Christmas tree shopping environments, mental fatigue recovery, and
shopping preferences: A nationwide marketing study
Final Report Prepared for:
Real Christmas Tree Board*
PO Box 77
Howell, MI 48844-0077
*The Real Christmas Tree Board (RCTB), also known as the Christmas Tree Promotion Board, is focused
on improving the future of the industry by increasing the value and demand for cut Christmas trees
through promotion, research and education. The RCTB is a national research and promotion program
supported by production assessments from both domestic and imported Christmas trees with oversight by
the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
Prepared by:
West Virginia University
Division of Forestry & Natural Resources
Chad Pierskalla, Ph.D.
Jinyang Deng, Ph.D.
David McGill, Ph.D.
Shan Jiang, Ph.D.
CTPB Project Number: CTPB Project # 22-11-WVU, WVU OSP #22-922
Publication Date of Final Report: July 2023
2
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank James Rockis (Owner) and Beth Bossio (Sales and Marketing
Specialist) of The Quarter Pine Tree Farm for helping develop the methodology for this
study. All of their ideas were incorporated into the study and they proved very useful. Jim and
Beth also allowed us to video record their farm that was used in our study. Jeff Miller, owner of
Miller's Greenhouse & Flower Shop, also provided us with the opportunity to visit and video
record his Christmas tree displays. We appreciate the support provided by the Pennsylvania
Christmas Tree Growers Association, especially Aaron Grau (Executives Director) and the many
other Christmas retail stores in Pennsylvania that contributed to the study. We would like to
thank Connor Akers, owner of Elevation Media for producing the two videos used in this
study. We once again relied heavily on the expertise and services provided by DialSmith to
conduct the online survey and dial testing of the video. Most importantly, we greatly appreciate
the financial support provided by The Real Christmas Tree Board, especially the help of Cyndi
Knudson (Director of Research).
3
Table of Contents
1. Abstract ............................................................................................................................6
2. Background and Study Purpose .......................................................................................7
3. Literature Review.............................................................................................................8
4. Methodology ..................................................................................................................12
5. Results and Discussion ..................................................................................................14
6. Conclusion .....................................................................................................................33
7. References ......................................................................................................................36
Appendix A: Study Instrument ..........................................................................................41
4
List of Tables
Table 1. Socio-demographics........................................................................................................ 15
Table 2. Type of Christmas tree(s) in your home in 2022 (Q5). .................................................. 16
Table 3. Household by type of Christmas tree(s) in home in 2022 (Q5) by household (Q14). ... 16
Table 4. Purchase location of your home's real Christmas tree(s) in 2022 (Q6). ......................... 17
Table 5. Customer loyalty (Q7). ................................................................................................... 17
Table 6. Perceived Restorative Scale (PRS) item mean scores by real/outdoor trees video versus
artificial/indoor trees video. .......................................................................................................... 18
Table 7. ANCOVA: Real-time video evaluations of overall perceived restorative quality (Q2)
by video
(controlling for five restorative factors, Q3) .................................................................. 20
Table 8. ANCOVA: Post-video evaluations of overall perceived restorative quality (Q4) by
video
(controlling for five restorative factors, Q3) ....................................................................... 20
Table 9. Multivariate Multiple Regression (MMR): Effects of Restorative Factors on Restorative
Quality........................................................................................................................................... 23
Table 10. Positive correlation between customer loyalty items and overall perception of
restorative quality of real/outdoor Christmas trees (real-time and post-video assessments). ....... 23
Table 11. Peak restorative moments identified during the evaluation of real/outdoor trees video.
....................................................................................................................................................... 28
Table 12. Christmas tree attributes and levels used in the conjoint analysis (Q8). ...................... 29
Table 13. A total of 16 orthogonal designs were used in the survey. ........................................... 30
Table 14. Results of the conjoint analysis. ................................................................................... 30
Table 15. Utility values by design. ............................................................................................... 33
5
List of Figures
Figure 1. Examples of indoor artificial Christmas tree displays examined in this study.............. 19
Figure 2. Evaluation timeline for the real/outdoor Christmas trees video. ................................... 27
Figure 3. Utilities at different attribute levels. .............................................................................. 31
Figure 4. Importance values by attribute. ..................................................................................... 32
6
1. Abstract
Christmas tree shopping environments, mental fatigue recovery, and
shopping preferences: A nationwide marketing study
Summary Statement--This study indicates that shopping for real Christmas trees outdoors
(offering outdoor biophilic designs) has significantly more perceived restorative quality in the
setting (allowing recovery from mental fatigue) than shopping for artificial trees indoors based
on 2 different overall restorative quality measures. Real Christmas tree farms and lots (e.g.,
choose and cut farm, garden center, Boy Scout lot, and home improvement store) are excellent
examples of these biophilic designs. There is more room for improvement for tree display
design, marketing and merchandizing, and future research. Therefore, some propositions and
recommendations to increase the effect of those tree displays are also provided in this report.
