duration was double that of the isolates and 35% longer thanthe non-joined couples and groups.

These findings show a very similar pattern to the Sommer andSommer (1989) study although the mean times for all groups aresignificantly longer for the current study. The findings supportProposition 1 that customers will have a social influence on the othercustomers present and that they will stay within the environment be-cause of the mere presence of other customers.

The findings shown in Table 2 also confirm that social interac-tion has an influence on the duration of the service encounter.Again those episodes that involved social interaction (i.e. social

126 A.G. Tombs, J.R. McColl-Kennedy / Australasian Marketing Journal 18 (2010) 120–131

Author's personal copy

meetings) were over 50% longer than those that appeared not to(i.e. time-out episodes).

To determine whether singles and couples appeared to seatthemselves adjacent to other customers, an analysis of table selec-tion relative to existing customers was undertaken. The findingsshown in Table 3 confirm this observation with 71.4% of isolatesand 78.4% of couples choosing to seat themselves at tables adjacentto others rather than out on their own. In contrast, groups dis-played the opposite tendency with 61.2% choosing to sit at a tableaway from other customers. The joined groups showed a tendencysimilar to that of the isolates and couples but this may be due tothe original customers being either isolates or couples before oth-ers joined them. These findings support Proposition 2 that custom-ers will be spatially influenced by the other customers present in thesocial servicescape.

6. Study 3

6.1. Aim

The aim of this study was to explore explanations for the ob-served behaviours in Studies 1 and 2. While field observation hasparticular advantages in recording the naturalistic behaviour ofcustomers it does rely on the skill of the observer to interpret theseobserved behaviours. The observer can answer who, when, where,what, how, and how much questions relating to behaviour but canonly make inferences on why customers behaved in the way theydid. Study 3 therefore, reports on the findings of four focus groupswith customers, in order to answer the why question and rule outalternative explanations for the behaviour that was observed.

6.2. Participants

All four focus groups were conducted with members of the gen-eral public (n = 24). Each group had no more than seven partici-

pants. The focus groups consisted of 14 female and 10 maleparticipants ranging in age from 20 to 55. They were recruitedusing a snowball sampling method. The criterion for inclusion inthe focus groups was based on recent (within the last two months)personal experiences of dining at either a café or restaurant. Thediscussion format was based on a semi structured interview. Thisensured that the main concepts of social and spatial influence werediscussed, while enough latitude was allowed for the discussion toexplore all the commonalities and differences in the subjectivemeanings the participants attached to these concepts. The focusgroups lasted between 60 and 90 min. The data was analysed usingmanual thematic analysis.

6.3. Findings

The focus groups not only confirmed that customers use com-mercial public spaces for social meetings, business meetings, andpersonal ‘‘time-out” episodes but also revealed how customers feltabout the presence of other customers for the different occasions.Although other customers within the environment were seen asinfluencers by the participants, the influence of others however,was most noticeable when customers talked about visiting cafésby themselves or in small groups. For example, one participantnotes how the other customers influenced her choice of café whenshe is on her own:

In a strange café I’d look around, if the café was like open I couldsee in, and if there were other people there, I feel that I wouldbe comfortable and I’d go in. But if the café [frontage] wasclosed and you had to open the door and walk in and then lookaround and oh you’d be sitting there by yourself, couldn’t dothat. (Female, aged 49, FG2)

Other participants also supported this finding and suggested thatthey used the presence of others to feel that they were part of thesocial servicescape:

Because I was there by myself. . . I wasn’t interested in joining agroup I just wanted to be part of the scene. (Male, 21, FG4)When we got there we were put at a little table for two sort oftucked away. I said, ‘‘can we sit somewhere else please?” to getback into the main part of the restaurant because I like thatsense of being involved. (Female, 52, FG3)

The mere presence of other customers appeared to give customers asense of security or a sense of belonging thus enabling the individ-ual customer to visit the cafes on their own. They felt comfortablefrequenting a place (for a time-out episode) where they knew therewere other people whereas that would be impossible if there wereno other customers. The presence of other customers also affectedthe mood of the environment which appears to have had an influ-ence on the time people stayed, as demonstrated in the followingquotes:

. . . there was only one other group, a family, and the rest of therestaurant was vacant. That was noticeable and did influenceus. We were probably more mechanical in a way, we just ateand went, . . .and that did influence mood too, it sort of felt likethe absence of mood in a lot of ways. (Male, 30, FG3)I can recall an occasion when we were travelling at Christmas.We went for Christmas dinner in a restaurant and it was emptyand I had second thoughts about staying because for Christmas Ifelt like I would like to have a festive atmosphere and I needpeople. I was wrong as all the other tables were reservedbecause within an hour there was such a Christmas atmospherethat we stayed until midnight. But my first impression was no,

Table 3Social attraction of other diners.

Relationship to others Isolates Couples Groups Joinedparties

Adjacent tables occupied (N) 71.4%(80)

78.4%(120)

38.8%(19)

74.4%(32)

Adjacent tables unoccupied (N) 28.6%(32)

21.6%(33)

61.2%(30)

25.6%(11)

Table 1Duration of stay at table.

Isolates Couples Groups 3+ Joined parties

Mean (min) 24.4 36.7 37.3 50.0Std. deviation 13.7 14.8 9.94 17.9N 76 105 33 29t Value 5.469** ns 3.384**

** p < .05.

Table 2The influence of purchase occasion on duration of stay.

Social meetings Business meetings Time-out episodes

Mean (min) 41.07 29.45 26.63Std. deviation 16.80 14.98 13.36N 86 22 42t Value 2.957** ns

** p < .01; ns = not significant.

A.G. Tombs, J.R. McColl-Kennedy / Australasian Marketing Journal 18 (2010) 120–131 127

Author's personal copy

but it was just because we were hungry that we decided to staybut the other people saved the evening. I guess we were expect-ing a certain type of mood, which other people provide.(Female, 50, FG3)

The absence of other customers came up frequently as somethingthat detracted from the experience even for larger groups.

You can have too few people in a restaurant. Especially ifyou’re looking to go out with a bunch of people to celebratesomething like a birthday or something like that. There’s noth-ing worse than being in a quiet empty place. I find, whatwould usually be the case when there’s only say four or fivetables being used and people are kind of scattered a little bitand everybody’s fairly subdued. Perhaps because there’s nobackground noise to drown out what you are saying so I guesspeople kind of direct their conversation quite inward to thegroup. I mean if you are there with a group of 10 people, fora mate’s birthday, and you know you want to be quite loudbut you become quite self-conscious of your conversation blar-ing out to everybody else so perhaps you become a little bitsubdued. (Male, 24, FG3)

This and the following example also reinforce the control aspect ofsocial facilitation, that individuals will monitor others around thenand conform to the social norms of behaviour that may be appropri-ate to the situation even when they would rather be doingotherwise.

I feel a lot more self-conscious when I go out by myself, espe-cially in the evening, during the day it’s easier unless you goto a special restaurant. It is not so much what I feel because Ifeel very comfortable myself but I sense what the waiting staffand the other customers may be feeling. Sometimes I feel that Ibring another element in and they are not comfortable withthat. If it is like a romantic restaurant everybody sitting therein twos and then I am sitting at my table just writing or some-thing and I sense the people around me are a little bit uneasy.(Female, 50, FG3)

Just as too few customers will affect an individual’s reaction toan environment, too many customers will also have a negativeinfluence on the individual customer and so influence the durationof their stay.

The thing that stands out in my mind is it was horribly crowded.I think normally it’s not such a big deal, especially with a groupand the group can sit around the table and kind of talk amongstthemselves and it doesn’t matter what else is going on. But onthis occasion we were only two. It wasn’t very pleasant at all.(Male, 24, FG3)

It appears from this quotation that it was the purchase occa-sion that made the social density seem too high. In a group occa-sion the customer would not have perceived the density asproblematical: ‘‘. . .it’s not such a big deal”. Likewise the customeraffect generated would not have been negative. This response tothe busy environment reflects much of the crowding literature:‘‘. . .under some conditions and for some people a given level ofdensity will lead to crowding, while in other conditions and forother people, it may not” (Dion, 2004, p.251). The crowding liter-ature associates the perception of crowding with the level of per-ceived personal control (Dion, 2004; Hui and Bateson, 1991;Leong et al., 1997; Ward and Barnes, 2001). The perceptions ofcrowding and the negative affect generated in private purchaseoccasions may therefore be due to the lack of personal control.The intrusion by others may decrease personal control imposing

some constraint or hindering attainment of personal goals (suchas a quiet conversation of others). This concept of control emergedwhen talking about being uncomfortable in crowded supermar-kets and food courts.

It’s chaos. You can’t control who is going to sit next to you.(Female 22, FG4)No, you can’t. I know my sister, she hates sushi and if we go tothe food court and anyone sits near her with sushi she takes off,she can’t stand the smell of it. It’s the whole thing about youcan’t control it. (Female, 21, FG4)

Yet other busy situations were seen as positive. Possibly becausegroup occasions set their own social norms and so may not associ-ate busy environments with feelings of constraint or lack of per-sonal control.

I think what makes it, that sort of atmosphere. . .You can justsort of sit there comfortably, make a lot of noise if you wantto and do what you want, which is a good atmosphere. That’swhy we’ve gone back. I think that’s what attracts me to theplaces like that: there are no set rules. (Male, 22, FG4)

In this example chaos seemed to add to the atmosphere of being outwith a group in a busy environment. Group participants appear tosee themselves as contributing to the atmosphere and more easilyaccept the intrusion of others compared with customers experienc-ing a private occasion. For example:

You didn’t really mind that it was noisy because you were witha group; everyone was talking loud so you just talk louder.(Female, 22, FG1).

The social nature and self containment of the social meetings withlarger groups also influenced the duration of stay, thus supportingobservations made in Study 2. For example one participantcomments:

But with the group I would notice [other customers] less, likethe outing last Friday we didn’t even notice that the restaurantfilled up. If I were there by myself, or just the two of us, wemaybe would not have lingered enough for the restaurant to fillup. (Female, 50, FG3).

As identified in Studies 1 and 2 business meetings appeared tobe self-contained with little regard for other customers:

Yeah, I think initially and at the end you do [notice other cus-tomers] but in the middle you don’t because it is actually thebusiness you are there to discuss. It’s like a giant pantomime,you know you are out there, you know everyone knows whyyou are entertaining over here. (Male, 52 FG2)

An interesting aspect of the observations was the use of ‘comforters’(books, magazines, newspapers) and how these appeared to be asurrogate companion. The focus groups participants further sup-ported this observation that these items were used to help legiti-mise customers visiting cafés on their own.

There is a point where I take a book because there is that awk-ward moment, you know, from the time where you order asquick as you could do to when your entree arrives. It says I’mnot alone, I’m on a business trip. (Male, 22, FG4)I would require a prop in that sense probably, to be more com-fortable. Not that it’s that big a deal, but I certainly used themon those occasions when I have been on my own. (Male, 30,FG3)

128 A.G. Tombs, J.R. McColl-Kennedy / Australasian Marketing Journal 18 (2010) 120–131

Author's personal copy

Purchase occasion also appears to influence the optimal socialdensity desired by customers. Even within the same environmentthe density of other customers changes with the purchaseoccasion.

But if we’re going out for a celebratory thing then busy situa-tions, loud fun type things are usually better. And then if we’regoing out for a romantic thing, something where there is a few-you know, where the restaurant is full but well spaced out andprivate in that context that’s how I would say maybe best too.(Male, 30, FG3)

This last example also suggests that purchase occasion influencesthe desired spatial density. The desire or tolerance for the closeproximity of other customers may also explain the differences inspatial behaviour.

I think that there is a subconscious feeling that if you are byyourself or you are just a small group you’re are not going tosit in the open space in the middle. The groups don’t have thatproblem. . . .so they [individuals and small groups] kind of try tosit against the wall and it gets them all in the same place . . .sothat they are not sitting out on their own. (Female, 28, FG1)

. . . I tended to go towards where other people were. There wer-en’t that many. There might have been three or four tables. Igravitated towards them, but far enough away so I didn’t listento the intimate details of the conversations but close enough sothat I was socially part of a group I guess. (Female, 42, FG3).

