Despite retailers best intentions, consumers often shop

Transcription

1 Iana A. Castro, Andrea C. Morales, & Stephen M. Nowlis The Influence of Disorganized Shelf Displays and Limited Product Quantity on Consumer Purchase The current research explores how shelf display organization and limited product quantity together influence consumer purchase. The authors find that, in certain cases, shelves that are disorganized and not fully stocked tend to reduce sales, but in other cases, disorganized shelves that are not fully stocked tend to increase sales. In particular, for products that are ingested (e.g., juice), purchase likelihood is reduced when the product appears to be disorganized and product quantity is limited. However, for products that are not ingested (e.g., fabric softener), purchase likelihood increases when the product appears to be disorganized and product quantity is limited. Importantly, the authors also show that brand familiarity moderates these effects. Keywords: shelf displays, consumer decision making, product assortment, scarcity, contamination Despite retailers best intentions, consumers often shop in stores in which the products on the shelves appear to be messy and are not fully stocked. For example, a consumer shopping for eggs might notice that, instead of being arranged in neat stacks all facing the same way on the refrigerated shelf, the egg cartons seem to be in complete disarray and have not been restocked. Although most retailers likely want their shelf displays to be as orderly and fully stocked as possible, consumers often encounter disorganized and only partially stocked shelves in the actual marketplace. This can happen because consumers often handle the products and do not put them back neatly and because store employees often do not have enough time to organize and restock the shelves continually. In this article, we examine the effect of disorganized shelf displays and limited product quantity on consumer purchase. We propose that disorganized shelves that are not fully stocked will sometimes result in lower purchase likelihood and other times will result in greater purchase likelihood. In particular, a consumer who sees a messy product display may believe that this is the case because other consumers have handled the product, thereby causing the display to become disorganized and out of place. This may lead the consumer, under certain conditions, to believe that after other shoppers have handled a product, it is contaminated; Iana A. Castro is Assistant Professor of Marketing, College of Business Administration, San Diego State University ( iana.castro@mail. sdsu. edu). Andrea C. Morales is Associate Professor of Marketing, W.P. Carey School of Business, Arizona State University ( acmorales@ asu.edu). Stephen M. Nowlis is August A. Busch Jr. Distinguished Professor of Marketing, Olin Business School, Washington University ( nowlis@ wustl.edu). The authors thank the three reviewers as well as Naomi Mandel and James Ward for their insightful comments, which helped improve the article. The article is based on the first author s dissertation. Alexander Chernev served as area editor for this article. thus, he or she is less likely to purchase it. However, at other times, the consumer may believe that the product is relatively popular because other consumers have been touching and taking products from the display. Such an inference of popularity may increase the likelihood that the consumer purchases the product if he or she has reason to believe that such popularity means the product is of greater value. The current research explores how shelf display organization and the amount of product on the shelf influence consumer inferences about the products and, ultimately, purchase likelihood and choice. We believe that such an undertaking is important because shelves are often disorganized and not fully stocked, and yet little prior research has investigated how this can influence purchase likelihood. We are able to develop a model of when and why disorganized shelf displays and limited product quantity may increase, decrease, or have no effect on consumer purchase likelihood by examining four factors that consumers are regularly exposed to when looking at a shelf display shelf display organization, product quantity, product type, and brand familiarity and explaining how they interactively influence purchase likelihood and choice. In so doing, we are able to provide a more complete conceptualization of how product shelf displays influence consumer decision making and choice. We contribute to the literature in several ways. First, we show that shelf displays can sometimes lead either to fears of contamination or to perceptions of popularity. Specifically, we find that one remaining ingestible product on a messy shelf signals contamination and leads to a decrease in purchase, but one remaining noningestible product on a messy shelf signals popularity and leads to an increase in purchase. Thus, we are able to demonstrate how the organization and amount of products on the shelf interact with the type of product to influence purchase likelihood, an avenue of research that has yet to be investigated. Second, we show 2013, American Marketing Association ISSN: (print), (electronic) 118 Journal of Marketing Vol. 77 (July 2013),

2 that (1) whether consumers make inferences about popularity or contamination and (2) how much weight each factor has in their purchasing decision is influenced by their familiarity with the brands on display. Although consumers are typically averse to perceived contamination, which results in lower purchase intentions for contaminated products, we demonstrate that the uncertainty consumers experience when choosing from unfamiliar brands can sometimes lead them to have higher purchase intentions for contaminated products that they also perceive to be popular, thereby highlighting the significant role uncertainty can play in the shopping environment. How Shelf Displays Influence Purchase Consumers can rely on various cues available in the retail marketplace to help them make purchase decisions (e.g., Atalay, Bodur, and Rasolofoarison 2012; Chandon et al. 2009; Kahn and Wansink 2004; Lemon and Nowlis 2002; Morales 2005; Nowlis, Dhar, and Simonson 2010; Valenzuela and Raghubir 2009). For example, a consumer can use the appearance of shelf displays as a cue to the value of the products on those shelf displays. One commonly available store shelf cue is whether the products are organized (for the effect of disorganization on assortment perceptions, see Hoch, Bradlow, and Wansink 1999). Products on store shelves may not always be carefully organized but instead may appear disorganized, messy, or out of place (Bellman 2007). Shelf displays may be disorganized for several reasons; for example, consumers may be handling and purchasing the products, or store employees may not be reorganizing messy shelf displays. We propose that consumers will draw inferences about the products (i.e., whether they are contaminated and/or popular) on the basis of such cues. Such inferences are likely to be affected by the number of products on the shelf display, the degree to which the brand is familiar to consumers, and the type of product on display. In the next section, we develop a conceptual model that can explain why disorganized shelves are likely to decrease purchase likelihood in certain situations; then, in a subsequent section, we describe cases in which disorganized shelves are likely to lead to increased purchase likelihood (see Figure 1). We expect such different effects to occur as a result of shelf display organization interacting with other aspects of the retail environment. We study these interactions for two reasons. First, they are commonly observed cues in the marketplace. When consumers approach a shelf to select an item, several pieces of information are readily apparent to them: (1) the type of product they are viewing, (2) the number of other products on the shelf, (3) the familiarity of the brands, and (4) the degree to which the shelf is organized. Second, these cues are important because they have the potential to influence whether consumers view disorganized products in a relatively negative light (due to impressions of contamination) or in a relatively positive light (due to impressions of popularity), as we describe in greater detail in the following subsection. Disorganized Shelves Can Lead to Fears of Contamination As we previously noted, a consumer who is faced with a partially stocked disorganized shelf display can potentially have a negative reaction that decreases purchase likelihood, a positive reaction that increases purchase likelihood, or a mixed reaction that leaves purchase likelihood unchanged by the cues in the display. These reactions will differ as a result of the specific attributions consumers make as to why the shelf display is disorganized. Specific attributions vary on the basis of product quantity, product type, and brand familiarity. We begin by examining research that would suggest that disorganized shelves can decrease purchase likelihood. Recent work has shown that consumers believe products can be contaminated when other consumers have touched those products (Argo, Dahl, and Morales 2006). Specifically, when consumers believe that another shopper has touched a product, they evaluate the touched product less favorably because they view it as having been contaminated, even if the product is objectively unharmed. Consumers feel disgusted thinking about other people touching the products they want to buy, and these feelings of disgust then transfer to the touched products, resulting in lower evaluations. Importantly, consumer contamination does not require consumers to actually see other shoppers touching the products; rather, contamination cues in the retail environment may be enough to trigger the contamination process. Although prior work on product contamination (Argo, Dahl, and Morales 2006, 2008; Morales and Fitzsimons 2007) has examined several issues that influence contamination effects (e.g., location within the store, product packaging, attractiveness of the person touching the products), researchers have not yet studied how the organization of the shelf and the amount of product left on the shelf may combine to serve as a contamination cue. To examine this issue, we consider factors that can moderate the degree to which consumers will view products as contaminated. Prior research has demonstrated that the underlying process driving negative contamination effects is disgust (e.g., Angyal 1941; Frazer 1959). The disgust reaction is a defense or protest against the penetration of a disgusting substance into one s body and is typically experienced as a feeling of revulsion and a desire to withdraw from the disgust-eliciting source (Angyal 1941; Rozin, Haidt, and McCauley 2008). When consumers perceive that negative contamination has occurred, they experience feelings of disgust toward the contaminated product, and preference for the product decreases (e.g., Argo, Dahl, and Morales 2006; Morales and Fitzsimons 2007). Stronger disgust effects emerge for ingestion of a potentially contaminated product than for mere interaction with a product, because ingestion is the most intimate and potent form of contact. This tends to occur because perceptions of contamination can serve a diseaseavoidance function and because the ingestion of a food product is more likely to result in disease than the use of a noningestible product (Angyal 1941; Rozin, Millman, and Nemeroff 1986; Rozin et al. 1995). In the case of packaged Disorganized Shelf Displays and Limited Product Quantity / 119