Abstract--A recent CNN article proposed that real Christmas trees (and greenspaces and nature
in general) provide important health benefits such as the reduction in anxiety, psychological
stress, and depression. The Mayo Clinic recognizes that many people experience stress around
the holidays, so their recommendation to restore inner calm may be even more important during
Christmas. Despite the plethora of literature that identifies the health benefits of nature, very
little research examined the phenomena in detail as it relates to Christmas tree shopping. The
purpose of the nationwide online survey (n=1,208, 45 questions, and 2 video evaluations) is to
examine the extent to which Christmas tree shopping environments that include real trees in the
outdoors (i.e., choose and cut farm, garden centers, Boy Scout lot, and home improvement store)
provide opportunities for the recovery from mental and attentional fatigue when compared to
artificial trees indoors (i.e., variety of store displays). Researchers at West Virginia University
helped fill this void in the literature by examining not only the factors of improved mental health
associated with different Christmas tree shopping environments (outdoor biophilic designs
offering real trees vs. indoor store designs offering artificial trees), but it also identified the
specific natural elements of the shopping environment (in addition to other tree-related attributes
such retail locations, prices, species, and height) that contribute to positive consumer responses.
Christmas tree retailers will be able to use this information to improve tree display designs,
improve marketing and merchandizing, and develop future research questions.
The 5 Perceived Restorativeness Scales (fascination, being-away, compatibility, coherence, and
scope) and overall restorative quality of the two types of Christmas tree shopping environments
(outdoor biophilic designs vs. indoor store designs) were compared. The key finding indicates
that real/outdoor trees have a higher perceived restorative quality (real-time video evaluation
p<.05 and post-video evaluation p<.001), but more can be done to increase (and better measure)
these effects in the future. Although the fascination ratings for artificial/indoor tree ratings were
significantly higher (p<.01), it had a much weaker effect than real trees (less than half) on overall
restorative quality. That is, although indoor artificial trees are more fascinating, it appears to be
the kind of “hard” fascination that does not contribute as much to restoration when compared to
the “softer” fascination associated with real trees. The hard fascination of artificial/indoor
Christmas trees indoors (with all of the flashy lights) might be compared with other examples of
hard fascination such as fast movement, loud noises, watching sports games on television, or
7
visiting amusement parks. On the other hand, “soft” fascination involves stimuli that does not
require much effort (which reduces the internal noise and burden). Classic examples include
wind blowing through leaves or ripples of water traveling across a pond. Real/outdoor
Christmas trees provide another really good example. These findings not only add to the list of
benefits that have been identified for purchasing real Christmas trees, but also supports Basu,
Duvall, and Kaplan’s (2018) argument that soft fascination is key and an underexamined element
of Attention Restoration Theory.
The positive effect of coherence (e.g., orderly tree displays) and scope (e.g., perception of depth
and spaciousness) on overall restorative quality that was perceived by respondents was greater
for real/outdoor tree displays. This larger effect was documented in a multivariate multiple
regression model but also in most of the peak restorative moments that were identified during the
video evaluation. Based on these findings, the authors provide some propositions on how to
further improve the perception of depth, spaciousness, and the impression of a receding
landscape, especially for small spaces and tree displays.
Finally, conjoint analysis was used to examine the utility value of 16 combinations of attributes
including tree price, species, height, and product. The combination of “$60-80, pine, 6-8', real”
is the most preferred/optimal by study respondents, closely followed by the combination of “$60-
80, fir, 6-8', real”, and the combination of “$80-100, fir, 8-10', real”. Price was the most
important attribute. In terms of product, 100% of customers preferred real trees over artificial
ones. Several marketing, design, and future research recommendations and propositions are
made based on these and other study findings.
2. Background and Study Purpose
There are many benefits associated with purchasing a real Christmas tree including creating a
Christmas experience that people remember as a child, protecting the environment (e.g., trees
convert CO
2
into Oxygen, provide wildlife habitat, provide greens space, and are recyclable and
biodegradable), and supporting North American Farmers (Christmas Tree Promotion Board,
n.d.). A recent news article by CNN added health benefits to that list of benefits (Marples,
2021). The CNN article provided an important reminder that exposure to real Christmas trees
(and greenspaces and nature in general) can provide important health benefits such as the
reduction in anxiety, psychological stress, and depression. The daily routines, tasks, and hassles
of everyday existence commonly require focused attention and considerable effort to stay with
them (Kaplan, 1995). This leads to mental fatigue which is one of the causes of stress. The
Mayo Clinic recognizes that many people experience stress around the holidays, so their
recommendation to restore inner calm may be even more important during the Christmas season
(Mayo Clinic, n.d.). Despite the plethora of literature that identifies the health benefits of nature,
very little research examined the phenomena in detail as it relates to Christmas tree shopping.
