A meta-analysis of the effect of crowding on consumers’ emotional reactions and shopping-related behavioral reactions

doi:10.3724/SP.J.1041.2020.01237

Abstract

Abstract:

In the last few years, marketing scholars have been showing increasing interest in examining how crowding affects consumers’ emotions and behaviors. As a result, empirical literature on crowding has been growing rapidly. However, the crowding literature in Marketing has reported many inconsistent findings which need to be reconciled. The current meta-analysis paper aims to find out the reasons for heterogeneity in the findings of previous studies on crowding.

In this meta-analysis, the authors analyzed 149 effect sizes from 38 Eastern and Western empirical studies and 81 samples. Each author independently coded the data and discrepancies were resolved through discussion. Based on the measures of crowding used in each individual empirical paper, the authors coded two types of crowding, namely social crowding and spatial crowding. First, the authors analyzed the effects of social crowding and spatial crowding on consumers’ emotional reactions and shopping reactions. Next, the authors examined the potential moderation effects of several contextual and methodological factors, including types of shopping environment, the reality of research context, and sources of research samples (western countries vs. eastern countries, students vs. non-students).

This meta-analysis work obtained many interesting findings. First, this paper documented that social crowding significantly increased consumers’ negative emotions, but dramatically decreased consumers’ dominance. Social crowding was found to be positively correlated with the approach-related shopping responses (ρ = 0.208, N = 28624), and negatively correlated with consumer attitudes and willingness to shop (ρ = -0.135, N = 10094). Second, this paper documented that spatial crowding had a significant negative effect on avoidance-related shopping responses (ρ = -0.409, N = 3223), but had no significant influence on the approach- related shopping responses. Furthermore, moderation analyses showed that some of the aforementioned main effects were significantly moderated by types of shopping environment (utilitarian vs. hedonic), the reality of the context (virtual vs. real), and sources of research samples (western countries vs. eastern countries, students vs. non-students).

To summarize, this paper makes several important theoretical advances. First, drawing on several psychological theories on individuals’ reactions to the crowding environment, this paper builds a relatively unified research framework on consumers’ reactions to crowding. More importantly, this paper also tests this framework via meta-analyzing the effects of social crowding and those of spatial crowding on consumers’ emotional reactions and shopping-related behavioral responses, respectively. The results suggest that the overall influence of crowding on individuals’ emotion and behavior is not as large as that reported in previous studies. Second, by examining the moderation effects of several situational and methodology-related factors, this paper is able to explain why prior literature on crowding has reported inconsistent findings. Finally, this meta-analysis work also puts forth several intriguing and testable future research hypothese. In addition to advancing theory, the current paper’s findings also have practical implications. Companies and managers should consider reducing consumers’ spatial crowding perceptions of the shopping environment. However, it is not wise for firms to universally adopt a policy of decreasing consumers’ perceptions of pedestrian volume.

Key words: social crowding, spatial crowding, consumer behavior, meta-analysis

LIU Wumei, MA Zengguang, WEI Xuhua. (2020). A meta-analysis of the effect of crowding on consumers’ emotional reactions and shopping-related behavioral reactions. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 52(10), 1237-1252.

