INTRODUCTION:

The store is most important mode of communication between a retailer and its shoppers. Store is the place where all the sales happen or not to happen (Dunne et al., 2007). From shopper’s perspective, a store needs to be simple to navigate; it must appeal to shopper’s sensory perceptions and must create a sense of belonging, a sense of relationship, a sense of security or assurance and a sense of pleasure in the shopping experience (Pradhan, 2009). Store plays a critical role in reinforcing desired store image.

The interplay of tangible and intangible elements and the customers overall interpretation of them, based upon previous knowledge and experiences, are widely accepted to determine store image (e.g. Hirschman, 1981; Marzursky and Jacoby 1986). For Levy et al. (2008) a store image is the way a store is defined in a shopper’s mind. Store image is the overall perception the consumer has of the store on different salient attributes (e.g. Bloemer and Ruyter 1998; Dunne et al., 2007).

The store image is based on the store’s physical characteristics, retail mix, and a set of psychological attributes. Physical characteristics of a store include the exterior and interior of the store, comprising internal layout, methods of display, and atmospheres such as lighting, sounds, smells, and colors (Kotler, 1974). Physical attributes of a store affect the consumer’s sensory perceptions and makes him relate to the store in a particular manner (Pradhan, 2009).

Store design is the most responsible element of a store in the hand of retailers for creating a distinctive and memorable store image. It is the element which differentiates and tells about the store to customers. The concept of store design has been used from sixties and seventies when it was generally art based and less concentrated with functions. Today, it is widely used as a creative science to get economies of scale and facilitating retailers to provide similar experience to customer around the world (Rasshied, 2000). The term design may be defined as a scheme or plan applied to present the final result, particularly the appearance of a design process (e.g. Crowley and Hasty, 1986; Radford and Gero, 1988). In addition Oakley (1990), design is an “essential creative response to an actual or perceived problem. Design is related to system and physical product, services and other non-tangible dimensions (e.g. Crowley and Hasty, 1986; Radford and Gero, 1988). Oakley (1990) explained design also may be used to present outward appearance of objects and sensory dimensions of the physical world and designing process is the presentation of solutions to the perceived problems, issues, by the creation of new and modification of existing. The application, integration and management of design within retailing have been confined to the observations of retail designers addressed to other designers (Fitch and Knobel, 1990).

Two important elements of store design are exterior store design and interior store design. Exterior design includes store front, store marquee and entrance all of which are critical to attracting passing shoppers and entice them to visit the store while interior includes architectural elements and finishing on all surfaces, such as wall covering, floor covering, and the ceiling, lighting, sounds, smells (Levy et al., 2008). Martineau’s (1958) paper identified four core attributes of store design: layout and architecture; symbols and colour; advertising; and sales personnel. However, one of the most enduring sources is the nine attributes derived by Lindquist (1974) from a review of nineteen previous studies. These attributes are: merchandise, service, clientele, physical facilities, convenience, store, atmosphere, institutional factors, and post-transaction satisfaction. Retail design combines suggestions regarding exterior and interior commercial design to create a welcoming retail environment.

The present study has been carried out with an objective to examine the demographic and geographic inclination towards the store design of Indian shoppers while visiting shopping malls. As India is a country, where, the huge diversity has been seen in demographic of the shoppers. Shoppers live in a complex social environment. The types of products and services they buy may be influenced by the culture they grew up in, by demographic factors such as their age and income, by their social status, by their house hold makeup, by the groups they belong to and by the people they know (Gupta, 2007). India’s more than 1.15 billion population is dispersed in 35 states where people communicate in more than 600 languages, follow different religions like Hinduism, Islam, Sikhism, Buddhism, Christianity, Jainism etc, celebrate several festivals, having different cultural values and norms. There is also diversity in age structure, literacy rate, and geographic, over 65% population of India’s current population is below the age of 35, in some state literacy rate is more than 90% like Kerla while in some below 50% like Bihar, 76% males while 54 % females are literate and 72% population of India’s current population living in villages (Population, 2010). Such type of diversity is not seen elsewhere in the world. The demographic and geographic inclination towards the store design also differs due to this diversity. This study also examines this difference. Before inhabiting on the hypothesis of the research, a brief review of literature has been covered.