The purpose of the nationwide study is to examine and compare the extent to which Christmas
tree shopping environments that include real (live) trees in the outdoors (i.e., choose and cut
farm, garden centers, and home improvement store) and artificial (fake) trees indoors (i.e.,
variety of chain store displays) provide opportunities for the recovery from mental fatigue and
have the capacity to focus attention. By doing so, this research will fill a void in the literature by
examining not only the factors of attention restoration associated with different Christmas tree
8
shopping environments (outdoor biophilic designs offering real trees vs. indoor store designs
offering artificial trees), but it will also identify the specific natural elements and types of
displays (in addition to other tree-related attributes such as retail location, prices, species, and
height) that contribute to positive consumer responses. Christmas tree retailers will be able to
use this and other related marketing information that is collected to better meet the needs of their
customers and attract new customers.
3. Literature Review
Brief History on the Health Benefits of Nature
Nature and plants have been traditionally viewed as “healers” in the history of human
development (Jiang, 2022). Trees have been associated with many spiritual and therapeutic
qualities in different cultures due to their longevity, historical status, and continuity from one
season to another (Squire, 2002). Landscape architects started to associate nature and parks with
human salutogenesis as early as in the 18
th
centenary – several urban park systems were initiated
by Frederick Law Olmsted (known as the father of American landscape architecture and
arguably also park management) to address the stress, pollutions, and unhealthy living conditions
in major American cities (Szczygiel & Hewitt, 2000). The visual qualities of the natural
environment have been proven with dominant effects in reducing people’s stress (Ulrich, 1991)
and relieving mental fatigue (Kaplan, 1995). The amount or density of trees in outdoor spaces
usually serves as a positive predictor of people’s aesthetic preferences and high degrees of
restorativeness (Wang et al., 2019). In intimate spaces like interiors, the psychological benefits
of indoor plants include stress-reduction, emotional support, and increased pain tolerance
(Bringslimark et al., 2009). The multi-sensory stimuli, particularly the odorant stimuli from
nature, such as methyl salicylate (wintergreen scent), have been universally rated as smelling
healthful (Dalton, 1999).
Attention Restoration Theory (Conceptual Framework)
The theoretical framework for this study comes from Kaplan’s (1995) Attention Restoration
Theory (ART). A large body of research has accumulated in support of ART (Lin, Tsai,
Sullivan, & Chang, 2014) and is one of the most important and widely adopted theories that
explains nature’s restorative effects. Marketing research efforts that explore the restorative
potential of commercial environments primarily draw from ART and are especially important for
this study (Berto, 2005; Joye et al., 2010; Kaplan, 1995, 2001). In addition, over 100 studies of
recreation experiences in wilderness and urban nature areas indicate that restoration is one of the
most important verbally expressed benefit opportunities afforded by nature (Ulrich et al., 1991).
ART suggests that prolonged mental effort leads to fatigue and natural environments foster
restoration because they hold non-taxing attention (Kaplan 1995). That is, natural environments
allow information processing mechanisms to recover from the mental fatigue that results from
everyday life and hassles. Prolonged and excessive demands commonly require focused
attention and considerable effort (Kaplan 1995). Mental fatigue can lead to a variety of problems
such as stress, and since attention is essential for human effectiveness, there can be a decline in
problem solving, decline in behaving appropriately, increase in irritability, and increase in
accidents, etc. (Berto, 2007). As emphasized by Kaplan (1995), “the restoration of effectiveness
is at the mercy of directed (focused) attention fatigue” (p. 172). A way to benefit from attention
9
regeneration (Berto, 2005) and recover from stress (Ulrich, 1981), is by exposure to natural
environments.