7. Discussion

The three linked studies make three key contributions: (1) so-cial facilitation theory can be applied to marketing to explain thebehaviour of customers within the social servicescape, (2) the pur-chase occasion appears to determine the customers’ tolerance/acceptance of other customers within a purchase environment,and (3) both sociopetal and sociofugal behaviours can occur withinthe same environment even at the same time rather than beingenvironmentally specific.

First, we demonstrate that the presence of other customers in asocial servicescape positively influences the duration of stay (socialinfluence), even when there is no direct contact. We also show thatthe purchase occasion will determine the customers’ tolerance/acceptance of other customers within a purchase environmentand hence influence their behaviour and attitude to that establish-ment. Given the combined influence of other customers and pur-chase occasion on customer behaviour the findings reveal thatsocial facilitation theory can be adapted to explain the behaviourof customers within the social servicescape. This theory reinforcesthe notion that the presence of other customers will generate so-cial facilitation effects in terms of enhancing the individual’s dom-inant responses (Geen and Bushman, 1989; Zajonc, 1965). Hence,given a choice, customers will stay longer in a social servicescapethat they feel they belong to. In a sense, the customers ‘‘purchase”the whole environment including the atmosphere created by allthe other customers within it, even if they are just having a cupof coffee.

Finally, we also show that both sociopetal and sociofugal behav-iours can occur within the same environment even at the sametime. The expectation of affiliation with other customers appearsto be dependent on purchase occasion. For example, individualcustomers and couples tend to want to be spatially close to othercustomers in this service setting for non-business meetings (spatialinfluence). This observation suggests the desire for a sense ofbelonging through an association with others in the servicescape,

whereas larger groups appeared to be self-contained having the so-cial need fulfilled within the group. Conversely, the business meet-ing customers did not desire others around them. Indeed, thecustomers in these latter groups appeared to be uncomfortable ifthey were spatially close to other customers. These observedbehaviours are in accord with Affiliative Conflict theory (Knowles,1989). That is, customers need to feel a sense of belonging, or asense of separation, is fulfilled by being spatially close or spatiallydistant from other customers, depending on the context.

8. Managerial implications

Managers and service personnel need to understand that cus-tomers influence other customers present in the servicescape evenwhen there is no direct contact. First, service providers need to rec-ognise the occasion (business/social) and nature of the party (sin-gle/couples/group). Our findings suggest that customers appear toincrease the comfort of other customers as well as facilitating asense of social belonging within the social servicescape. For exam-ple, placement of specific size groups of customers in specific areasby the wait staff may assist in attracting passing customers. Whileexperienced restaurateurs may know the benefits of customerplacement it is not capitalised on in many cafés. It is thereforeimportant that this knowledge is passed onto to the wait staff –especially where the establishment employees casual or transientstaff. But importantly, customers who are using the café for a busi-ness meeting need to be catered for too by enabling them to sitaway from other customers. Indeed, understanding the significantrole that customers play, both socially and spatially in this settingis critical and should be incorporated into staff training. Wait-staffshould be trained to recognise if customers are coming into thecafé for a business or a social meeting. Customers coming in for asocial meeting, whether they are individuals or small groups, arelikely to desire to be located close to other customers. Conversely,business meeting customers are likely to desire privacy and thusbe located away from other customers.

Managers should be aware of the influence of customers onother customers in terms of maximising or minimising the dura-tion of customers in the servicescape. A balance is needed betweenstaying in an environment long enough to potentially spend themaximum for the occasion and customers staying longer than theircapacity to consume the service. This is expected to depend on theservice/product being offered. For example, a customer is likely toorder a dessert and or a coffee in a restaurant where they stay long-er because of the social environment, yet most customers will notbuy more than one cup of coffee in a café regardless of the length oftime they occupy the table. Therefore from a manager’s perspec-tive there are benefits of encouraging social facilitation and makingcustomer stay longer in a restaurant but this behaviour may pre-vent potential sales if customers linger in cafés.

9. Limitations and future research

As with any research, we acknowledge limitations. Although thefindings of social facilitation, that relate to group size and durationof stay, follow a similar pattern of earlier studies (e.g. Sommer andSommer, 1989; Sommer and Steele, 1997) the time each groupstayed within the environment was significantly longer in thisstudy. This may reflect differences in culture. Future research couldconsider whether cultural differences affect the behaviour of cus-tomers using a social servicescape such as a café. Furthermore,observations may be different during more formal evening diningsituations to those observed in the current study. Likewise thefindings may be different in other settings, such as retail shops.

A limitation of observation research is the limited ability to dis-cover the reasons behind the observed behaviour. This limits the

A.G. Tombs, J.R. McColl-Kennedy / Australasian Marketing Journal 18 (2010) 120–131 129

Author's personal copy

inferences that can be made from the findings. It does however,allow behavioural patterns to be captured in a way that no inter-vention can. Future research could test the spatial behaviour ofcustomers by experimental means (manipulating the environmen-tal layout).

Our research highlights a third dimension of the environmentthat future research could investigate, that is, the purchase occa-sion. Differing behaviours associated with different purchase occa-sions were observed even when all of the other environmentalvariables remained constant. Environmental psychology research-ers particularly, acknowledge context in behaviour settings (e.g.Barker, 1968; Wicker, 1992) and place (e.g. Cantor, 1986). Thus,researchers are encouraged to consider purchase occasion and con-text of the service setting in future studies.

Notwithstanding, this research demonstrates that customers doindeed influence other customers in the servicescape, socially andspatially. In applying Social Facilitation theory and Affiliative Con-flict theory to help better understand the influence of customers onother customers in an experiential (social) service setting. This re-search highlights the importance of conceptualizing the serviceenvironment in terms of both social and physical elements andacknowledging customers as playing an important role in theservicescape. Therefore, rather than viewing customers merely aspassive recipients of a service, they can and do impact on othercustomers present even when there is no direct contact.

References

Adler, P.A., Adler, P., 1994. Observational techniques. In: Denzin, N.K., Lincoln, Y.E.(Eds.), Handbook of Qualitative Research. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA,pp. 377–391.

Argo, J.J., Dahl, D.W., Manchanda, R.V., 2005. The influence of a mere social presencein a retail context. Journal of Consumer Research 32 (2), 207–213.

Argyle, M., Dean, J., 1965. Eye contact, distance and affiliation. Sociometry 28 (3),289–304.

Baker, J., 1987. The role of the environment in marketing services. In: Czepiel, J.A.,Congram, C.A., Shanahan, J. (Eds.), The Services Challenge: Integrating forCompetitive Advantage. American Marketing Association, Chicago, Il.

Barker, R.G., 1968. Ecological Psychology: Concepts and Methods for Studying theEnvironment of Human Behaviour. Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA.

Barnes, J.G., 2000. Secrets of Customer Relationship Management: It’s All AboutHow You Make Them Feel. McGraw-Hill, Sydney.

Bendek, Z.M., 2002. Citizens of the future: beyond normative conditions through theemergence of desirable collective properties. Journal of Business Ethics 39 (1/2),189–195.

Bielski, L., 2009. Intrepid banks ‘‘tweet”. ABA Banking Journal 101 (2), 7–8.Bowen, D., 1990. Interdisciplinary study of service. Some progress, some prospects.

Journal of Business Research 20 (1), 71–80.Burgess, J.W., 1983. Interpersonal spacing behaviour between surrounding nearest

neighbors reflects both familiarity and environmental density. Ethnology andSociobiology 4 (1), 11–17.

Cantor, D., 1986. Putting situations in their place. Foundations for a bridge betweensocial and environmental psychology. In: Furnham, A. (Ed.), Social Behaviour inContext. Allyn and Bacon, London.

Carver, C.S., Scheier, M.F., 1981. Attention and Self Regulation: A Control TheoryApproach to Human Behaviour. Springer-Verlag, New York.

Clendenen, V.I., Herman, C.P., Polivy, J., 1994. Social facilitation of eating amongfriends and strangers. Appetite 23 (1), 1–13.

Clark, R.A., Goldsmith, R.E., 2005. Market mavens: psychological influences.Psychology and Marketing 22 (4), 289–312.

Dahl, D.W., Manchanda, R.V., Argo, J.J., 2001. Embarrassment in consumer purchase:the roles of social presence and purchase familiarity. Journal of ConsumerResearch 28 (3), 473–482.

Davies, B., Baron, S., Harris, K., 1999. Observable oral participation in the servuctionsystem: toward a content and process model. Journal of Business Research 44(1), 47–54.

Dion, D., 2004. Personal control and coping with retail crowding. InternationalJournal of Service Industry Management 15 (3), 250–263.

Eroglu, S.A., Machleit, K.A., Chebat, J.-C., 2005. The interaction of retail density andmusic tempo: Effects on shopper responses. Psychology and Marketing 22 (7),577–589.

Forsyth, D.R., 1999. Group Dynamics, third ed. Brooks/Cole, Belmont, CA.Feick, L.F., Price, L.L., 1987. The market maven: a diffuser of marketplace

information. Journal of Marketing 51 (1), 83–97.Geen, R.G., Bushman, B.J., 1989. The arousing effects of social presence. In: Wagner,

H., Manstead, A. (Eds.), Handbook of Social Psychophysiology. Wiley, New York,pp. 261–281.

Grossbart, S., Hampton, R., Rammohan, B., Lapidus, R.S., 1990. Environmentaldispositions and customer response to store atmospherics. Journal of BusinessResearch 21 (3), 225–241.

Grizzle, J.W., Zablah, A.R., Brown, T.J., Mowen, J.C., Lee, J.M., 2009. Employeecustomer orientation in context: how the environment moderates the influenceof customer orientation on performance outcomes. Journal of AppliedPsychology 94 (5), 1227–1242.

Grove, S., Fisk, R., 1992. Observational data collection methods for servicesmarketing: an overview. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 20 (3),217–224.

Grove, S., Fisk, R., 1997. The impact of other customers on service experiences: acritical incident examination of ‘‘getting along”. Journal of Retailing 73 (1), 63–85.

Guerin, B., 1993. Social Facilitation. Cambridge University, Press Paris.Harris, K., Baron, S., 2004. Consumer-to-consumer conversations in service settings.

Journal of Service Research 6 (3), 287–303.Harris, L.C., Reynolds, K.L., 2003. The consequences of dysfunctional customer

behavior. Journal of Service Research 6 (2), 144–161.Hui, M.K., Bateson, J.E.G., 1991. Perceived control and the effects of crowding and

consumer choice on the service experience. Journal of Consumer Research 18(2), 174–184.

Kellehear, A., 1993. The Unobtrusive Observer: A guide to Methods. Allen & Unwin,St. Leonards, NSW.

Knowles, E.S., 1980. An affiliative conflict theory of personal and group spatialbehaviour. In: Paulus, P.B. (Ed.), Psychology of Group Influence. LawrenceErlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ.

Knowles, E.S., 1989. Spatial behaviour of individuals and groups. In: Paulus, P.B.(Ed.), Psychology of Group Influence, second ed. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,Hillsdale, NJ, pp. 53–86

Lee, M., Youn, S., 2009. Electronic word of mouth (eWOM): how eWOM platformsinfluence consumer product judgment. International Journal of Advertising 28(3), 473–499.

Leong, S.M., Ang, S.H., Low, L.H.L., 1997. Effects of physical environment and locus ofcontrol on service evaluation. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 4 (4),231–237.

Levy-Leboyer, C., 1988. Success and failure in applying psychology. AmericanPsychologist 43 (10), 779–785.

Machliet, K.A., Eroglu, S.A., Mantel, S.P., 2000. Perceived retail crowding andshopping satisfaction: what modifies this relationship? Journal of ConsumerPsychology 9 (1), 29–42.

Mangold, W.G., Faulds, D.J., 2009. Social media: the new hybrid element of thepromotion mix. Business Horizons 52 (4), 357–365.

McColl-Kennedy, J.R., Patterson, P.G., Smith, A.K., Brady, M.K., 2009. Customer rageepisodes: emotions, expressions and behaviour. Journal of Retailing 85 (2), 222–237.

Mehrabian, A., Russell, J.A., 1974. An Approach to Environmental Psychology. MITPress, Cambridge, MA.

Mewett, P.G., 1999. Fragment of a composite identity: aspects of Australiannationalism in a sports setting. The Australian Journal of Anthropology 10 (3),357–375.

Ng, S., Russell-Bennett, R., Dagger, T., 2007. A typology of mass services: the role ofservice delivery and consumption purpose in classifying service experiences.Journal of Services Marketing 21 (7), 471–480.

Paterson, M.L., Kelly, C.E., Kondracki, B., Wulf, L.J., 1979. Effects of seatingarrangement on small group behaviour. Social Psychology Quarterly 42 (2),180–185.

Platania, J., Moran, G.P., 2001. Social facilitation as a function of the mere presenceof others. The Journal of Social Psychology 141 (2), 190–197.

Price, L.L., Arnould, E.J., 1999. Commercial friendships: Service provider–clientrelationships in context. Journal of Marketing 63 (4), 38–56.

Pugh, S.D., 2001. Service with a smile: emotional contagion in the service encounter.Academy of Management Journal 44 (5), 1018–1027.

Osmond, H., 1957. Function as the basis of psychiatric ward design. MentalHospitals 8 (4), 23–30.

Rogers, E.M., 1976. New product adoption and diffusion. Journal of ConsumerResearch 2 (4), 290–302.

Rosenbaum, M.S., 2006. Exploring the social supportive role of third places inconsumers’ lives. Journal of Service Research 9 (1), 59–73.

Rust, L., 1993. Observations: parents and children shopping together: a newapproach to the qualitative analysis of observational data. Journal of AdvertisingResearch 33 (4), 65–70.

Shostack, G.L., 1977. Breaking free from product marketing. Journal of Marketing 41(April), 73–80.

Smith, T., 2009. The social media revolution. International Journal of MarketingResearch 51 (4), 559–561.

Sommer, R., 1965. The isolated drinker in the Edmonton beverage room. QuarterlyJournal of Studies on Alcohol 26 (1), 95–110.

Sommer, R., Sommer, B.A., 1989. Social facilitation effects in coffeehouses.Environment and Behaviour 21 (6), 651–666.

Sommer, R., Steele, J., 1997. Social effects on duration in restaurants. Appetite 29 (1),25–30.

Southerton, D., 2002. Boundaries of ‘us’ and ‘them’: class, mobility andidentification in a new town. Sociology: The Journal of the British SociologicalAssociation 36 (1), 171–193.

Tombs, A., McColl-Kennedy, J.R., 2003. Social-servicescape conceptual model.Marketing Theory 3 (4), 447–475.

130 A.G. Tombs, J.R. McColl-Kennedy / Australasian Marketing Journal 18 (2010) 120–131

Author's personal copy

Walsh, G., Gwinner, K.P., Swanson, S.R., 2004. What makes mavens tick? Exploringthe motives of market mavens’ initiation of information diffusion. The Journal ofConsumer Marketing 21 (2/3), 109–122.

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. Journalof Business Research 54 (2), 139–144.

Wicker, A.W., 1992. Making sense of environments. In: Walsh, W.B., Craik, K.H.,Price, R.H. (Eds.), Person-Environment Psychology: Models and Perspectives.Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, pp. 157–192.

Zajonc, R.B., 1965. Social facilitation: a solution is suggested for an old socialpsychological problem. Science 149 (July), 269–274.

Zeithaml, V.A., Parasuraman, A., Berry, L.L., 1985. Problems and strategies in servicesmarketing. Journal of Marketing 49 (2), 33–46.

Zhou, R., Soman, D., 2003. Looking back: exploring the psychology of queuing andthe effect of the number of people behind. Journal of Consumer Research 29 (4),517–531.

A.G. Tombs, J.R. McColl-Kennedy / Australasian Marketing Journal 18 (2010) 120–131 131