3 FIGURE 1 How Shelf Displays Can Influence Purchase Likelihood Ingestible products Familiar brands Unfamiliar brands Fears of contamination: Yes + Inferences of product popularity: No Fears of contamination: Yes + Inferences of product popularity: Yes (cancel out) Preference decreases if products are on disorganized shelf displays with limited product quantity Preference unaffected by shelf display organization and product quantity Noningestible products Familiar brands Unfamiliar brands Fears of contamination: No + Inferences of product popularity: No Fears of contamination: No + Inferences of product popularity: Yes Preference unaffected by shelf display organization and product quantity Preference increases if products are on disorganized shelf displays with limited product quantity goods, microbial contamination cannot occur through physical contact with the products, which are protected by their packages; however, consumers may still respond as if these ingestible products can be contaminated. In particular, prior work shows that when disgusting packaged products come in contact with neutral packaged products, consumers react as though the products within the packages are touching and contaminating each other (Morales and Fitzsimons 2007). Similarly, we propose that negative contamination effects can arise for consumers viewing packages of ingestible products on store shelves, even though other shoppers only touch the product packaging and not the actual products. In our research, we focus on testing contamination effects across different product categories to examine the impact of consumer contamination on products that are not typically ingested (e.g., fabric softener) versus those that are ingested (e.g., juice). As we noted previously, because contamination concerns serve a disease-avoidance function, fears of contamination should be most relevant and salient for products that are ingested and are therefore potentially harmful to a person s physical well-being. Indeed, consistent with this distinction, prior work has suggested that the emotion of disgust, which drives contamination fears, has a food-based origin (Rozin and Fallon 1987), and most definitions of disgust focus on the mouth and real or imagined ingestion (Rozin, Haidt, and McCauley 2008, p. 758). Thus, we predict that negative contamination effects will arise only when contamination cues are salient for products that are typically ingested and not for products that are not ingested (see Figure 1). Contamination cues tend to differ in their strength or impact (e.g., Angyal 1941). Research suggests that the impact of a real, implied, or imagined social presence on a target is a multiplicative function of the strength (i.e., importance), immediacy (i.e., proximity), and number of sources present (Latane 1981). Previous work has focused on the number of contamination sources, whereas we examine the number of contamination targets (i.e., product quantity). In particular, we explore whether the product is fully stocked (high product quantity) or not fully stocked (limited product quantity). Whereas increasing the number of contamination sources strengthens the impact of a social presence, increasing the number of contamination targets (product quantity in our case) reduces it, with each target being less affected than if it were the only one available (Latane 1981). Therefore, we propose that the strength of the contamination cue will depend on the number of products on display. When a shelf is fully stocked and there is evidence that other shoppers may have touched the products (i.e., the display is messy and the products are turned sideways in disarray), we argue that consumers may perceive that the products are 120 / Journal of Marketing, July 2013

4 contaminated. However, in this case, the contamination will be spread out over multiple products (i.e., targets), thus decreasing the strength of the contamination effects. However, when there is only one messy product left on a shelf and consumers perceive that others have touched it, we expect contamination effects to be stronger because the contamination is concentrated on a single product (i.e., target). Just as prior work supports the idea that more contamination sources increase the magnitude of contamination (Argo, Dahl, and Morales 2006), we argue that decreasing the number of targets (i.e., the number of products being displayed) increases the magnitude of contamination. In summary, we focus first on products that are typically ingested because these products are more likely to generate fears of contamination than products that are not ingested. In the next section, we consider products that are not ingested, for which contamination fears are likely to be lower. Furthermore, we compare a situation in which (1) the product shelves are messy and the product is not fully stocked (as contamination fears are likely to be greatest in this condition) with a situation in which (2) the product shelves are neatly organized and the product is fully stocked (because contamination fears are likely to be weakest here, and this is the case that retailers typically strive to attain). In a subsequent section, we consider how the familiarity of the brands on the shelf might moderate this relationship. H 1 : Consumers are less likely to purchase ingestible products when they appear to be disorganized on the shelf and product quantity is limited than when they are organized and fully stocked. Disorganized Shelves Can Increase Perceptions of Popularity The previous subsection proposes that perceptions of negative contamination are more likely to occur for ingestible products. We focused on building a hypothesis for how shelf display organization and product quantity would combine to affect the purchase likelihood of products that are ingested, using prior work on contamination to build this hypothesis. In this subsection, we examine what is likely to occur for products that are not ingested. When a consumer notices that a product is limited in supply and disorganized on the shelf, and contamination is not a concern, he or she may infer that the product is scarce. Prior research on product scarcity has shown that products seem more valuable when they are less available (e.g., Brock 1968; Cialdini 1993). However, limited availability (i.e., only one product left) by itself is not enough to signal that a product is more valuable. In particular, research indicates that consumers evaluate products more positively when scarcity is due to factors related to supply and demand, such as when a product is in high demand due to popularity, than when it is due to accidental or nonmarket circumstances (Lynn 1992; Verhallen 1982; Verhallen and Robben 1994; Worchel, Lee, and Adewole 1975). Prior work has also shown that consumers are influenced by the actions of others because they believe others decisions reflect information that they do not possess (e.g., Banerjee 1992; Burnkrant and Cousineau 1975; Huang and Chen 2006; Stock and Balachander 2005). Regarding shelf display cues, a single disorganized product on a shelf may signal that other shoppers are buying the product because the products have been handled and there are not many remaining. This would suggest that the products are in short supply due to a market condition (i.e., high demand) rather than due to an accidental condition. Therefore, in our research, we propose that shelf display disorganization, together with limited product quantity, signals scarcity because the product is in high demand (i.e., popular). In summary, for products that are not ingested, we predict that contamination fears will not be a concern. Instead, we expect consumers to focus more on the popularity of the product. Such perceptions of popularity are most likely to occur when the shelf is messy and when the product is limited in supply. In this case, consumers are likely to infer that there are not many products left because other consumers are buying them and, thus, they are popular. This leads to our next hypothesis: H 2 : Consumers are more likely to purchase noningestible products when they appear to be disorganized on the shelf and product quantity is limited than when they are organized and fully stocked. In the next subsection, we consider how the familiarity of the brands on the shelf may moderate this relationship. The Moderating Role of Brand Familiarity In the previous subsections, we examined how fears of contamination and perceptions of product popularity could influence the purchase likelihood of products from messy, partially stocked shelves. We predict that, for products that are ingested, messy shelves with limited product quantity would result in a decrease in purchase likelihood; for products that are not ingested, we predict that messy shelves with limited product quantity would result in an increase in purchase likelihood. We next consider how brand familiarity might moderate these relationships (see Figure 1). We first discuss how H 1, which focuses on ingestible products, may be moderated by the degree to which consumers are familiar with the brands on the shelf. Although we would expect disgust to be the driving force of the negative reactions that consumers experience toward contaminated products, prior literature provides anecdotal evidence suggesting that feelings of disgust do not always unilaterally predict behavior when another important factor is considered (e.g., Angyal 1941). This is not to say that consumers will not still experience disgust in such situations, because disgust is an evolution-based emotion that is hardwired and creates a gut reaction (Pham et al. 2001; Rozin et al. 1997; Skarlicki et al. 2012); rather, it suggests that their feelings of disgust will not be the only motivating factor driving their behavior. From our previous discussion about noningestible products, we propose that another factor is feelings of uncertainty about which product to choose. More specifically, when the products on the shelf are relatively unfamiliar, consumers should be more likely to make inferences about their popularity on the basis of the shelf display organization and product quantity. Disorganized Shelf Displays and Limited Product Quantity / 121