Figures/Tables 7

References 86

	* refers to literatures included in the meta-analysis
1	Aiello, J. R., Epstein, Y. M., & Karlin, R. A . (1975, April). Field experimental research on human crowding*. Paper presented at the meeting of Western Psychological Association Convention Sacremento, California.
2	Allport, G. W . ( 1954). The nature of prejudice. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
3	*Andrews, M., Luo, X. M., Fang, Z., & Ghose, A . ( 2015). Mobile ad effectiveness: Hyper-contextual targeting with crowdedness. Marketing Science, 35( 2), 218-233.
4	*Baker, J., &Wakefield, K. L . ( 2012). How consumer shopping orientation influences perceived crowding, excitement, and stress at the mall. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 40( 6), 791-806.
5	Bateson, J. E. G., & Hui, M. K. ( 1992). The ecological validity of photographic slides and videotapes in simulating the service setting. Journal of Consumer Research, 19( 2), 271-281.
6	Bitner, M. J . ( 1992). Servicescapes: The impact of physical surroundings on customers and employees. Journal of Marketing, 56( 2), 57-71.
7	Blut, M., & Iyer, G. R .(2019). Consequences of perceived crowding: A meta-analytical perspective. Journal of Retailing. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretai.2019.11.007.
8	Borenstein, M., Hedges, L. V., Higgins, J. P. T., & Rothstein, H. R . ( 2011). Introduction to meta-analysis. United Kingdom: John Wiley & Sons.
9	Bullock, R. J . ( 1986). A meta-analysis method for od case studies. Group & Organization Studies, 11( 1-2), 33-48.
10	Burnett, J. J., & Dune, P. M . ( 1986). An appraisal of the use of student subjects in marketing research. Journal of Business Research, 14( 4), 329-343.
11	*Byun, S. E., &Mann, M . ( 2011). The influence of others: The impact of perceived human crowding on perceived competition, emotions, and hedonic shopping value. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 29( 4), 284-297.
12	Chan, Y. K . ( 1999). Density, crowding, and factors intervening in their relationship: Evidence from a hyper-dense metropolis. Social Indicators Research, 48( 1), 103-124.
13	Chang, Y . ( 2017). A study on perceived crowding of the users of public leisure and tourism resources: A case study of tourists and recreationists around the West Lake, Hangzhou* (Unpublished doctor’s thesis)., Zhejiang University China.
14	*Consiglio, I., de Angelis, M., & Costabile, M . ( 2018). The effect of social density on word of mouth. Journal of Consumer Research, 45( 3), 511-528.
15	de Wit, F. R. C., Greer, L. L., & Jehn, K. A . ( 2012). The paradox of intragroup conﬂict: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97( 2), 360-390. doi: 10.1037/a0024844 URL pmid: 21842974
16	*Ding, Y., & Zhong, J. Q, . ( 2020). The effect of social crowding on individual preference for self-improvement products. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 52( 2), 216-228.
17	Eroglu, S. A., & Machleit, K. A . ( 1990). An empirical study of retail crowding: Antecedents and consequences. Journal of retailing, 66( 2), 201-221.
18	*Eroglu, S. A., Machleit, K., & Barr, T. F . ( 2005). Perceived retail crowding and shopping satisfaction: The role of shopping values. Journal of Business Research, 58( 8), 1146-1153. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2004.01.005 URL
19	Evans, G. W., & Lepore, S. J . ( 1992). Conceptual and analytic issues in crowding research. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 12( 2), 163-173.
20	Evans, G. W., Rhee, E., Forbes, C., Allen, K. M., & Lepore, S. J . ( 2000). The meaning and efficacy of social withdrawal as a strategy for coping with chronic residential crowding. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 20( 4), 335-342.
21	*Evans, G. W., & Wener, R. E . ( 2007). Crowding and personal spatial invasion on the train: Please don’t make me sit in the middle. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 27( 1), 90-94.
22	Farley, J. U., Lehmann, D. R., & Sawyer, A . ( 1995). Empirical marketing generalization using meta-analysis. Marketing Science, 14( 3), 36-46.
23	*Gelbrich, K., & Sattler, B . ( 2014). Anxiety, crowding, and time pressure in public self-service technology acceptance. Journal of Services Marketing, 28( 1), 82-94.
24	Grossbart, S., Hampton, R., Rammohan, B., & Lapidus, R. S . ( 1990). Environmental dispositions and customer response to store atmospherics. Journal of Business Research, 21( 3), 225-241.
25	Hall, E. T . ( 1966). The hidden dimension. Garden City, Ny: Doubleday.
26	Hanks, L., Line, N., & Kim, W. G . ( 2017). The impact of the social services cape, density, and restaurant type on perceptions of interpersonal service quality. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 61, 35-44.
27	*Harrell, G. D., Hutt, M. D., & Anderson, J. C . ( 1980). Path analysis of buyer behavior under conditions of crowding. Journal of Marketing Research, 17( 1), 45-51.
28	*Hellmann, J. H., Adelt, M. H., & Jucks, R . ( 2016). No spatial for others? On the increase of students’ self-focus when prodded to think about many others. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 35( 6), 698-707.
29	*Hock, S. J., &Bagchi, R . ( 2017). The impact of crowding on calorie consumption. Journal of Consumer Research, 44( 5), 1123-1140.
30	Hu, W. Y . ( 2015). The impact factors of tourists perceived crowding—A case study Xixi National Wetland Park* (Unpublished doctor’s thesis). Zhejiang Gongshang University, China.
31	*Huang, X., Huang, Z. Q., & Wyer, R. S . ( 2017). The influence of social crowding on brand attachment. Journal of Consumer Research, 44( 5), 1068-1084.
32	Hui, M. K. M., &Bateson, J. E. G. ( 1990). “Testing a theory of crowding in the service environment”. Advances in Consumer Research, 17( 1), 866-873.
33	Hunter, J. E., & Schmidt, F. L. ( 2004). Methods of meta-analysis: Correcting error and bias in research findings, 2nd Ed. Thousand Oaks, Ca: Sage Publications.
34	*Hwang, J., Yoon, S. Y., & Bendle, L. J . ( 2012). Desired privacy and the impact of crowding on customer emotions and approach-avoidance responses: Waiting in a virtual reality restaurant. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 24( 2), 224-250.
35	Joshi, A., &Roh, H . ( 2009). The role of context in work team diversity research: A meta-analytic review. Academy of Management Journal, 52( 3), 599-627.
36	*Kim, D., Lee, C. K., & Sirgy, M. J . ( 2016). Examining the differential impact of human crowding versus spatial crowding on visitor satisfaction at a festival. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 33( 3), 293-312.
37	*Kim, J.H., &Runyan, R. ( 2011). Where did all the benches go? The effects of mall kiosks on perceived retail crowding. International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, 39( 39), 130-143.
38	Knoeferle, K. M., Paus, V. C., & Vossen, A . ( 2017). An upbeat crowd: Fast in-store music alleviates negative effects of high social density on customers’ spending. Journal of Retailing, 93( 4), 541-549.
39	*Langer, E. J., &Saegert, S. ( 1977). Crowding and cognitive control. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35( 3), 175-182.
40	Lazarus, R. S. & Folkman, S.( 1984). Stress, appraisal, and coping. New York: Springer Publishing Company.
41	*Levav, J., &Zhu, R . ( 2009). Seeking freedom through variety. Journal of Consumer Research, 36( 4), 600-610.
42	Li, J. G . ( 2004). The effects of store physical environment on perceived crowding and shopping behavior*(Doctoral dissertation). USA: Auburn University.
43	Li, J. G. T., Kim, J. O., & Lee, S. Y . ( 2009). An empirical examination of perceived retail crowding, emotions, and retail outcomes. The Service Industries Journal, 29( 5), 635-652.
44	Li, N. ( 2018). Research on the effects of social crowding on new product purchase intention of consumers*(Unpublished master’s thesis). Northeast Normal University, China.