REVIEW OF LITERATURE:

Literally number of details is applied in a successful store design, and all must be carefully coordinated to create a cohesive, targeted store image that reflects the retailer’s mission (Dunne et al., 2007). The key facets with in store design are identified as layout (e.g. Levy and Weitz, 1996; Berman and Evans, 1995), fixturing (e.g. Levy and Weitz, 1996; and Donnellan, 1996), presentation techniques (Buchanan et al., 1999), colour (Koelemeijer and Oppewal, 1999). Mayer (1989) suggested that store image has been one of the main topics in retailing. Pan and Zinkhan (2006) in their study concluded that store image and attributes strongly affects the store visit frequency. Crating an image depends heavily on a retailer’s atmosphere, which is comprised of all of its physical characteristics, such as the store exterior, the general interior, layout, and display (Berman and Evans, 2008). Retail-related factors and the atmosphere influence attractiveness most significantly (Teller and Jonathan, 2010). Store environment has a positive impact only on overall trust in the store. Store communication fosters all three levels of customer trust, while store assortment increases both overall trust and trust in store branded products (Guenzi et al., 2009). According to Anna and Wirtz (2001) many retailers have discovered the subtle benefits of developing atmospherics that complement other aspects of store design and the merchandise. Their research highlights that it is important for these atmospheric elements to work together, for example, the right music with the right scent.

Customer expectations regarding in-store design have increased (Buchanan et al., 1999) and there is also a heightened desire for shopping excitement, which can in part be delivered through innovative design of the physical environment (e.g. Erlick, 1993; Levy and Weitz, 1996). It has frequently been suggested that “good” interior design with in a store can maintain customer interest, encourage customers to lower their psychological defenses and make a purchase (e.g. Kotler, 1974; Walters and White, 1987; Bitner, 1992; Omer, 1999; Davies and Ward, 2002). And Consumer’s purchasing behavior is also influenced, both positively and negatively by the store atmosphere (e.g. Baker et al., 2002; Barry and Jill, 2000; Alain D’ Astous, 2000; Karen and Sevgin, 2000; Sherman et al., 1997; Teresa and Paulette, 2001). Shiv Kumar A (2006) indicated the two major types of variables that affect shopping behavior are external variables (e.g. window display, entrance, etc.) and interior variables (e.g. music, odor, lighting, etc.) while the external variables greatly affect store traffic and sales, interior variables have been found to impact sales, time spent in the store and approach/avoidance behavior. The appropriate ambience for luxury goods retail varies with the product category. For high-tech gadgets, a bright and vibrant atmosphere is suitable. Furthermore the colour combination should be appropriate to the context and the customer should feel relaxed in the store. Well experienced professional interior designers are often engaged for creating a good retail environment for luxury products (Kumar, 2009).

O'Cass and Grace (2008) express that little effort has, however, been devoted to understanding the effects of consumer image-store image congruency. More over image congruency has not only been shown to be valuable in relation to product choices, but has also been shown to contribute to our understanding of retail store choice and preferences. Their study examines the effect of retailer service provision and the retail store environment (servicescape) on the customers' perception of value for money. The study also examines the role of self-store image congruence in the above relationships. The findings of the study confirm the hypothesized relationships in the conceptual model (except for servicescape effects). The findings also indicate that the effects are stronger for those individuals experiencing high self-store image congruence. Baker et al. (2002) proposed a comprehensive store choice model that includes (1) three types of store environment cues (social, design, and ambient) as exogenous constructs, (2) various store choice criteria (including shopping experience costs that heretofore have not been included in store choice models) as mediating constructs, and (3) store patronage intentions as the endogenous construct. Then they empirically examine the extent to which environmental cues influence consumers’ assessments of a store on various store choice criteria and how those assessments, in turn, influence patronage intentions. The results of two different studies provide support for the model. Miranda and Konyal (2005) noted that overall satisfaction from store did not affect the customer loyalty. It is affected by several reasons such as- frequently buyer reward schemes, travel distance, preference for an in-store delicatessen, size of the average grocery bill, store signage and level of sale assistance.