5 In cases in which consumers are relatively unfamiliar with the brands or products on the shelf due to uncertainty about which product is best, we propose that they will rely more on inferences that they draw from the shelf display about product popularity. In particular, for unfamiliar brands, consumers should be more likely to attempt to reduce this uncertainty by inferring that the products are popular when they are both disorganized on the shelf and limited in availability (as per our previous discussion). However, if consumers are already familiar with the products on the shelf and thus face less uncertainty, they should be less likely to rely on inferences drawn from the organization and number of products on the shelf about whether the products are popular. Thus, because disorganized shelf displays with only one product remaining signal the greatest popularity, consumer preferences for these products should increase for unfamiliar brands. However, because these products are ingested, in addition to signaling popularity, a single disorganized product should also evoke feelings of disgust due to contamination effects. Therefore, the increase in preference from popularity and the decrease in preference from disgust should cancel each other out, and consumers should be equally likely to select the ingestible, unfamiliar brand product from a disorganized shelf display with a single product or a fully stocked and organized display. For familiar brands that are ingested, however, consumers should not rely as much on inferences of popularity, because there is less uncertainty in brand choice. However, they should still respond negatively to contamination cues signaling that other shoppers have handled the product, because disgust is a more automatic reaction that should affect perceptions of all items, whether familiar or unfamiliar (e.g., Angyal 1941). Thus, we predict that H 1 will hold only when consumers are relatively familiar (vs. unfamiliar) with the brands (see Figure 1). We next consider H 2, which focuses on products that are not ingested and for which contamination fears are lower. As we noted previously, for products that are not ingested, disorganization and limited product quantity should not lead to contamination effects but instead should signal that the product is popular, thereby increasing preference for the displayed product. As such, we propose that no differences will emerge between one disorganized product and many organized products for noningestible, familiarbrand products, because contamination effects do not occur and there is less choice uncertainty. However, in the case of noningestible, unfamiliar-brand products, consumers should rely more on the shelf display cues for information about product popularity that will reduce this uncertainty, leading to increased preferences for a single, disorganized product (vs. many organized products). Thus, we predict that H 2 will hold only when consumers are relatively unfamiliar (vs. familiar) with the brands (see Figure 1). We test H 1 in Studies 1, 2, and 3 and test H 2 in Studies 4 and 5. In Study 1, we first examine the effects of three factors shelf display organization, product quantity, and brand familiarity to show the conditions under which negative contamination effects emerge for ingestible products. Having established that contamination effects only arise in cases of disorganized shelf displays with limited product quantity, in Studies 2 and 3, we focus specifically on how disorganization and limited product quantity together negatively affect actual choices for ingestible products (i.e., food products) in both a field study and a laboratory experiment. In Studies 4 and 5, we change our focus to noningestible products, for which contamination fears should be lower, to provide an understanding of when and why purchase likelihood can increase due to disorganized shelves with limited product quantity (see Figure 2). Study 1: Disorganized Shelves with Limited Product Quantity Lead to Lower Purchase Likelihood of Ingestible Products In Study 1, we examine H 1, which focuses on ingestible products and the moderating effect of brand familiarity. As we previously discussed, we expect that participants will be more likely to buy familiar-brand, ingestible products when there are many organized products available than when there is just one disorganized product left, due to contamination fears. However, the same shelf display cues that lead consumers to infer that a product has been contaminated can also lead them to infer that a product is popular. Therefore, for unfamiliar brand products, although inferences of contamination and feelings of disgust may emerge in response to disorganized shelf displays, because the brands are unfamiliar, consumers should also respond positively to the information conveyed about product popularity from the shelf display s disorganization and limited product quantity. Consequently, for unfamiliar-brand, ingestible products, the negative impact of contamination should be canceled out by the positive impact of popularity, and no differences should emerge when there is one disorganized product left as opposed to when the shelf is fully stocked and organized. Design and Procedure Study 1 consisted of a 2 (shelf display organization: organized vs. disorganized) 2 (product quantity: one vs. many) 2 (brand familiarity: familiar vs. unfamiliar) between-subjects experimental design, in which all products on display were ingestible. Participants viewed photographs of real product shelves from an actual supermarket where we were permitted to alter the products on the shelf displays. Each photograph displayed products for two competing brands in the same product category (e.g., Orville Redenbacher s and Pop Secret popcorn; see Figure 3). We manipulated product quantity by changing the number of products displayed on the shelf for the focal brand (i.e., the brand participants were asked about). In the one-product quantity condition, the shelf display contained one product for the focal brand, whereas in the many-product quantity condition, the shelf display for the focal brand was full. The shelf display for the other brand in the photograph (i.e., the brand participants were not asked about) was always fully stocked and organized. For the disorganized shelf display conditions, the products looked messy and out of place, whereas for the organized shelf display conditions, the products were neatly organized. We manipulated brand familiarity by selecting 122 / Journal of Marketing, July 2013

6 FIGURE 2 Overview of Studies Familiar brands [(1) fears of contamination] Greater for B than A (H 1 ) (purchase likelihood and choice) Ingestible products (Studies 1, 2, and 3) (A) Disorganized shelf displays with limited product quantity versus (B) Fully stocked and organized shelf displays Unfamiliar brands [(1) fears of contamination and (2) inferences of product popularity] Familiar brands No difference between (A) and (B) (H 1 ) No difference between (A) and (B) (H 2 ) Noningestible products (Studies 4 and 5) Unfamiliar brands [(2) inferences of product popularity] Greater for A than B (H 2 ) (purchase likelihood and choice) brands that were either relatively familiar (e.g., Orville Redenbacher s and Pop Secret) or relatively unfamiliar (e.g., Pop Weaver and Jolly Time). Participants were 345 undergraduate marketing students who were awarded extra credit in an introductory marketing course for their participation. Each participant was randomly assigned to one of eight conditions and was given a booklet containing photographs for three ingestible product categories: juice, yogurt, and popcorn. Participants were given a questionnaire that asked, for example, How likely are you to buy a box of Orville Redenbacher s popcorn from the shelf in the picture? Participants responded on a seven-point scale (1 = not at all likely, and 7 = very likely ). Results Pretest 1: Shelf display organization and fears of contamination. We performed a two-cell (shelf display organization: organized vs. disorganized) between-subjects pretest on a separate sample (N = 39) from the same population for the three product categories (i.e., juice, popcorn, and yogurt). This pretest confirmed that participants believed that products on disorganized shelf displays were more likely to have been touched by others than products on organized shelf displays (one-way repeated measures analysis of variance [ANOVA]: M Organized = 4.37, M Disorganized = 6.37; F(1, 37) = 25.42, p <.001), suggesting that consumers interpreted disorganization as a contamination cue. Pretest 2: Product quantity and strength of contamination. We performed a two-cell (product quantity: one vs. many) between-subjects pretest on a separate sample (N = 34) from the same population for the three product categories (i.e., juice, popcorn, and yogurt). This pretest, in which all products appeared disorganized, confirmed that participants believed that one of the products from a disorganized display containing many products had been touched by fewer consumers than a single product from a disorganized display (one-way repeated measures ANOVA: M One = 8.22, M Many = 2.79; F(1, 32) = 14.23, p <.01). Therefore, it seems as though consumers perceived that a single disorganized product was more likely to be contaminated than one disorganized product of many. Pretest 3: Perceptions about products. To rule out a possible alternative explanation that our results are driven by negative perceptions about the single disorganized product, we conducted a two-cell (product quantity: one vs. many) between-subjects pretest on a separate sample (N = 115) from the same population for the three product categories (i.e., juice, popcorn, and yogurt). Again, all products appeared disorganized. Our results show that there were no differences between perceptions that the product was Disorganized Shelf Displays and Limited Product Quantity / 123

7 FIGURE 3 Study 1 Conditions A: One-Product Disorganized Condition B: Many-Products Disorganized Condition C: One-Product Organized Condition D: Many-Products Organized Condition spoiled (M One = 2.17, M Many = 2.03; F(1, 113) =.38, p =.54), perceptions that another consumer did not want the product (M One = 4.56, M Many = 4.68; F(1, 113) =.33, p =.57), perceptions that another consumer had rejected the product (M One = 4.60, M Many = 4.50; F(1, 113) =.16, p =.69), and perceptions that there might be something wrong with the product (M One = 2.66, M Many = 2.47; F(1, 113) =.59, p =.44) between product quantity conditions. Initial analyses of purchase likelihood. A 2 (shelf display organization: organized vs. disorganized) 2 (product quantity: one vs. many) 2 (brand familiarity: familiar vs. unfamiliar) repeated measures ANOVA demonstrated a significant brand familiarity main effect (M Familiar = 3.95, M Unfamiliar = 3.16; F(1, 337) = 24.17, p <.001) and a shelf display organization main effect (M Organized = 3.73, M Disorganized = 3.38; F(1, 337) = 4.80, p <.05). In addition, these main effects should be considered in light of the three-way interaction that emerged for likelihood to buy (F(1, 337) = 6.10, p <.05), suggesting that the effect of shelf display organization on likelihood to buy is moderated by product quantity and brand familiarity. Test of H 1. A planned contrast between the one-product disorganized shelf display condition and the many-product organized shelf display condition for familiar brand products revealed a significant effect on purchase likelihood (M One disorganized = 3.58, M Many organized = 4.14; F(1, 133) = 7.13, p <.01), providing support for H 1. Participants were more likely to buy the (ingestible) product when the display was fully stocked and organized than when there was one disorganized (ingestible) product left. Additional analyses. A planned contrast observing the many-product organized shelf display condition and the many-product disorganized shelf display condition for familiar brand products did not result in a significant effect (M Many organized = 4.14, M Many disorganized = 3.98; F(1, 140) =.69, p =.41), suggesting that disorganization alone is not enough to lead to negative contamination effects. Instead, disorganization and limited product quantity are both necessary to produce our main prediction. Next, a planned contrast comparing the one-product organized shelf display condition with the many-product organized shelf display condition for familiar brand products did not result in a significant effect (M Many organized = 4.14, M One organized = 4.10; F(1, 138) =.04, p =.84), suggesting that having only one product on the display is not enough to lead to contamination effects when a contamination cue is not present (i.e., disorganization). Instead, again, disorganization and limited product quantity are both necessary to produce our main prediction. Furthermore, a planned contrast comparing the one-product disorganized shelf display condition with the many-product disorganized shelf display condition for familiar brand products resulted in a significant effect (M One disorganized = 3.58, M Many disorganized = 3.98; F(1, 139) = 4.52, p <.05), indicating that consumers were more likely to buy familiar-brand, ingestible products when there were many disorganized products on the shelf than when there was just one disorganized product. This finding supports the idea that consumers believe that products are more likely to be contaminated when the contamination is concentrated on only one product rather than spread out over many products. Finally, a planned contrast between the one-product disorganized shelf display condition and the many-product organized shelf display condition did not result in a significant effect for unfamiliar brand products (M One disorganized = 3.23, M Many organized = 3.71; F(1, 30) = 1.36, p =.25; see Table 1), suggesting that negative contamination effects can be mitigated when consumers are unfamiliar with the brand options. This supports our previous prediction that brand familiarity will moderate the influence of shelf display organization and product quantity on purchase likelihood. In particular, regarding familiar (but not unfamiliar) brands, we find that consumers are less likely to buy ingestible products when the products are limited in quantity and on messy shelves than when they are fully stocked on organized shelves. 124 / Journal of Marketing, July 2013

8 TABLE 1 Study 1: Purchase Likelihood A: Familiar Brands One-Product One-Product Many-Product Disorganized Condition Organized Condition Disorganized Condition (M = 3.58) (M = 4.10) (M = 3.98) Contrasts for Likelihood to Buy F F F One-product disorganized condition (M = 3.58) One-product organized condition (M = 4.10) 7.00** Many-product disorganized condition (M = 3.98) 4.52*.44 Many-product organized condition (M = 4.14) 7.13** B: Unfamiliar Brands One-Product One-Product Many-Product Disorganized Condition Organized Condition Disorganized Condition (M = 3.22) (M = 2.97) (M = 2.73) Contrasts for Likelihood to Buy F F F One-product disorganized condition (M = 3.22) One-product organized condition (M = 2.97).38 Many-product disorganized condition (M = 2.73) Many-product organized condition (M = 3.71) * *p <.05. **p <.01. Posttest: Brand familiarity and perceptions of popularity. The results of Study 1 indicate that consumers are more likely to buy familiar-brand, ingestible products when there are many organized products available on the shelf than when there is just one disorganized product. However, for unfamiliar-brand, ingestible products, no differences in purchase likelihood emerged. We proposed that for unfamiliar brand products, consumers draw inferences regarding the popularity of the products on display and that these inferences increase their evaluations of the products, canceling out the negative contamination effects. To show that consumers indeed make more inferences about the popularity of the displayed products in the unfamiliar brand conditions than in the familiar brand conditions, we conducted a 2 (product quantity: one vs. many) 2 (brand familiarity: familiar vs. unfamiliar) between-subjects posttest on a separate sample from the same population (N = 65) for disorganized shelf displays for ingestible products, with perceived popularity as the dependent variable. The procedure and photographs were the same as in Study 1. Participants were given a photograph booklet that contained two ingestible product categories, juice and popcorn, and were asked to rate the popularity of the focal brand on the shelf on a sevenpoint scale (1 = very unpopular, and 7 = very popular ). A two-way repeated measures ANOVA with perceived popularity as the dependent variable revealed a significant brand familiarity main effect (M Familiar = 5.62, M Unfamiliar = 4.50; F(1, 61) = 15.55, p <.001) and a significant brand familiarity by product quantity interaction effect (F(1, 61) = 3.86, p =.05). For unfamiliar brands, participants thought that the product was more popular when there was one product left than when there were many (M One = 5.03, M Many = 3.97; F(1, 61) = 6.89, p <.05). However, for familiar brands, no differences emerged in perceived popularity between the product quantity conditions (M One = 5.59, M Many = 5.65; F(1, 61) =.02, p =.89). This finding supports our assumption that consumers who are evaluating ingestible products that are unfamiliar to them will draw inferences about product popularity from the number of products on the shelf (which will cancel out feelings of disgust), but consumers who are evaluating familiar brand products will be less likely to draw these popularity inferences (and feelings of disgust will drive purchase likelihood). Discussion The results of Study 1 provide support for H 1 by showing that for familiar-brand, ingestible products, disorganized displays with limited product quantity can lead to negative contamination effects, with lower consumer preferences for a single remaining disorganized product than for products in fully stocked and organized displays. Furthermore, no differences emerged for unfamiliar-brand, ingestible products across these conditions, providing support for the moderating effect of brand familiarity. The results of the posttest provide support for our proposed explanation that, for unfamiliar brand products, although consumers may have experienced feelings of disgust when exposed to one disorganized product, the cues also signaled that the product was popular, and these inferences of popularity mitigated the negative effects of contamination. However, in the case of familiar brand products, participants were already familiar with the brand options and thus not as likely to draw popularity inferences from shelf display cues; therefore, contamination effects emerged and reduced purchase intentions. In addition, we show the importance of disorganization in eliciting negative contamination effects. When the shelf display was organized, differences in purchase likelihood did not emerge between the product quantity conditions for the ingestible products, suggesting that one product on the shelf (vs. many) is not enough to elicit negative contamina- Disorganized Shelf Displays and Limited Product Quantity / 125

9 tion effects even for products that are ingested. Therefore, a contamination cue (i.e., disorganization) must be present in addition to limited product quantity for contamination effects to emerge. Furthermore, when the displays were fully stocked, differences in purchase likelihood did not emerge between the shelf display organization conditions (organized vs. disorganized). The results provide support for the role of limited product quantity in strengthening the contamination effects in disorganized displays by showing that limited product quantity is also necessary for contamination effects to arise. In summary, the results of this first study show that disorganization and limited product quantity individually do not lead to negative contamination effects. Instead, both disorganization and limited product quantity are necessary, in addition to an understanding of the moderating role of brand familiarity, to predict when the negative contamination effects will arise. Study 2: Field Study: Disorganization and Limited Product Quantity Lead to Lower Sales of Ingestible Products The purpose of Study 2 is to test H 1 in a real-world environment. In Study 2, we expect that consumers will be more likely to buy an ingestible product (eggs) from a fully stocked and organized display over a single product (one carton of eggs) that is disorganized on the shelf, because the disorganization and limited product quantity together will signal contamination. Design and Procedure Study 2 was a field experiment conducted in a small health food store in a large city in the midwestern United States. The study employed a two-cell (shelf display: one item disorganized vs. fully stocked and organized) between-subjects experimental design. The products we chose for the study were cartons of eggs, the food product with the highest sales in the store. We conducted the study over a period of four weeks, with each of the two conditions running for a two-week period. Consumers had a choice between two familiar brands of eggs, both of which were identical in terms of product attributes (i.e., dozen, cage-free, organic, and large) and price. The two competing brands were displayed side by side. In the fully stocked and organized shelf display condition, the shelf displays were kept fully stocked and organized for both brands of eggs (see Figure 4, Panel A). In the one-item disorganized shelf display condition, the shelf display for one of the two competing brands displayed one disorganized product, whereas the other brand was fully stocked and organized (see Figure 4, Panel B). Store employees immediately restocked the cartons of eggs every time a purchase was made (as per Figure 4, depending on which condition was running). Customers who made egg purchases during the study period were not aware of the research being conducted. FIGURE 4 Study 2 Conditions A: Fully Stocked and Organized B: One Item Disorganized Results To determine how shelf display organization and limited product quantity affected actual sales of familiar-brand, ingestible products, we tested the egg sales data for the fourweek period of the study with a logistic regression. The results suggest that shelf display cues had a significant effect on actual sales (Wald 2 (1, N = 129) = 10.68, p =.001). For the manipulated brand, a higher percentage of sales (34%) occurred when the shelf display was fully stocked and organized (meaning that 34% of shoppers chose the manipulated brand of eggs and 66% chose the other brand) compared with when there was only one disorganized product left on the shelf (only 9% chose the manipulated brand of eggs and 91% chose the other brand), thus supporting H 1 (Figure 5). Discussion The field study results provide support for H 1 with actual sales data. The study was conducted in a retail environment 126 / Journal of Marketing, July 2013

10 Percentage of Sales FIGURE 5 Study 2 Results: Percentage of Sales per Condition for Manipulated Brand 40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% 9% One-Item Disorganized Shelf Display Condition 34% Fully Stocked and Organized Shelf Display Condition where consumers were making actual product choices with real money and were unaware of the study that was taking place. The results suggest that consumer choices of familiarbrand, ingestible products (in this case, cartons of eggs) are dependent on shelf display cues, with fewer consumers buying the egg cartons when there was one disorganized carton left than when the shelf display was fully stocked and organized. Although this study provides additional support for our hypothesized effect, we wanted to generalize our findings to other categories and situations. Therefore, in the next study, we focus on showing these effects with another ingestible product category and examining another commonly seen shelf condition (a few messy products). Study 3: Disorganization and Limited Product Quantity Lead to Reduced Choice of Ingestible Products In Study 2, we found support for H 1. In Study 3, we attempt to replicate the results of Study 2 in a controlled laboratory experiment and add another shelf display condition. We proposed previously that when there is one ingestible, disorganized product left, all the contamination is concentrated on that single product, making it less desirable than when more than one disorganized product is available and the contamination is spread out over multiple products. In Study 3, we add the condition of a few disorganized products (instead of only one product, as in prior studies) to test our conceptual framework further. We expect that participants will choose the product most often when the shelf is fully stocked and organized, followed by when there are a few disorganized products, and consumers will be least likely to select the product when there is only one disorganized product left on the shelf. Thus, we expect Study 3 to provide additional support for H 1 while increasing confidence in our conceptual model. Design and Procedure Study 3 consisted of a three-cell (shelf display: one item disorganized vs. a few [4] items disorganized vs. fully stocked [16] and organized) between-subjects experimental design. Four hundred ninety-three undergraduate business school students participated in the study in exchange for extra credit in a marketing course. Participants completed several unrelated studies and were told that, as a token of the researchers appreciation, they would receive a product of their choosing. Participants were escorted individually to a room that contained a shelf intended to look like a supermarket shelf with products displayed on it. Participants were asked to choose a product (between two available brands) from the shelf that they would take home and keep. Each participant saw a shelf with two competing familiar brands of an ingestible product (apple juice). In the oneitem disorganized shelf display condition, the shelf contained one product for the manipulated brand that was disorganized on the shelf display, whereas the competing brand was fully stocked and organized. In the few-items disorganized shelf display condition, the shelf contained four disorganized products for the manipulated brand, whereas the competing brand was fully stocked and organized. For the fully stocked and organized shelf display condition, both the manipulated brand and the competing brand were fully stocked and organized (16 items for each). The dependent variable of interest was actual product choice. Results To determine how disorganization and different product quantities affected product choice for familiar-brand, ingestible products, we analyzed product choice using logistic regression. The results show that shelf display cues have a significant overall effect on product choice (Wald 2 (1, N = 491) = 17.92, p <.001). Participants selected the product most often when it was fully stocked and organized (71.5%; meaning that 28.5% chose the competing brand), followed by when there were a few disorganized products on the shelf (61.5%; 2 (1, N = 279) = 3.17, p <.05). Finally, participants were least likely to select the product when there was only one disorganized product left on the shelf (49.1%; one item disorganized vs. few items disorganized: 2 (1, N = 347) = 5.12, p <.05; one item disorganized vs. fully stocked and organized: 2 (1, N = 356) = 17.79, p <.001; see Figure 6). Discussion Study 3 provides additional support for H 1 and the negative effects of contamination on product choice for familiarbrand, ingestible products. Consistent with our theorizing that the effects of contamination become stronger as the number of products decreases, the results from this study show that when the products were disorganized on the shelf display, participants selected the products more often when there were a few products available (and the contamination was spread out over these products) than when there was only one product available (and the contamination was concentrated on that single product). These results underscore the importance of the number of products on display in Disorganized Shelf Displays and Limited Product Quantity / 127

11 FIGURE 6 Study 3 Results: Choice Percentage per Condition for Manipulated Brand Choice Percentage 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 49% 62% 72% 10% 0% One-Item Disorganized Shelf Display Condition Few-Items Disorganized Shelf Display Condition Fully Stocked and Organized Shelf Display Condition addition to the organization of the shelf display in eliciting negative contamination effects. Study 4: Disorganization and Limited Product Quantity Lead to Increased Purchase Likelihood of Noningestible Products In Studies 1, 2, and 3, we focused on understanding the effects of shelf display organization and product quantity on consumer responses to ingested products, for which contamination fears are greatest. Our results show that for familiarbrand, ingestible products, consumers are less likely to select a product from a single-product disorganized display than from either a disorganized display with multiple products available or a fully stocked and organized display. These negative effects likely arise because consumers experience feelings of disgust when they infer that other consumers have handled or touched the products that they will be buying and later ingesting. Furthermore, we found that in the case of unfamiliar-brand, ingestible products, although consumers still likely experience feelings of disgust that lower their evaluations of the product, the uncertainty surrounding the choices leads them to make popularity inferences about the displayed products, and these positive inferences mitigate the negative effects of contamination. In contrast to the first three studies, Study 4 focuses on products that are not ingestible. We propose that for noningestible products, contamination effects will not influence consumer preferences given that fears of contamination for such products are low. In the case of familiar-brand, noningestible products, we expect that no differences between the shelf display conditions will emerge (fewer fears of contamination, less need to draw popularity inferences). However, in the case of unfamiliar-brand, noningestible prod- ucts, consumers should rely on the shelf display cues to inform their decisions about product popularity and thus reduce uncertainty, because they are unfamiliar with the brand options. Therefore, for unfamiliar brands, we propose that consumers will be more likely to buy the product when there is one disorganized product left than when the display is fully stocked and organized, because popularity inferences will positively affect their likelihood of purchasing the product (H 2 ). Design and Procedure Study 4 was a 2 (shelf display: one item disorganized vs. fully stocked and organized) 2 (brand familiarity: familiar vs. unfamiliar) between-subjects design. In the one-item disorganized shelf display condition, the shelf display contained one product for the manipulated brand that was disorganized, whereas the competing brand was fully stocked and organized. In the fully stocked and organized shelf display condition, both the manipulated brand and the other brand were fully stocked and organized on the shelf. The procedure was the same as in Study 1. Two hundred fortyeight participants, who participated in the study in exchange for extra credit in an undergraduate marketing course, were randomly assigned to one of the four experimental conditions and given a booklet that contained photographs of product shelves for three noningestible product categories: toothpaste, fabric softener, and dishwashing liquid. Participants were asked, on seven-point scales, to indicate how likely they would be to buy a product from the shelf in the picture (1 = not at all likely, and 7 = very likely ). Results Pretest. We conducted a pretest to make sure that (1) participants perceived that the ingestible products are more likely to be ingested or eaten than noningestible products and 128 / Journal of Marketing, July 2013

12 (2) contamination fears are greater for ingestible versus noningestible products. Results of this pretest (N = 93) showed that the three ingestible products (i.e., juice, popcorn, and yogurt) differed significantly from the three noningestible products (i.e., fabric softener, toothpaste, and soap) on the following three measures ( =.91): (1) How likely are you to ingest this product? (2) How likely are you to eat this product? and (3) How edible is this product? (repeated measures ANOVA: M Ingestible = 4.94, M Noningestible = 1.69; F(1, 91) = , p <.001). In addition, participants answered the following four questions related to contamination fears ( =.86): (1) How concerned would you be about other shoppers touching the specific package of this product you were going to purchase? (2) How worried would you be about other customers damaging this product before you bought it? (3) How concerned would you be about using this product if other customers had touched it? and (4) How worried would you be about other people making this product dirty before you purchased it? As we expected, results of the pretest revealed that contamination fears were significantly greater for the ingestible products (M = 3.72) than for the noningestible products (M = 2.95; repeated measures ANOVA: F(1, 91) = 8.84, p <.01). Main study. A 2 (shelf display: one item disorganized vs. fully stocked and organized) 2 (brand familiarity: familiar vs. unfamiliar) repeated measures ANOVA for likelihood to buy revealed a significant brand familiarity main effect (M Familiar = 4.29, M Unfamiliar = 3.19; F(1, 244) = 54.22, p <.001) and a significant two-way interaction (F(1, 244) = 4.14, p <.05). A planned contrast between the one-item disorganized shelf display condition and the fully stocked and organized shelf display condition for unfamiliar brand products revealed a significant effect (M One item disorganized = 3.48, M Fully stocked and organized = 2.90; F(1, 244) = 9.22, p <.01), as we predicted. Participants were more likely to buy the product when there was one disorganized product left than when the display was fully stocked and organized. As further expected, the difference between the one-item disorganized shelf display condition and the fully stocked and organized shelf display condition was not significant for familiar-brand products (M One item disorganized = 4.28, M Fully stocked and organized = 4.30; F(1, 244) =.01, p =.91; see Figure 7). These results support H 2 and illustrate the moderating influence of brand familiarity. Discussion The results of Study 4 suggest that consumers purchase likelihood for unfamiliar-brand, noningestible products is greater when there is only one disorganized product left than when there are many organized products available. However, for familiar-brand, noningestible products, no difference in purchase likelihood emerged between the conditions. Study 4 s results provide support for H 2 and show the importance of product type and, more specifically, contamination fears in determining how consumers will respond to cues that can signal contamination (i.e., disorganization and limited product quantity). Because consumers may worry about contamination of ingestible products but do not share Purchase Likelihood FIGURE 7 Study 4 Results: Purchase Likelihood Familiar Brand Unfamiliar Brand One-item disorganized shelf display condition Fully stocked and organized shelf display condition the same concern for noningestible products, consumer responses to contamination cues in the marketplace differ depending on the type of product. Whereas disorganization and limited product quantity can lead to negative effects for ingestible products, Study 4 s results indicate that these same cues can actually result in positive effects for noningestible products, depending on the familiarity of the brand. In the case of noningestible and unfamiliar brands, the cues led to popularity inferences regarding the products and to increased purchase likelihood. However, in the case of familiar-brand, noningestible products, the cues do not have a significant effect on likelihood to buy. Study 5: Disorganization and Limited Product Quantity Lead to Increased Choice of Noningestible Products Study 4 addressed the effects of shelf display cues and brand familiarity on purchase likelihood for noningestible products. The goal of Study 5 is to test H 2 in a more realistic experimental setting by focusing on the effects of shelf display disorganization and limited product quantity on actual consumer choices of both familiar- and unfamiliarbrand, noningestible products. Design and Procedure Study 5 consisted of a 2 (shelf display: one item disorganized vs. fully stocked and organized) 2 (brand familiarity: familiar vs. unfamiliar) between-subjects experimental design. Two hundred fifty-eight undergraduate business school students participated in the study in exchange for Disorganized Shelf Displays and Limited Product Quantity / 129

13 extra credit in a marketing course. Participants completed several unrelated studies and were told that they would receive a product of their choosing as a reward for their participation. Participants were escorted individually to a room that contained a shelf designed to resemble a supermarket shelf with products displayed on it and were asked to choose a product (between two available brands) from the shelf that they would take home and keep. Participants were randomly assigned to one of the four experimental conditions. Each participant saw a shelf with two competing brands (either two familiar brands or two unfamiliar brands) for a noningestible product (soap). Pretests confirmed that participants were more familiar and with the familiar brands (i.e., Dial and Ivory) than the unfamiliar brands (i.e., Clearly Natural Soap and Kirk s Natural Soap). In the oneitem disorganized shelf display condition, the shelf contained one product for the manipulated brand that was disorganized on the shelf display, whereas the competing brand was fully stocked and organized. For the fully stocked and organized shelf display condition, both the manipulated brand and the competing brand were fully stocked and organized. The dependent variable of interest was actual product choice. Results To determine how shelf display cues affected product choice for both familiar- and unfamiliar-brand, noningestible products, we analyzed product choice using logistic regression and observed the interaction between shelf display cues and brand familiarity. Our results show that the main effects of shelf display and brand familiarity are not significant, whereas the two-way interaction is significant (Wald 2 (1, N = 258) = 4.43, p <.05). Furthermore, participants chose the unfamiliar-brand, noningestible product more often when there was only one disorganized product left (54.8%, meaning that 45.2% chose the other brand of soap on the shelf) than when the shelf display was fully stocked and organized (27.1%; 2 (1, N = 132) = 10.50, p <.01), which is consistent with H 2. For familiar-brand, noningestible products, the difference between the shelf display conditions was not significant (one-item disorganized shelf display condition = 53.7%, fully stocked and organized shelf display condition = 51.4%; 2 (1, N = 126) =.07, p =.86), as we expected (see Figure 8). Discussion The purpose of Study 5 was to provide additional support for H 2 and the proposed positive (for unfamiliar brands) and neutral (for familiar brands) effects that shelf display disorganization and limited product quantity together can have on consumer choices for noningestible products. We performed this study in a realistic setting where consumers were making actual choices that had real consequences. As we expected, consumers chose unfamiliar-brand, noningestible products more often when there was one disorganized product available than when the products were fully stocked and organized; however, no differences emerged for familiar-brand, noningestible products. Choice Percentage FIGURE 8 Study 5 Results: Choice Percentage Per Condition for Manipulated Brand 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 54% 55% 51% Familiar Brand 27% Unfamiliar Brand One-item disorganized shelf display condition Fully stocked and organized shelf display condition General Discussion The current research focuses on developing a model of how shelf display disorganization combined with limited product quantity operates in the retail environment. This research provides different explanations and processes for why, together with other factors, disorganized and partially stocked shelves may result in either increased or decreased purchase likelihood and choice. By building on the consumer contamination literature and considering product popularity inferences, we are able to show how consumers interpret these factors. Our research examines how naturally occurring retail-environment cues, such as shelf display organization and product quantity, interact with product attributes, such as product type (i.e., ingestible vs. noningestible) and brand familiarity, to influence purchase likelihood and actual choices. In a series of studies, we observe the interactive effects of these factors and demonstrate that consumers draw inferences regarding other consumers behavior using shelf display cues, and we examine why these inferences can lead to positive or negative effects. Our results contribute to the literature by showing how cues in the retail environment interact to influence inferences about products, which then affect purchase likelihood and product choice. As a result, we hope we have provided a more complete conceptualization of factors that influence consumer decision making in the retail environment when selecting a product from a shelf display. Theoretical Contributions Negative effects of shelf display disorganization. By identifying the conditions under which shelf display disor- 130 / Journal of Marketing, July 2013

