Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to improve understanding of the relationships between the service environment, service provider mood, and provider‐customer interaction. Specifically, mood is evaluated as a potential moderator of the relationship between the service environment and provider‐customer interaction. Design/methodology/approach A multi‐method data collection approach was utilized, including observation and provider and customer surveys. Hypotheses are tested using regression, ANOVA, and MANOVA. Findings Findings indicate that service provider evaluations of the physical environment improve in the presence of an appropriate ambient scent. Behavioral responses are also enhanced: providers are viewed as more courteous and customers more friendly. Perhaps the most interesting observation is that provider mood moderates the relationship between the service environment and customer perceptions of service provider behavior. Research limitations/implications The only environmental characteristic that was manipulated was scent, and access was granted to only one store over the course of three consecutive Saturdays. Consequently, validity is threatened by the potential for impact of factors other than the manipulated characteristic. Practical implications Implications for managers include careful consideration of potential changes to the ambient environment; if introduction of an appropriate scent can be undesirable, other changes may also lead to unexpected results. Changes under consideration should be tested before implementation. Originality/value This research extends service theory by examining the relationship between providers and customers in an actual retail setting. Important theoretical contributions include: demonstrating that service provider mood moderates the relationship between service environmental characteristics and customer perceptions of provider behavior; and finding that positive changes to the environment can amplify negative outcomes.
Fowler et al. (Fri,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: