The Influence of In-Store Music on Wine Selections

Adrian C. North, David J. Hargreaves, Jennifer McKendrick · Journal of Applied Psychology · 1999 · marketing · 10.1037/0021-9010.84.2.271 · record north1999-music-priming
tag layer · index · concepts · authors · עברית

Where this record's text came from. faceted 2026-08 by reading the locally held text (pdftext); every evidence string verified as an exact substring of that text before merging. The design is a field experiment (music alternated by day, display side and shelf order counterbalanced) rather than a lab study; 'behavioural-experiment' is the closest enum value. There is no no-music baseline condition — the authors themselves flag this as something future work 'might include'. The paper says a brief summary appeared previously (North, Hargreaves, & McKendrick, 1997), but that is a prior report of the same data, not a replication, so replication status is untested. The extends-relation to Areni and Kim is real but was coded 'builds-on' because the sentence that names them states parallelism rather than extension; the explicit corrective ('the present study addresses this issue directly') does not itself name them. 2026-08-19 and 2026-08-25 schema-0.3 passes: every quote verified as an exact substring of the staged text and anchored at merge time; concept terms verified present; every edge endpoint an existing node. Update, 15 September 2026: EXCEPTION, measured with the merge gate's own predicate (Paper.locate): 2 quote(s) on this record are not found as one exact string in the current staged text - content_tags.findings[0].evidence, content_tags.statistics[3].evidence. The sentence above does not hold for them as written. Where a row records why - the quote is grounded in another copy of the paper, joins two passages with an ellipsis, or differs from the staged text by extraction noise - that note stays on the row.

How to read this page. The article itself is not reproduced here — this paper is not cleared for redistribution, so what follows is the tag layer alone. The evidence sentences are withheld with the article. The table at the foot lists every tag the record carries; each row names the facet it belongs to, and the whose words column says whether the tag records the paper's own wording or the tagger's sentence about the paper. Every tag links to each other paper in the corpus carrying it. The machine-readable edition of the same thing is the TEI file beside this one, where the tags live in standOff, and the article is at its publisher via the link below. When we have changed our mind. Some entries in the table begin with a word in capitals and the reason for it. EVIDENCE CORRECTED — the finding still stands, but we had quoted the wrong sentence from the paper, and the quotation has been replaced with the right one. RETRACTED — the entry itself was wrong; it stays on the page, marked, with the reason, rather than being deleted. WITHDRAWN AND REPLACED — the entry was wrong, and a corrected version of it appears in the entries below. Each mark carries its own reason, in brackets, because the reasons differ from one entry to the next. An entry we have WITHDRAWN is removed from this page and kept in the record, with its reason. A line reading Audit and a date is a later re-reading of the entry against its whole sentence: DOUBTFUL means it was kept, and the reason says what is loose about it. Quotation marks inside the tagger's sentence. Where a tag is the tagger's own sentence, a phrase in quotation marks inside it is borrowed from the paper — the tagger's wording around it is not. The paper's own sentence is the evidence quote for that row; on this page it is withheld with the article, and the article is at its publisher. Nothing inside quotation marks anywhere on this page is ours: if it is quoted, it is the paper's. Whose words a concept carries. A concept entry records a term the paper itself uses, so the term, the sense given for it, and its evidence are the paper's own words, quoted where the paper fixes them. This is the opposite of a sense entry in the tag table, which is the tagger's sentence about how the paper uses a term. Where a concept entry could not be grounded in the paper's words, the entry says so on its own row.

Other fields define these differently the same word, defined another way in another discipline
uncertainty 6 fields · selection 3 fields · awareness 3 fields · priming 2 fields · statistical-significance 2 fields · knowledge 2 fields · and 1 more →

Tags on this paper

Every tag the record carries, each linking to every other paper in the corpus that carries it. A tag appears here whether or not its words occur in the article — the spans below are only the ones a sentence in this paper licenses. Of the 7 concept tags on this paper, 4 are grounded in a quoted sentence. 4 carry the tagger's gloss of what the term means in this paper, which is not something the article can license.

music priming consumer choice incidental cue musical fit knowledge uncertainty low involvement music wine purchase customers priming background awareness selection ANOVA chi-square p-value statistical-significance t-test t test variance behavioural-experiment

Legend

relation to other work	`claim_relations`	how this paper stands to another: agrees, contradicts, extends, qualifies
claim type	`claim_type`	the shape of the claim: existence, mechanism, method, critique, prediction, null
concept	`concepts`	an idea the paper works with, quoted where the paper uses it
content tag	`content_tags`	a finding, definition, quantity, statistic or variable named in the paper
control	`controls`	an experiment run to eliminate a rival explanation
limitation	`limitations`	what the paper says its evidence cannot support
method	`method`	how the paper produced its evidence
phenomenon	`phenomenon`	the effect or regularity under study
sense	`senses`	a distinct use of a term, quoted where the paper fixes it

The paper

The full text is not reproduced here. This article is not cleared for redistribution, so the page carries the tag layer only. Its evidence sentences are withheld; the grounding status remains with each tag, and the article itself is at https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.84.2.271. The reading view exists for the papers whose licence permits it.