Dunne et al. (2007) opines that high profit retailers, whether operating traditional stores or virtual stores, place a heavy emphasis on designing their physical facilities or website so as to enhance image and increase productivity. Liang and Lai (2002) reported that the quality of e-store design has an effect on the consumer purchase decision. They also highlights that consumers are more likely to shop at well-designed websites. Among the on-line functions, support of transaction and post-sales services play key roles. Hygiene factors are critical when consumers decide whether to shop electronically, while motivational factors play a key role when consumers choose among different electronic stores. Media richness factors are, in general, least important. From the Dunne et al. (2007)’s point of view profitable retailers employ designs that pull shoppers into the store and interior designs that stimulate sales and profit retailers also design their stores to expose shoppers to as much merchandise as possible, displayed in a safe and orderly manner, creating an uncongested shopping environment. Retailers try to increase the number of impulse purchase through store design, product displays, package design and sales (Hoyer and Maclnnis, 1997). Retail managers must define the target customer and then design a store that complements customer’s need (Sirgy et al., 2000). Dunne et al. (2007) suggested that retailers who understand the implications of country’s age distribution will be more apt to identify opportunities that will improve their profit performance. And they also explain that these retailers also realize that increase of women in the labour forces is a two-edged sword. It will increase disposable income for the family, but it will reduce the time available for shopping; making it imperative that retailers make shopping a pleasant, convenient experience. More over the high profit performance retailers of the next will be those that best adapt to these changes.

Tarun and Chopra (2007) analyzed that Indian retailers understand the culture, taste and preference of Indian consumer better and Indian consumer is known to be extremely value-conscious. Indian consumers are price sensitive and because of that retailers work with them on low profit margin, argued by Vijayraghavan (2007). Pathak and Tripathi (2009) indicated that Indian customers have become more sensitive to quality, customer service and status. They are basically looking for an experience which is more cognitive than physical. Indian shoppers seek emotional value than on the functional value and are affected primarily by the type of store, the frequency of buying and to some extent, by the socio-economic classification. The retailers need to experiment with a format that attracts both types of shopper.

RESEARCH HYPOTHESIS:

On the basis of literature review and the objectives of the study, the following hypothesis has been formulated-

H₁- Gender has a significant relationship with importance of store design to respondents while visiting shopping malls.

H₂- Age group has a significant relationship with importance of store design to respondents while visiting shopping malls.

H₃- Education has a significant relationship with importance of store design to respondents while visiting shopping malls.

H₄- Marital status has a significant relationship with importance of store design to respondents while visiting shopping malls.

H₅- Occupation has a significant relationship with importance of store design to respondents while visiting shopping malls.

H₆- Household income has a significant relationship with importance of store design to respondents while visiting shopping malls.

H₇- Residing area has a significant relationship with importance of store design to respondents while visiting shopping malls.

H₈- Degree of demographic and geographic inclination towards store design differs to respondents while visiting shopping malls.

H₉- The higher the level of store design attractiveness, higher is the customer loyalty.

METHODS:

Research Design:

Philips (1966) defined a good research design as ….The blue print of the collection, measurement and analysis of data. It aids the scientists in the allocation of his limited resources by posing crucial choice- is the blue print to include experiments, interviews, observation, the analysis of records, simulation, or some combination of these? Are the methods of data collection and the research situation to be highly structured? Is an intensive study of a small sample more effective than a less intensive study of a larger sample? Should the analysis be primarily quantitative or qualitative? By taking the inspirations from this definition I could define our research design as follows- Both exploratory and descriptive researches were used in compiling this whole study. An exploratory research focus to develop initial hunches or insights and to provide direction for any further research needed and descriptive research aims to describe something (Perasuraman et al., 2007). While exploratory research helped us in developing the hypotheses through the analysis of secondary data, descriptive research was used in order to study the demographic and geographic inclination towards store design of respondents while visiting shopping malls.

Neelankavil (2007) argued that one of the cardinal rules in data collection is to exhaust all secondary data sources before conducting a primary study. My study was based on both secondary and primary data. Secondary data played a vital role to review of literature, formulate hypothesis and questionnaire preparation. It was accumulated from books, journals, magazines, websites and other published sources available, references are cited at the end of conclusion. Utilizing the information from the secondary data, a structured questionnaire was prepared for respondents to accumulate the primary data, comprising open and close ended questions. The questionnaire was tested by conducting a pilot study of a few respondents selected on random basis. It is necessary to design a suitable questionnaire, conducting a pilot study and undertake a pre-testing of the questionnaire (Beri, 2000). Utilizing the insight from pilot study, questionnaire was modified for the final study. This primary data was accumulated from shoppers of shopping malls in Pune and Mumbai district of Maharashtra state (India), where most of shopping malls of India are situated (Shopping Malls, 2010). Survey method was employed to carry out this study through printed questionnaire. The questionnaire was administrated personally using face to face method in order to improve response rate. As Sekaran (2003) has stated, personally administrated questionnaire can establish rapport and motivate respondents whilst at the same time, clarify any doubts instantly.

Sampling design:

Respondents were selected on random basis when they visited shopping malls on week days. The questionnaires were distributed simultaneously among 200 respondents in January and February 2011. Survey was done in all seven days but I specially surveyed on Saturday and Sunday to get more positive respondents. For the purpose of this survey, Random Sampling of Probability Sampling Technique has been employed as it gives every unit of the population a known and equal probability of being selected (Parasuraman et al., 2007).

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION:

Nominal and ordinal scales were utilized to take the responses of respondents regarding demographic and geographic variables while Likert’s (1970) five point scale (basically an ordinal scale) was used to take the responses regarding importance of store design on importance scale ranging from very important to very unimportant with the middle of the scale identified by the response alternative neither important nor unimportant and responses regarding store loyalty due to attractive store design has been taken on agreement scale ranging from extremely agree to extremely disagree with the middle of the scale identified by the response alternative neither agree nor disagree. Cross tabulation has been utilized to represent the responses of respondents. Cross tabulations are known as bivariate or multivariate tabulations, depending on whether two or more than two variables are involved (Beri, 2000). Simple percentage method has been used to analyze the demographic and geographic variables of respondents. The demographic characteristics of the respondents for this study are presented in Table 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 while geographic characteristics in table 7.

Table 1: Cross tabulation of Gender of respondents and importance of store design while visiting shopping malls

Gender	Very Important		Important		Neither Important Nor Unimportant		Unimportant		Very Unimportant		Total
Gender	No.	%	No.	%	No.	%	No.	%	No.	%	No.	%
Male	28	14.0	34	17.0	33	16.5	11	05.5	06	03.0	112	56.0
Female	30	15.0	42	21.0	15	07.5	01	00.5	00	00.0	88	44.0
Total	58	29.0	76	38.0	48	24.0	12	06.0	06	03.0	200	100
Chi Square Test of Independence
Chi Square Calculated				df		Level of significance			Chi Square Tabulated
19.392				4		1%			13.277

Table 2: Cross tabulation of Age group of respondents and importance of store design while visiting shopping malls

Age (Years)	Very Important		Important		Neither Important Nor Unimportant			Unimportant		Very Unimportant		Total
Age (Years)	No.	%	No.	%	No.		%	No.	%	No.	%	No.	%
< 21	05	02.5	05	02.5	01		0.50	00	00.0	00	00.0	11	05.5
21-30	26	13.0	32	16.0	05		02.5	00	00.0	00	00.0	63	31.5
31-40	17	08.5	19	09.5	11		05.5	01	05.0	00	00.0	48	24.0
41-50	09	04.5	15	07.5	14		07.0	05	02.5	00	00.0	43	21.5
> 50	01	0.50	05	02.5	17		08.5	06	03.0	06	03.0	35	17.5
Total	58	29.0	76	38.0	48		24.0	12	06.0	06	03.0	200	100
Chi Square Test of Independence
Chi Square Calculated				df		Level of significance				Chi Square Tabulated
83.789				16		1%				32.000

Table 3: Cross tabulation of Education of respondents and importance of store design while visiting shopping malls

Education	Very Important		Important		Neither Important Nor Unimportant			Unimportant		Very Unimportant		Total
Education	No.	%	No.	%	No.		%	No.	%	No.	%	No.	%
Illiterate	00	00.0	00	00.0	03		01.5	04	02.0	04	02.0	11	05.5
< HSC	01	0.50	05	02.5	21		10.5	04	02.0	01	0.50	32	16.0
HSC-SSC	12	06.0	14	07.0	19		09.5	04	02.0	01	0.50	50	25.0
Graduation	21	10.5	26	13.0	03		01.5	00	00.0	00	00.0	50	25.0
Post Graduation	24	12.0	31	15.5	02		01.0	00	00.0	00	00.0	57	28.5
Total	58	29.0	76	38.0	48		24.0	12	06.0	06	03.0	200	100
Chi Square Test of Independence
Chi Square Calculated				df		Level of significance				Chi Square Tabulated
159.223				16		1%				32.000

Table 4: Cross tabulation of Marital Status of respondents and importance of store design while visiting shopping malls

Marital Status	Very Important		Important		Neither Important Nor Unimportant			Unimportant		Very Unimportant		Total
Marital Status	No.	%	No.	%	No.		%	No.	%	No.	%	No.	%
Single	33	16.5	41	20.5	27		13.5	04	02.0	03	01.5	108	54.0
Married	25	12.5	35	17.5	21		10.5	08	04.0	03	01.5	92	46.0
Total	58	29.0	76	38.0	48		24.0	12	06.0	06	03.0	200	100
Chi Square Test of Independence
Chi Square Calculated				df		Level of significance				Chi Square Tabulated
2.396				4		10%				7.779

Table 5: Cross tabulation of Occupation of respondents and importance of store design while visiting shopping malls

Occupation	Very Important		Important		Neither Important Nor Unimportant			Unimportant		Very Unimportant		Total
Occupation	No.	%	No.	%	No.		%	No.	%	No.	%	No.	%
Student	23	11.5	26	13.0	11		05.5	02	01.0	00	00.0	62	31.0
Salaried	12	06.0	22	11.0	13		06.5	02	01.0	00	00.0	49	24.5
Own Business	08	04.0	11	05.5	06		03.0	01	0.50	00	00.0	26	13.0
Others	15	07.5	17	08.5	18		09.0	07	03.5	06	03.0	63	31.5
Total	58	29.0	76	38.0	48		24.0	12	06.0	06	03.0	200	100
Chi Square Test of Independence
Chi Square Calculated				df		Level of significance				Chi Square Tabulated
24.144				12		5%				21.026

Table 6: Cross tabulation of Household income of respondents and importance of store design while visiting shopping malls

Household Income	Very Important		Important		Neither Important Nor Unimportant		Unimportant		Very Unimportant		Total
Household Income	No.	%	No.	%	No.	%	No.	%	No.	%	No.	%
< 1 Lakh	01	05.0	02	01.0	14	07.0	07	03.5	04	02.0	28	14.0
1-3 Lakh	15	07.5	21	10.5	18	09.0	04	02.0	02	01.0	60	30.0
3-5 Lakh	27	13.5	25	12.5	11	05.5	01	05.0	00	00.0	64	32.0
> 5 Lakh	15	07.5	28	14.0	05	02.5	00	00.0	00	00.0	48	24.0
Total	58	29.0	76	38.0	48	24.0	12	06.0	06	03.0	200	100
Chi Square Test of Independence
Chi Square Calculated				df		Level of significance			Chi Square Tabulated
74.585				16		1%			26.217

Table 7: Cross tabulation of Residing Area of respondents and importance of store design while visiting shopping malls