45	Lipsey, M. W., & Wilson, D. B. ( 2001). The way in which intervention studies have “personality” and why it is important to meta-analysis. Evaluation & the Health Professions, 24( 3), 236-254. doi: 10.1177/016327870102400302 URL pmid: 11523317
46	Machleit, K. A., Eroglu, S. A., & Mantel, S. P . ( 2000). Perceived retail crowding and shopping satisfaction: What modifies this relationship? Journal of Consumer Psychology*, 9(1) 29-42.
47	*Machleit, K. A., Kellaris, J. J., & Eroglu, S. A . ( 1994). Human versus spatial dimensions of crowding perceptions in retail environments: A note on their measurement and effect on shopper satisfaction. Marketing Letters, 5( 2), 183-194.
48	*Maeng, A., & Tanner, R. J. ( 2013). Construing in a crowd: The effects of social crowding on mental construal. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 49( 6), 1084-1088.
49	*Maeng, A., Tanner, R. J., & Soman., D . ( 2013). Conservative when crowded: Social crowding and consumer choice. Journal of Marketing Research, 50( 6), 739-752.
50	Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. ( 1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological review, 98( 2), 224-253.
51	*Mattila, A. S., & Hanks, L. ( 2012). Time styles and waiting in crowded service environments. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 29( 4), 327-334.
52	Mattila, A. S., &Wirtz, J. ( 2008). The role of store environmental stimulation and social factors on impulse purchasing. Journal of Services Marketing, 22( 7), 562-567.
53	Mehrabian, A., & Russell, J. A. .( 1974). An approach to environmental psychology. Cambridge, Ma: Mit Press.
54	*Mehta, R., Sharma, N. K., & Swami, S . ( 2013). The impact of perceived crowding on consumers’ store patronage intentions: Role of optimal stimulation level and shopping motivation. Journal of Marketing Management, 29( 7-8), 812-835.
55	Michon, R., Chebat, J.-C., & Turley, L. W . ( 2005). Mall atmospherics: The interaction effects of the mall environment on shopping behavior. Journal of Business Research, 58( 5), 576-583.
56	Milgram, S. ( 1970). The experience of living in cities. Science, 167( 3924), 1461-1468. doi: 10.1126/science.167.3924.1461 URL pmid: 5415278
57	Miron, A. M., & Brehm, J. W. ( 2006). Reactance theory-40 years later. Zeitschrift für Sozialpsychologie, 37( 1), 9-18.
58	*Novelli, D., Drury, J., Reicher, S., & Stott, C . ( 2013). Crowdedness mediates the effect of social identification on positive emotion in a crowd: A survey of two crowd events. PloS one, 8( 11), e78983. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0078983 URL pmid: 24236079
59	*O’Guinn, T. C., Tanner, R. J., & Maeng, A . ( 2015). Turning to spatial: Social density, social class, and the value of things in stores. Journal of Consumer Research, 42( 2), 196-213.
60	Orsingher, C., Valentini, S., & de Angelis, M . ( 2010). A meta-analysis of satisfaction with complaint handling in services. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 38( 2), 169-186.
61	Peterson, R. A . ( 2001). On the use of college students in social science research: Insights from a second-order meta-analysis. Journal of Consumer Research, 28( 3), 450-461. doi: 10.1086/323732 URL
62	Pettigrew, T. F., &Tropp, L. R. ( 2006). A meta-analytic test of intergroup contact theory. Journal of personality and social psychology, 90( 5), 751-783. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.90.5.751 URL pmid: 16737372
63	Pons, F., &Laroche, M. ( 2007). Cross-cultural differences in crowd assessment. Journal of Business Research, 60( 3), 269-276. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2006.10.017 URL
64	Pons, F., Laroche, M., & Mourali, M . ( 2006). Consumer reactions to crowded retail settings: Cross-cultural differences between north america and the middle east. Psychology & Marketing, 23( 7), 555-572.
65	*Poon, T., & Grohmann, B. ( 2014). Spatial density and ambient scent: Effects on consumer anxiety. American Journal of Business, 29( 1), 76-94. doi: 10.1108/AJB-05-2013-0027 URL
66	*Rafaeli, A., & Sutton, R. I. ( 1990). Busy stores and demanding customers: How do they affect the display of positive emotion? Academy of Management Journal, 33( 3), 623-637.
67	Robert, D., & John, R . ( 1982). Store atmosphere: An environmental psychology approach. Journal of Retailing, 58( 1), 34-57.
68	Rodin, J. ( 1976). Density, perceived choice, and response to controllable and uncontrollable outcomes. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 12( 6), 564-578. doi: 10.1016/0022-1031(76)90035-4 URL
69	Roschk, H., Loureiro, S. M. C., & Breitsohl, J . ( 2017). Calibrating 30 years of experimental research: A meta-analysis of the atmospheric effects of music, scent, and color. Journal of Retailing, 93( 2), 228-240. doi: 10.1016/j.jretai.2016.10.001 URL
70	Rucker, D. D., & Galinsky, A. D. ( 2008). Desire to acquire: Powerlessness and compensatory consumption. Journal of Consumer Research, 35( 2), 257-267. doi: 10.1086/588569 URL
71	Schmidt, D. E., & Keating, J. P. ( 1979). Human crowding and personal control: An integration of the research. Psychological Bulletin, 86( 4), 680-700. URL pmid: 482482
72	*Shirai, M . ( 2017). Underdog effects: The role of consumption domain and retail crowding. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 34( 5), 384-392.
73	Smith, A. K., Bolton, R. N., & Wagner., J . ( 1999). A model of customer satisfaction with service encounters involving failure and recovery. Journal of Marketing Research, 36( 3), 356-372.
74	Soares, A. M., Farhangmehr, M., & Shoham, A . ( 2007). Hofstede's dimensions of culture in international marketing studies. Journal of Business Research, 60( 3), 277-284.
75	Stokols, D. ( 1972). On the distinction between density and crowding: Some implications for future research. Psychological Review, 79( 3), 275-277. doi: 10.1037/h0032706 URL pmid: 5056743
76	*Tse, A. C. B., Sin, L., & Yim, F. H. K. ( 2002). How a crowded restaurant affects consumers’ attribution behavior. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 21( 4), 449-454.
77	van Rompay, T. J. L., Galetzka, M Pruyn, A. T. H & Garcia, J. M. ( 2008). Human and spatial dimensions of retail density: Revisiting the role of perceived control. Psychology & Marketing, 25( 4), 319-335.
78	*Wei, S. Q., Ang, T., & Anaza, N. A . ( 2019). The power of information on customers’ social withdrawal and citizenship behavior in a crowded service environment. Journal of Service Management, 30( 1), 23-47.
79	Wei, X. H., Liu, Y. M., & Chen, S. X . ( 2015). A meta-analysis of the relationship between team demographic diversity and team performance. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 47( 9), 1172-1187.
80	Wei, X. H., Wang, A. C., & Jiang, N . ( 2018). A meta-analysis of antecedents of team faultline and its effects on team processes and outcomes. Nankai Business Review, 21( 5), 139-149.
81	Whiting, A., & Donthu, N. ( 2009). Closing the gap between perceived and actual waiting times in a call center: Results from a field study. Journal of Services Marketing, 23( 5), 279-288.
82	Wohlwill, J. F . ( 1974). Human adaptation to levels of environmental stimulation. Human Ecology, 2( 2), 127-147.
83	*Xu, A. J., & Albarracín, D. ( 2016). Constrained physical spatial constrains hedonism. Journal of the Association for Consumer Research, 1( 4), 557-568.
84	*Yildirim, K., & Akalin-Baskaya, A . ( 2007). Perceived crowding in a café/restaurant with different seating densities. Building and Environment, 42( 9), 3410-3417.
85	Yu, X. T., Chen, X., & Wang, H . ( 2019). Why does perceived dirty work lead to work withdrawal behavior? The mediating role of negative emotion and work alienation. Human Resources Development of China, 36(6), 33-47+78.
86	*Zhang, Y. G., Yu, X. Y., Wong, I. A., Cheng, J. J., & Yin, S. B . ( 2018). Research on the influential mechanism between the tourists' crowding perception and emotions for recreation in ancient village scenic spot: A case study of xidi and hongcun ancient villages. Human Geography, 33( 2), 138-146.