14 ganization can lead to reduced purchase likelihood and choice, our research makes several contributions. Our results demonstrate that for ingestible products for which contamination fears are high, consumers may draw inferences regarding the number of people who have come in contact with the products. In contrast to prior work on product scarcity showing that products become more valuable when there are fewer of them (e.g., Brock 1968; Cialdini 1993), because of these contamination concerns, our work shows that consumers may lower their purchase likelihood when faced with a disorganized shelf display with only one product left of a familiar brand. Thus, instead of making a product more appealing, in this particular case, the presence of only one product left on a display makes it far less desirable. Furthermore, our research underscores the importance of the strength of contamination in determining how consumers will respond to products that appear to have been handled by others. We provide empirical support for the notion that when ingestible products are disorganized and many are available, consumers infer that the contamination from previous shoppers has been spread out over multiple products. Similarly, we also show that when the display is disorganized and there is only one ingestible product left on the shelf, consumers infer that the contamination from previous shoppers is stronger, because it is all concentrated on the one remaining product. Whereas the contamination literature has previously considered how increasing the number of contaminating sources (i.e., previous shoppers) increases the perceived contamination of a single target (i.e., product), our work demonstrates that decreasing the number of targets (i.e., products) while holding the number of sources (i.e., previous shoppers) constant also increases the degree of perceived contamination, because the same level of contamination is focused on a single target. These results not only provide additional insight regarding the relationship between the number of contamination targets and the number of contamination sources but also highlight the importance of the combined effects of disorganization and limited product quantity on eliciting negative contamination effects in the marketplace. In so doing, our research contributes to the marketing literature by identifying another contamination cue that consumers often face when shopping. Importantly, unlike many of the other contamination cues researchers have examined, which focus on contamination sources (e.g., the attractiveness of the previous shopper touching the products; Argo, Dahl, and Morales 2008), shelf display organization and product quantity are factors that managers can control. In addition, our research also addresses the importance of the degree to which consumers worry about a specific product becoming contaminated in eliciting negative reactions to consumer contamination. Consistent with prior literature on disgust (e.g., Rozin et al. 1995), contamination effects influenced consumer preferences for products that are ingested but not for products that are not ingested, indicating that the type of product will determine whether negative effects will emerge in the marketplace. Furthermore, our results show that contamination can affect even packaged ingestible products, suggesting that product packaging cannot protect the products from perceptions of contamina- tion. These results differ from prior findings on product contagion in an important way. The product contagion literature emphasizes the importance of visualization in reducing evaluations of the contaminated products given that negative effects emerged for products packaged in clear containers but not for those in opaque containers (Morales and Fitzsimons 2007). The packaged ingestible products we included in our studies were packaged in plastic and cardboard containers that did not allow consumers to view the actual consumable products. Therefore, our results demonstrate that inferences based on shelf displays are so pervasive that they can affect perceptions of contamination even for ingestible products that are packaged in opaque containers. Our research also shows that certain factors can mitigate the feelings of disgust that arise from fears of contamination. To date, the disgust literature has only provided anecdotal evidence for this effect (Angyal 1941). Our findings show that consumers can overcome the negative effects of feelings of disgust when they face uncertainty in choice (i.e., unfamiliar brand options). These results are surprising given that consumers are not overcoming their feelings of disgust for biological or cultural reasons but to reduce uncertainty to choose a better, more popular product. Finally, previous research has suggested that it is unpleasant for people to have disgusting objects in their immediate surroundings and that feelings of disgust can have a lingering effect and can affect decisions that are made after the disgust is elicited (Angyal 1941; Lerner, Small, and Lowenstein 2004). Therefore, it may be the case that negative contamination effects may emerge even for noningestible products when consumers are primed with disgust because such feelings could carry over and contaminate subsequent evaluations. To test this idea, we conducted a 2 (product quantity: one vs. many) 2 (prime: disgust vs. neutral) between-subjects design (N = 91). Because we found negative contamination effects to emerge only for messy product displays, the manipulated brand always appeared disorganized across conditions. Participants in the disgust prime condition were exposed to five disgust-inducing images, whereas participants in the neutral prime condition were shown five neutral product images. After answering questions about the images, as in our other studies, participants saw a picture of a shelf containing two competing familiar brands of a noningestible product (fabric softener) and were asked to indicate their likelihood of buying the product. As we expected, the results of this study reveal a significant interaction between product quantity and the prime (F(1, 87) = 5.76, p <.05). Specifically, consistent with the negative contamination effects that emerged in our earlier studies for familiar-brand, ingestible products, the results show that participants who were primed with disgust were more likely to buy the products when the display was fully stocked than when there was only one product remaining (M Many = 4.78, M One = 3.23; F(1, 87) = 3.78, p =.05). In contrast, in the neutral prime condition, there were no differences between the product quantity conditions (F(1, 87) = 2.07, p =.15). Importantly, these results suggest that if consumer contamination fears are made salient, contamination effects can emerge even for noningestible products that are otherwise unaffected by shelf display organization and product quantity. Disorganized Shelf Displays and Limited Product Quantity / 131