Every tag on this page

claim_relations 2 · claim_type 1 · concepts 4 · content_tags 8 · controls 1 · limitations 3 · method 1 · phenomenon 1 · senses 4

This record holds no relations between concepts or mechanisms. A layer is empty when the tagger recorded nothing in it — which is not the same as the paper having nothing to record.

facet	tag	field	conf.	whose words
claim_type	existence Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`claim_type`		the paper's words
phenomenon	musical fit and in-store product choice Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`phenomenon`		the paper's words
method	behavioural-experiment Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: behavioural-experiment	`method`		the paper's words
limitations	Whether shoppers were genuinely unaware of the influence is undetermined; they may have realised it but declined to admit it Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`limitations[0]`		the tagger's words
limitations	The alternative that the music merely attracted already-decided buyers to the display cannot be ruled out Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`limitations[1]`		the tagger's words
limitations	The preference-for-prototypes model invoked to explain the effect was not itself tested Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`limitations[2]`		the tagger's words
controls	the French and German wines matched to each other on price and on degree of sweetness Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. eliminates: the music effect being a price or taste effect - if the French wine were cheaper or sweeter, the shopper's choice would follow the wine rather than the accordion · outcome (stated by the tagger, no quotation): held	`controls[0]`	0.85	the tagger's words
concepts	musical fit Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: musical fit	`concepts[3]`	0.95	the paper's words
concepts	knowledge Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: knowledge	`concepts[4]`	0.95	the paper's words
concepts	uncertainty Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: uncertainty	`concepts[5]`	0.95	the paper's words
concepts	low involvement Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: low involvement	`concepts[6]`	0.95	the paper's words
senses	THE AUTHORS TAKE APART THEIR OWN EVIDENCE FOR UNAWARENESS, IN THREE MOVES. First the hedge is built into the report: `Taken purely at face value, the questionnaire data suggest that respondents were largely unaware of the effect that music had on their wine selections.` Then: `it remains to be determined whether customers really were unaware ...: Maybe customers did realize that the music was an attempt to influence their purchasing, but did not like to admit this to researchers.` A self-report of unawareness is treated as evidence about what people will SAY, which is a different quantity from what they knew - and most awareness checks in this corpus are reported as measurements of the second Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`senses[0]`	0.95	the tagger's words
senses	AND THE THIRD MOVE IS SUBTLER THAN IMPRESSION MANAGEMENT: `customers may not have explained their wine choice in terms of the music simply because this did not seem to them like a rational explanation for their behavior.` Not concealment and not ignorance - a FOLK THEORY OF WHAT COUNTS AS A REASON. A shopper who half-noticed the music may still not offer it, because `the music was playing` is not the kind of thing that explains a purchase. So a null on a `why did you choose this` question is evidence about the respondent's model of explanation, and only then about awareness Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`senses[1]`	0.95	the tagger's words
senses	THE SAME BOUNDARY CONDITION money2013 GIVES, SIXTEEN YEARS EARLIER AND IN A DIFFERENT FIELD. Here: the effect holds `only when there is an element of uncertainty in product choice or when customers are in a state of low involvement with the decision process`. Vohs's 2015 reply to a failed replication says priming needs an AMBIGUOUS OUTCOME - `a situation that does not leave much room for interpretation is unlikely to show a consistent or large priming effect`. Marketing in 1999 and social psychology in 2015, arriving independently at the condition that a prime needs somewhere to act, and each citing its own literature (judgmental biases here, Loersch & Payne there) Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`senses[2]`	0.95	the tagger's words
senses	AN ALTERNATIVE EXPLANATION THE DATA CANNOT RULE OUT, STATED WITHOUT DEFENCE - AND THEN A REPLY THAT COSTS NOTHING. `Because the music was played from the display containing the wines, it may well have attracted the attention of people who already intended to buy wine from one of the countries in question ... Quotation withheld` The concession is total. The reply is that it does not matter: `even if this alternative explanation is correct ... the fact that music was able to attract them to a specific area of the store still shows that music activated knowledge and was associated with the selection of matching products.` The mechanism claim survives the confound because both routes require the same activation Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`senses[3]`	0.95	the tagger's words
claim_relations	builds-on → Areni and Kim (1993) Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`claim_relations[0]`		the tagger's words
claim_relations	builds-on → Martindale and Moore's (1988) preference-for-prototypes model Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`claim_relations[1]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	national background music shifts wine purchases toward the congruent country Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.findings[0]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	shoppers are largely unaware of the musics influence on their choice Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.findings[1]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	ANOVA Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: ANOVA	`content_tags.statistics[0]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	chi-square Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: chi-square	`content_tags.statistics[1]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	p-value Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: p-value	`content_tags.statistics[2]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	statistical-significance Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: statistical-significance	`content_tags.statistics[3]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	t-test Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: t-test	`content_tags.statistics[4]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	variance Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: variance	`content_tags.statistics[5]`		the tagger's words

Interpretive choices

Tags that could not be placed in the text:

none — every tag was located in the text

What was deliberately not tagged, and why, is recorded per paper by the tagger. Where a paper has no such record, this page says so rather than implying that nothing was declined.