DV	k	N	ρ	95% confidence interval		Double-tail test		Q_W	I²	Significance of Begg test	Fail-safe number
DV	k	N	ρ	Low	High	Z value	P value	Q_W	I²	Significance of Begg test	Fail-safe number
Emotions	41	10742	0.040	-0.071	0.150	0.712	0.477	1309.207***	96.945	0.723	—
Positive emotions	15	3587	0.035	-0.109	0.178	0.478	0.633	246.352***	94.317	0.805	—
Negative emotions	13	3377	0.235	-0.003	0.448	1.937	0.053	582.671***	97.941	0.393	435
Arousal	7	2107	0.049	-0.087	0.182	0.705	0.481	50.071***	88.017	0.652	—
Dominance perception	6	1671	-0.378	-0.511	-0.227	-4.676	0.000	47.822***	89.545	0.851	322
Approach-related shopping responses	31	28624	0.208	0.167	0.248	9.768	0.000	211.292***	85.802	0.020	5394
Brand attachment	11	1949	0.198	0.126	0.269	5.274	0.000	27.440**	63.557	0.186	206
Word of mouth	5	2069	0.207	0.112	0.298	4.213	0.000	11.520**	65.279	0.624	72
Energy intake	6	1966	0.227	0.153	0.298	5.871	0.000	7.281	31.326	0.133	98
Product purchase	4	11883	0.178	0.026	0.322	2.294	0.022	48.892***	93.864	1.000	484
Focus on yourself and others	5	10757	0.216	0.058	0.364	2.657	0.008	30.585***	86.922	0.624	318
Avoidance-related shopping responses: Willingness and attitude	34	10094	-0.135	-0.251	-0.015	-2.200	0.028	1209.224***	97.271	0.173	653
Degree of satisfaction	16	5612	-0.036	-0.218	0.147	-0.385	0.700	700.008***	97.857	0.528	—
Inference and evaluation	11	3067	-0.202	-0.407	0.023	-1.763	0.078	388.366***	97.425	0.139	131
Patronage and willingness to pay	7	1415	-0.266	-0.358	-0.168	-5.226	0.000	20.323**	70.477	0.453	176
Avoidant response: Risk aversion	8	1143	0.416	0.277	0.537	5.478	0.000	42.896***	83.682	0.083	316