Residing Area	Very Important		Important		Neither Important Nor Unimportant		Unimportant		Very Unimportant		Total
Residing Area	No.	%	No.	%	No.	%	No.	%	No.	%	No.	%
Urban	29	14.5	37	18.5	13	06.5	01	0.50	00	00.0	80	40.0
Semi Urban	22	11.0	30	15.0	14	07.0	03	01.5	02	01.0	71	35.5
Rural	07	03.5	09	04.5	21	10.5	08	04.0	04	02.0	49	24.5
Total	58	29.0	76	38.0	48	24.0	12	06.0	06	03.0	200	100
Chi Square Test of Independence
Chi Square Calculated				df		Level of significance			Chi Square Tabulated
40.655				8		1%			20.090

Table 8: Worksheet for the Kolmogorov-Smirnov (K-S) D Value

Importance Scale	Observed Number	Observed Proportion	Observed Cumulative Proportion	Null Proportion	Null Cumulative Proportion	Absolute Difference Observed and Null
Very Important	58	0.29	0.29	0.20	0.20	0.090
Important	76	0.38	0.67	0.20	0.40	0.270
Neither Important Nor Unimportant	48	0.24	0.91	0.20	0.60	0.310*
Unimportant	12	0.06	0.97	0.20	0.80	0.170
Very Unimportant	06	0.03	1.00	0.20	1.00	0.000
*K-S ‘D’ Value Calculated		Level of significance (α)		K-S ‘D’ Value Tabulated
0.310		1%		0.115

Table 9: Worksheet for the Kolmogorov-Smirnov (K-S) D Value

Agreement Scale	Observed Number	Observed Proportion	Observed Cumulative Proportion	Null Proportion	Null Cumulative Proportion	Absolute Difference Observed and Null
Extremely Agree	23	0.115	0.115	0.20	0.20	-0.085
Agree	58	0.290	0.405	0.20	0.40	0.005
Neither Agree Nor Disagree	78	0.390	0.795	0.20	0.60	0.195*
Disagree	25	0.125	0.920	0.20	0.80	0.120
Extremely Disagree	16	0.080	1.000	0.20	1.00	0.000
*K-S ‘D’ Value Calculated		Level of significance (α)		K-S ‘D’ Value Tabulated
0.0.195		1%		0.115

Chi Square Test of Independence is applied to test the hypothesis H₁, H₂, H₃, H₄, H₅, H₆, and H₇. Table 1, 2, 3, 5, 6 and 7 also delineate that chi square calculated at 4, 16, 16, 12, 8 and 16 degree of freedom respectively is greater than tabulated value. Therefore hypothesis H₁, H₂, H_3, H₆and H₇ are accepted at 1% level of significance and H₅ is accepted at 5% level of significance. But Table 4 depicts that chi square calculated at 4 degree of freedom and 10% level of significance is less than tabulated value. Hence hypothesis H₄ is rejected. To test the hypothesis H₈ and H₉, Kolmogorov-Smirnov One Sample test has been employed. It is similar to Chi Square Test, test of goodness of fit. Table 8 and 9 delineate calculated Kolmogorov-Smirnov (K-S) ‘D’ values. As the calculated ‘D’ exceeds the critical value of 0.115 at α of 1%, hence the hypothesis H₈ and H₉ are accepted.

CONCLUSIONS:

Most of the visitors of shopping malls were youth (21-40 years old), highly educated, having good household income, more than 1 lakh (Indian National Rupee) per annum and belongs to either urban or semi urban areas. The result of the study indicated a significant relationship between demographic characteristics viz. gender, age group, education, occupation and income of respondents and inclination towards store design. A positive relationship has also been found between geographic characteristics viz. residing area of respondents and inclination towards store design. But the demographic characteristic marital status has no significant relationship with inclination towards store design. Furthermore, Results depict a high degree of demographic and geographic inclination towards store design. Today people in India are not viewing retailing as just merchandising. Now they expect much more each time they step into a store. While insisting on value for money and cost effectiveness, today consumers want a better shopping experience, recreation, friendly interactions, safe and healthy environment, better services and a wide choice of products. Customers also want to eat, shop, and get entertained under same roof. Consumer expectations are very high from the shopping stores/malls because of changing demographics of Indian consumers. Such expectations may not be fulfilled by conventional stores. Therefore, shopping stores/malls have to fulfill these expectations in order to flourish, thrive, and germinate by laps and bounce in the Indian consumer market. It is better to create good store image in consumer mind. Store design helps to create such a good image. A good store image entices customers to make a purchase, spend more time and money, revisit, impulse purchase, and also maintain customer interest, increase frequency to visit the store, motivate customers to spread positive word of mouth. Moreover, results also explain attractiveness of store design tends to store loyalty.

REFERENCES:

1. Anna, MS and Writz J. Congruency of scent and music as a driver of in-store evaluations and behaviour. Journal of Retailing. 77; 2001: 273-289.

2. Baker J, Parasuraman A, Grewal D and Voss G. The influence of multiple store environment cues on perceived merchandise value and patronage intentions. Journal of Marketing. 66; 2002: 120-41.

3. Barry BJ and Jill AS. Atmospheric affect as a tool for creating value and gaining share of customer. Journal of Business Research. 49; 2000: 91-101.

4. Beri GC. Marketing Research. Tata McGraw-Hill Education Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi, India. 2000.

5. Berman B and Evans JR. Retail Management- A Strategic Approach. Pearson Education, Inc., US. 2008.

6. Bitner MJ. Servicescapes: the impact of physical surroundings on customers and employees. Journal of Marketing. 56; 1992: 57-71.

7. Bloemer J and Ruyter KD. The relationship between store image, store satisfaction and store loyalty. European Journal of Marketing. 32; 1998: 499-513.

8. Buchanan C, Simmons CJ and Bickart BA. Brand equity dilution: retailer display and context brand effect. Journal of Marketing Research. 56; 1999: 57-71.

9. Crowely BA and Hasty JR. The effects of colour on store design. Journal of Retailing. 14; 1986: 185-191.

10. D’Astous A. Irritating aspects of shopping environment. Journal of Business Research. 49; 2000: 149-57.

11. Davies B and Ward P. Managing Retail Consumption. Willy, London. 2002.

12. Donnellan J. Merchandise Buying and Management. Fairchild Publication, New York. 1996.

13. Dunne PM, Lusch RF and Griffith DA. Retailing. Thomson Learning Inc. US. 2007.

14. Erlick J. Visual merchandising: seeing is believing. Home Furnishing Daily. 27 September; 1993: 13-14.

15. Fitch R and Knobel L. Retail Design. Phaidon Press Ltd., UK. 1990.

16. Guenzi P, Johnson MD and Castaldo SA. Comprehensive model of customer trust in two retail stores. Journal of Service Management. 20; 2009: 290 – 316.

17. Gupta SL. Retail Management- An Indian Perspective, Taxt and Cases. Wisdom Publication, Delhi, India. 2007.

18. Hirschman E. Retail Research and Theory. In Enis, B. M. and Roering, K. J. (eds), Review of Marketing, American Marketing Association, Chicago. 1981.

19. Hoyer WD and MacInnis DJ. Consumer Behaviour. Houghton Mifflin, New York. 1997.

20. Karen MA and Sevgin EA. Describing and measuring emotional response to shopping experience. Journal of Business Research. 49; 2000: 101-11.

21. Koelemeijer K and Oppewal H. Assessing the effects of assortment and ambience: a choice excremental approach. Journal of Retailing. 3; 1999: 319-339.

22. Kotler P. Atmospherics as a marketing tool. Journal of Retailing. 49; 1974: 48-64.

23. Kumar P. Retailing luxury products in India. Marketing Mastermind, ICFAI University Press, India. IX Issue, July, 2009.

24. Levy M, Weitz BA and Pandit A. Retailing Management. Tata McGraw-Hill Publishing Company Ltd., New Delhi, India. 2008.

25. Levy M and Weitz B A. Essential of Retailing. Irwin, Chicago, IL. 1996.

26. Liang Ting-Peng and Lai Hung-Jen. Effect of store design on consumer purchases: an empirical study of on-line bookstores. Information and Management. 39; 2002: 431-444.

27. Likert R. A technique for the measurement of attitude. In Gene F. summer ed., Attitude Measurement, Rand McNally, Chicago. 1970.

28. Lindquist JD. Meaning of Image: A Survey of Empirical and Hypothetical Evidence. Journal of Retailing. 50; 1974: 29-38.

29. Martineau P. The Personality of the Retail Store. Harvard Business Review. 36; 1958: 47-55.

30. Mayer M. 1949-1989: Retail Reflections. Journal of Retailing. 65, 1989: 396-401.

31. Mazursky D and Jacoby J. Exploring the development of store images. Journal of Retailing. 62, 1986: 145-165.

32. Miranda MJ and Konyal HI. Shopper’s satisfaction levels are not the key to store loyalty. Marketing Intelligence and Planning. 23; 2005: 220-232.

33. Neelankavil JP. International Business Research. M E Sharpe Inc., New York. 2007.

34. O'Cass A and Grace D. Understanding the role of retail store service in light of self-image-store image congruence. Psychology and Marketing. 25; 2008: 521-537.

35. Okley M. Design Management: A Handbook of Issues and Methods. Blachwell Publication, UK. 1990.

36. Omar O. Retail Marketing. Pitman Publishing, London. 1999

37. Pan Y and Zinkhan GM. Determination of retail patronage: meta analytical perspective, Journal of Retailing. 82; 2006: 229-243.

38. Parasuraman A, Grewal D and Krishnan R. Marketing Research. Biztantra, New Delhi, India. 2007.

39. Pathak SV and Tripathi AP 2009. Customer shopping behavior among modern retail formats: a study of Delhi and NCR. Indian Journal of Marketing. 27; 2007: 3-12.

40. Phillips BS. Social Research Strategy and Tactics. McMillan Publishing Company Inc., US. 1966.

41. Population 2010. Indian Population Overview. [WWW document]. URL http/www.indiaonlinepages.com/population (assessed on January 3^rd, 2011).

42. Pradhan S. Retailing Management- Text and Cases. Tata McGraw-Hill Education Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi. 2009.

43. Radford AD and Gero JS. Design by Optimization. Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, Washington, USA. 1988.

44. Rasshied Din. New Retail, Conran Octopus Publishers, UK. 2000.

45. Sekaran U. Research Methods for Business: A Skill Building Approach. John Wiley and Sons Inc., New York. 2003.

46. Sherman E, Mathur A and Ruth BS. Store environment and customer purchase behaviour: mediating role of consumer emotions. Psychology and Marketing. July; 1997: 361-78.

47. Shivkumar A. All that Surrounding Air, Visual Merchandising: An Introduction, ICFAI University Press, India. 2006.

48. Shopping Malls 2010. Shopping Malls Overview. [WWW document]. URL http:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/shopping_malls_in_india (assessed on January 3^rd, 2011).

49. Sirgy JM, Dhruv G and Tamara Mangle-Burg. Retail environment, self-congruity, and retail patronage: an integrative model and a research agenda. Journal of Business Research. 49; 2000: 127-138.

50. Tarun KS and Chopra SL. Beyond the retail hype. Indian Management, July; 2007: 12-27.

51. Teller C and Elms J. Managing the attractiveness of evolved and created retail agglomerations formats. Marketing Intelligence and Planning. 28; 2010: 25-45.

52. Teresa SA and Paulette HR. Shedding some light on store atmospherics: Influence of Illumination on Consumer Behaviour. Journal of Business Research. 54; 2001: 145-150.

53. Vijayraghavan. Future group to focus on lifestyle and non grocery biz for higher margins. The Economic Times. February, 4. 2007.

54. Walters D and White D. Retail Marketing Management. McMillian Press, Basingstoke. 1987.

Received on 05.05.2011 Accepted on 22.05.2011

Asian J. Management 2(3): July- Sept., 2011 page 87-93