15 Positive effects of shelf display disorganization. Across multiple studies, we find that the same cues that can signal contamination (i.e., shelf display disorganization together with limited product quantity) can also cue perceptions of product popularity and can positively affect the choice of unfamiliar-brand, noningestible products. In particular, when consumers were unfamiliar with the brand options, preferences for one disorganized, noningestible product were greater than when there were many organized products available. In addition, our research indicates that rather than the nature of the product (e.g., discretionary) or consumption setting (e.g., public or private), it is consumers familiarity with the options that must be considered to determine whether they make popularity inferences on the basis of shelf display cues. When consumers are familiar with the brand options, they tend not to rely on shelf display cues to make popularity inferences. However, when they are unsure of the options (e.g., unfamiliar with the brands), they use shelf display cues (i.e., one disorganized product left) to infer that products are popular, and purchase likelihood increases. Managerial Implications Our research demonstrates the importance of understanding how consumers perceive and interpret cues in the retail environment to manage their overall experience. The current work provides a model of how shelf display disorganization and limited product quantity operate in the retail environment by examining how they affect consumer purchase likelihood and choice as well as actual sales. Our research takes a holistic approach to understanding the effects of shelf display cues by studying the interactive effects of the factors that consumers are exposed to when viewing a shelf display, such as shelf display organization, product quantity, type of product, and familiarity of the brands on the shelf. In addition, the display cues that we address (shelf display organization and product quantity) are cues that managers can directly control. Our results suggest that managers must be aware of the inferences that consumers draw from shelf display cues to ensure that they are providing cues that will have positive effects on consumer purchase likelihood and avoiding cues that could do the opposite. Even though managers can focus on building their brands, organizing the shelf displays, and keeping the number of products available fully stocked, observing each of these factors in isolation may not be the best approach given that consumers make decisions on the basis of the interactions between these factors. Our findings suggest that shelf displays that create impressions of contaminated products may have the most immediate and lasting impact on consumers, because disgust is a strong emotion that generates an automatic, almost hardwired response in people (Pham et al. 2001). In this case, when a disorganized shelf contains an ingestible product that is limited in quantity, consumers will not only notice the product display but will be immediately and powerfully affected by it due to feelings of disgust. Rather than eliciting a positive reaction, this shelf display would lead to a strong negative response that retailers want to avoid. Instead, they would want to create shelf displays that are organized and fully stocked (for ingestible products). However, in the case of noningestible products, having disorganized shelves with limited product quantity would lead to the highest purchase likelihood. Therefore, although managers may strive to maintain fully stocked and organized shelves, this may not always be the best strategy, and an understanding of how consumers respond to shelf display cues is important to better manage the customer experience. Managers are always looking for ways to increase the speed and impact of their marketing efforts. Our research provides guidelines that can help them not only in understanding consumer responses but also in making restocking, assortment, and inventory decisions. For example, if the entire store is in disarray, managers are unable to restock the entire store at once; therefore, our research provides a plan for prioritizing how products should be restocked. Instead of restocking the fastest-selling products first regardless of product type or brand familiarity, they should first address ingestible product shelf displays with familiar brands, beginning with fast-moving products and product categories, because these products are most likely the ones that consumers will come into contact with at some point during their shopping experience. Restocking these products first (familiar-brand, ingestible products) will reduce cues that could negatively affect purchase likelihood. In contrast, unfamiliar-brand, noningestible products should hold the lowest priority, because sales of these products may benefit from disorganized shelf displays with fewer products. Furthermore, in the case of ingestible products, manufacturers who choose to restock their own products within stores or who choose to be completely responsible for their own displays without the help of store employees may be taking a risk. Although they may have more control over their shelves, they do not have employees available in the store throughout the day to ensure that the displays are not eliciting negative responses that could lead to lower sales. Our results suggest that, at least for some product categories (familiar-brand, ingestible products), consumers who see a shelf display with one disorganized product left may choose to switch to a comparable product rather than purchase the remaining product. Therefore, the findings have implications not just for the brands that are disorganized and limited in supply but also for competing brands and product assortment management. The results also have implications for inventory management by again prioritizing which products need more backup stock to ensure that managers can keep the shelves fully stocked and organized. Finally, marketing managers should consider the degree to which their shelf displays attract consumer attention and how product quantity and shelf display organization might interact to influence this attention, because sometimes increased attention can lead to increased purchase (e.g., Atalay, Bodur, and Rasolofoarison 2012; Chandon et al. 2009). It is possible that a fully stocked and organized shelf might not attract as much attention as a shelf display with only one disorganized product; if this is the case, there may be additional benefits than the ones we empirically examined here to the presence of disorganized store shelves that are not fully stocked. 132 / Journal of Marketing, July 2013

16 REFERENCES Angyal, Andras (1941), Disgust and Related Aversions, Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 36 (3), Argo, Jennifer J., Darren W. Dahl, and Andrea C. Morales (2006), Consumer Contamination: How Consumers React to Products Touched by Others, Journal of Marketing, 70 (April), ,, and (2008), Positive Consumer Contagion: Responses to Attractive Others in a Retail Context, Journal of Marketing Research, 45 (December), Atalay, A. Selin, H. Onur Bodur, and Dina Rasolofoarison (2012), Shining in the Center: Central Gaze Cascade Effect on Product Choice, Journal of Consumer Research, 39 (4), Banerjee, Abhijit V. (1992), A Simple Model of Herd Behavior, The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 107 (3), Bellman, Eric (2007), In India, a Retailer Finds Key to Success Is Clutter, The Wall Street Journal, (August 8), (accessed March 28, 2013), [available at SB html]. Brock, Timothy C. (1968), Implications of Commodity Theory for Value Change, in Psychological Foundations of Attitudes, A.G. Greenwald, T.C. Brock, and T.M. Ostrom, eds. New York: Academic Press, Burnkrant, Robert E. and Alain Cousineau (1975), Informational and Normative Social Influence in Buyer Behavior, Journal of Consumer Research, 2 (3), Chandon, Pierre, J. Wesley Hutchinson, Eric T. Bradlow, and Scott H. Young (2009), Does In-Store Marketing Work? Effects of the Number and Position of Shelf Facings on Brand Attention and Evaluation at the Point of Purchase, Journal of Marketing, 73 (November), Cialdini, Robert (1993), Influence: Science and Practice. New York: Harper Collins. Frazer, James George (1959), The New Golden Bough: A Study in Magic and Religion, Theodor H. Gaster, ed. New York: MacMillan. Hoch, Stephen J., Eric T. Bradlow, and Brian Wansink (1999), The Variety of Assortment, Marketing Science, 18 (4), Huang, Jen-Hung and Yi-Fen Chen (2006), Herding in Online Product Choice, Psychology and Marketing, 23 (5), Kahn, Barbara E. and Brian Wansink (2004), The Influence of Assortment Structure on Perceived Variety and Consumption Quantities, Journal of Consumer Research, 30 (4), Latane, Bibb (1981), The Psychology of Social Impact, American Psychologist, 36 (4), Lemon, Katherine N. and Stephen M. Nowlis (2002), Developing Synergies Between Promotions and Brands in Different Price Quality Tiers, Journal of Marketing Research, 39 (May), Lerner, Jennifer S., Deborah A. Small, and George Lowenstein (2004), Heart Strings and Purse Strings: Carryover Effects of Emotions on Economic Decisions, Psychological Science, 15 (5), Lynn, Michael (1992), Scarcity s Enhancement of Desirability: The Role of Naive Economic Theories, Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 13 (1), Morales, Andrea C. (2005), Giving Firms an E For Effort: Consumer Responses to High-Effort Firms, Journal of Consumer Research, 31 (4), and Gavan J. Fitzsimons (2007), Product Contagion: Changing Consumer Evaluations Though Physical Contact with Disgusting Products, Journal of Marketing Research, 44 (May), Nowlis, Stephen M., Ravi Dhar, and Itamar Simonson (2010), The Effect of Decision Order on Purchase Quantity Decisions, Journal of Marketing Research, 47 (August), Pham, Michel Tuan, Joel B. Cohen, John W. Pracejus, and G. David Hughes (2001), Affect Monitoring and the Primacy of Feelings in Judgment, Journal of Consumer Research, 28 (2), Rozin, Paul and April E. Fallon (1987), A Perspective on Disgust, Psychological Review, 94 (1), , Jonathan Haidt, and Clark McCauley (2008), Disgust, in Handbook of Emotions, 3d ed., Michael Lewis and Jeannette M. Haviland, eds. New York: Guilford Press, ,,, and Sumio Imada (1997), Disgust: Preadaptation and the Cultural Evolution of a Food-Based Emotion, in Food Preferences and Taste, H. MacBeth, ed. Providence, RI: Berghahn Books, , Linda Millman, and Carol Nemeroff (1986), Operation of the Laws of Sympathetic Magic in Disgust and Other Domains, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50 (4), , Carol Nemeroff, Matthew Horowitz, Bonnie Gordon, and Wendy Voet (1995), The Borders of the Self: Contamination Sensitivity and Potency of the Body Apertures and Other Body Parts, Journal of Research in Personality, 29 (3), Skarlicki, Daniel P., JoAndrea Hoegg, Karl Aquino, and Thierry Nadisic (2012), Does Interpersonal Injustice Affect Your Taste and Smell Perceptions? The Mediating Role of Moral Disgust, working paper, Sauder School of Business, University of British Columbia. Stock, Axel and Subramanian Balachander (2005), The Making of A Hot Product: A Signaling Explanation of Marketers Scarcity Strategy, Management Science, 51 (8), Valenzuela, Ana and Priya Raghubir (2009), Position-Based Beliefs: The Center-Stage Effect, Journal of Consumer Psychology, 19 (2), Verhallen, Theo M.M. (1982), Scarcity and Consumer Choice Behavior, Journal of Economic Psychology, 2 (4), and Henry S.J. Robben (1994), Scarcity and Preference: An Experiment on Unavailability and Product Evaluation, Journal of Economic Psychology, 15 (2), Worchel, Stephen, Jerry Lee, and Akanbi Adewole (1975), Effects of Supply and Demand on Ratings of Object Value, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 32 (5), Disorganized Shelf Displays and Limited Product Quantity / 133