DV	k	N	ρ	95% confidence interval		Double-tail test		Q_W	I²	Significance of Begg test	Fail-safe number
DV	k	N	ρ	Low	High	Z value	P value	Q_W	I²	Significance of Begg test	Fail-safe number
Emotions	41	10742	0.040	-0.071	0.150	0.712	0.477	1309.207***	96.945	0.723	—
Positive emotions	15	3587	0.035	-0.109	0.178	0.478	0.633	246.352***	94.317	0.805	—
Negative emotions	13	3377	0.235	-0.003	0.448	1.937	0.053	582.671***	97.941	0.393	435
Arousal	7	2107	0.049	-0.087	0.182	0.705	0.481	50.071***	88.017	0.652	—
Dominance perception	6	1671	-0.378	-0.511	-0.227	-4.676	0.000	47.822***	89.545	0.851	322
Approach-related shopping responses	31	28624	0.208	0.167	0.248	9.768	0.000	211.292***	85.802	0.020	5394
Brand attachment	11	1949	0.198	0.126	0.269	5.274	0.000	27.440**	63.557	0.186	206
Word of mouth	5	2069	0.207	0.112	0.298	4.213	0.000	11.520**	65.279	0.624	72
Energy intake	6	1966	0.227	0.153	0.298	5.871	0.000	7.281	31.326	0.133	98
Product purchase	4	11883	0.178	0.026	0.322	2.294	0.022	48.892***	93.864	1.000	484
Focus on yourself and others	5	10757	0.216	0.058	0.364	2.657	0.008	30.585***	86.922	0.624	318
Avoidance-related shopping responses: Willingness and attitude	34	10094	-0.135	-0.251	-0.015	-2.200	0.028	1209.224***	97.271	0.173	653
Degree of satisfaction	16	5612	-0.036	-0.218	0.147	-0.385	0.700	700.008***	97.857	0.528	—
Inference and evaluation	11	3067	-0.202	-0.407	0.023	-1.763	0.078	388.366***	97.425	0.139	131
Patronage and willingness to pay	7	1415	-0.266	-0.358	-0.168	-5.226	0.000	20.323**	70.477	0.453	176
Avoidant response: Risk aversion	8	1143	0.416	0.277	0.537	5.478	0.000	42.896***	83.682	0.083	316

DV	k	N	ρ	95% confidence interval		Double Tail Test		Q_W	I²	Significance of Begg test	Fail-safe number
DV	k	N	ρ	Low	High	Z value	P value	Q_W	I²	Significance of Begg test	Fail-safe number
Emotions	16	6573	-0.037	-0.165	0.092	-0.560	0.576	416.998***	96.403	0.928	27
Positive emotions	7	2944	-0.219	-0.380	-0.044	-2.449	0.014	139.209***	95.690	0.881	215
Negative emotions	6	2144	0.192	0.110	0.270	4.571	0.000	17.293***	71.087	0.348	117
Arousal	3	1485	-0.047	-0.295	0.207	-0.359	0.720	46.161***	95.667	0.602	5
Approach-related shopping response	6	998	0.033	-0.186	0.250	0.296	0.767	38.810***	89.756	0.039	—
Impulse buying	3	752	-0.213	-0.281	-0.144	-5.899	0.000	0.026	0.000	0.602	21
Diversity seeking	3	246	0.293	0.173	0.405	4.650	0.000	0.481	0.000	0.602	14
Avoidance-related shopping response	11	3223	-0.409	-0.506	-0.302	-6.941	0.000	114.599***	91.274	0.392	1558

DV	k	N	ρ	95% confidence interval		Double Tail Test		Q_W	I²	Significance of Begg test	Fail-safe number
DV	k	N	ρ	Low	High	Z value	P value	Q_W	I²	Significance of Begg test	Fail-safe number
Emotions	16	6573	-0.037	-0.165	0.092	-0.560	0.576	416.998***	96.403	0.928	27
Positive emotions	7	2944	-0.219	-0.380	-0.044	-2.449	0.014	139.209***	95.690	0.881	215
Negative emotions	6	2144	0.192	0.110	0.270	4.571	0.000	17.293***	71.087	0.348	117
Arousal	3	1485	-0.047	-0.295	0.207	-0.359	0.720	46.161***	95.667	0.602	5
Approach-related shopping response	6	998	0.033	-0.186	0.250	0.296	0.767	38.810***	89.756	0.039	—
Impulse buying	3	752	-0.213	-0.281	-0.144	-5.899	0.000	0.026	0.000	0.602	21
Diversity seeking	3	246	0.293	0.173	0.405	4.650	0.000	0.481	0.000	0.602	14
Avoidance-related shopping response	11	3223	-0.409	-0.506	-0.302	-6.941	0.000	114.599***	91.274	0.392	1558

DV	Moderator variable		k	N	ρ	95% confidence interval		Q_W	Q_B	I²
DV	Moderator variable		k	N	ρ	Low	High	Q_W	Q_B	I²
Positive emotions, arousal	Type of shopping environment	Hedonic	5	1197	0.317***	0.170	0.451	24.560***	12.911***	83.713
	Type of shopping environment	Utilitarian	12	4047	-0.011	-0.110	0.088	102.240***	12.911***	89.241
	The reality of the context	Real	16	4832	0.065	-0.047	0.176	215.578***	0.339	93.042
	The reality of the context	Virtual	6	830	-0.029	-0.313	0.260	82.065***	0.339	93.907
	Source of research sample	Eastern countries	10	2645	-0.032	-0.186	0.123	134.972**	1.541	93.332
		Western countries	12	3049	0.102	-0.042	0.242	156.480***	1.541	92.970
		Non-students	15	4864	0.050	-0.064	0.163	1166.026***	0.020	93.388
		Student	7	830	0.028	-0.244	0.296	145.47 6***	0.020	93.166
Negative emotions, Dominance perception	Type of shopping environment	Hedonic	4	1136	-0.153**	-0.257	-0.046	8.690*	1.470	65.479
	Type of shopping environment	Utilitarian	9	3123	0.089	-0.281	0.436	878.163***	1.470	99.089
	The reality of the context	Real	11	3873	-0.008	-0.305	0.290	906.890***	0.319	98.897
	The reality of the context	Virtual	8	1175	0.100	-0.120	0.311	92.549***	0.319	92.436
	Source of research sample	Eastern countries	5	1591	-0.017	-0.212	0.179	57.671**	0.161	93.064
		Western countries	14	3457	0.054	-0.229	0.329	899.181***	0.161	98.554
		Non-students	13	4429	-0.012	-0.217	0.249	941.150***	0.740	98.725
		Students	6	619	0.149	-0.106	0.386	46.211***	0.740	89.180
Approach-related shopping responses	The reality of research context	Real	12	25708	0.253***	0.169	0.333	804.337***	1.182	98.632
	The reality of research context	Virtual	20	2916	0.196***	0.136	0.255	52.403***	1.182	63.743
	Source of research samples	Eastern countries	9	22186	0.273***	0.221	0.323	50.752***	8.829**	58.636
		Western countries	20	6233	0.169***	0.124	0.213	47.886***	8.829**	65.868
		Non-students	18	27057	0.185***	0.133	0.236	194.039**	3.225?	91.239
		Students	13	1567	0.256**	0.229	0.313	17.156	3.225?	30.054
Risk aversion	Source of research sample	Non-students	2	649	0.235*	0.009	0.438	8.632**	3.541?	88.416
Risk aversion	Source of research sample	Student	6	494	0.486***	0.322	0.621	21.741**	3.541?	77.002
Avoidance-related shopping response: Willingness and attitude	Type of shopping environment	Hedonic	6	2698	0.050	-0.233	0.326	257.004**	1.034	98.055
	Type of shopping environment	Utilitarian	24	6558	-0.115	-0.252	0.026	744.795***	1.034	96.912
	The reality of research context	Real	17	6457	0.011	-0.151	0.172	681.678***	5.769*	97.653
	The reality of research context	Virtual	17	3637	-0.278**	-0.434	-0.106	455.354***	5.769*	96.486
	Source of research samples	Eastern countries	11	4485	-0.012	-0.223	0.200	508.519***	2.197	98.034
		Western countries	22	5031	-0.209**	-0.353	-0.056	630.256***	2.197	96.668
		Non-students	23	8382	-0.103	-0.248	0.045	1026.715***	0.794	97.857
		Students	10	1572	-0.223*	-0.424	-0.001	174.160***	0.794	94.832