Perceived Restorativeness Scale
Hartig, Kaiser, and Bowler (1997) developed the Perceived Restorativeness Scale (PRS) to
measure the extent to which environments have restorative qualities. PRS is based on Attention
Restoration Theory and was initially made up of 26 items that measured study respondent’s
perception of the restorative factors (including those presented by Kaplan, 1995) that can exist in
an environment to varying degrees. The scale has been frequently reported in the literature, and
in 2014, Pasini, Berto, Brondino, Hall, and Ortner developed a short form of the scale to make it
more suitable for research where time is limited. Based primarily on the work of Kaplan (1995),
Hartig et al. (1997) and Pasini et al. (2014), 5 restorative factors (fascination, being-away,
coherence, scope, and compatibility) were considered for this proposed research and are listed
and defined below along with their associated PRS:
• Fascination which include settings that can hold one’s attention effortlessly and without
capacity limitations. Natural settings such as clouds, sunsets, snow patterns, leaves in the
breeze are examples provided by Kaplan (1995) because they are undramatic (e.g., gentle
form of fascination called soft fascination) and allow the perceiver to think about other
things as well. This is one of the main components of a restorative environment.
o Places like this are fascinating
o In places like this, my attention is drawn to many interesting things
o In places like this, it is hard to be bored
• Physical and/or psychological being-away from demands on directed attention. Being-
away is a setting that is physically or conceptually distant from everyday environments,
unwanted distractions, reminders of one’s usual work, noise, and stimulation overload. A
sense of being away is important but it does not require that the setting be distant.
o Places like this are a refuge from nuisances
o To stop thinking about the things that I must get done, I like to go to places like this
• ART originally focused on 4 restorative factors including fascination, being-away,
compatibility, and extent. Extent was defined as being in a whole different world that
entails large tracts of land or in a small area that seems much larger with the addition of
trails, paths, etc. that are sufficient to sustain exploration. Kaplan (1995) defines extent
as a place “rich enough and coherent enough so that it constitutes a whole other world”
(p. 173). Therefore, extent was later thought to comprise elements such as coherence and
scope. Coherence is an orderly environment with distinct areas, and repeated themes
and textures. “In a coherent environment, things follow each other in a relatively
sensible, predictable, and orderly way” (Kaplan, 2001, p. 488).
10
o There is a clear order in the physical arrangement of places like this
o In places like this it is easy to see how things are organized
o In places like this everything seems to have its proper place
• Scope is the second element of extent—see above. It requires a setting that is physically
or conceptually large enough so that one’s mind can wonder, and their thoughts can drift
away from daily activities (Lin et al., 2014).
o That place is large enough to allow exploration in many directions
o In places like that there are few boundaries to limit my possibility for moving about
• Compatibility or the match between a person’s goals and inclinations and the demands
provided by the environment can also be important. Analogs of compatibility include
Czikszentmihalyi’s (1975) “flow” experience which is an optimal experience that
involves becoming immersed or feeling “in the zone”. It can occur when the degree of
challenge is balanced with one’s skillfullness (physical or mental).
o Being in places like this suits my personality
o I can do things I like in places like this
o I have a sense that I belong in places like this
Application of ART in Marketing Research Associated with Biophilic Store
Designs
Marketing research on the restorative potential of commercial environments (a contemporary
retail phenomenon referred to as “biophilic store design” by pioneering marketing researchers)
often draw from ART (Rosenbaum, Ramirez, & Camino, 2018)
1
. Joye et al. (2010) introduced
the concept of biophilic store design and defined it as the integration of greenery or natural
elements into the built retail environment. Söderlund and Newman (2015) summarize research
that indicates shoppers and shop employees were less stressed and there was increased retail
potential when biophilic initiatives were used in a commercial context. More recently,
Rosenbaum, Ramirez, and Camino (2018) conducted 3 studies that used ART and PRS to link
biophilia design of lifestyle centers to the restoration from mental fatigue. A lifestyle center is a
type of open-air retail setting that is at least 50,000 square feet and can include dining,
recreation, entertainment, and other amenities such as plants and landscaped gardens. Based on
their research, they conclude that “when biophilic elements are incorporated into lifestyle center
1
What is around the corner? ‘“…shopping malls suffer from a customer “discovery deficit” (Verde and Wharton,
2019), with shopper boredom emulating from a lack of newness and unique experiences in the mundane and
expansive built environments. Many retailing scholars suggest that retailers (Brengman et al., 2012; Mower et
al., 2012) and mall developers (Rosenbaum et al., 2016) can increase shopper interest by engaging in
“demalling” (Reynolds et al., 2002), a process of converting enclosed malls into open-air shopping areas... A key
architectural design feature in open-air shopping areas is the integration of natural elements, such as greenery,
water displays (fountains), and animals (e.g., birds, butterflies, squirrels), into shopping contexts... Pioneering
marketing researchers on this contemporary retail phenomenon have coined the term “biophilic store design” to
denote a managerial strategy that “incorporates natural forms, elements, and conditions into the built [retail]
environment” (Joye et al., 2010, p. 58).”’ (Rosenbaum, Ramirez, & Camino, 2018, p. 66).
11
design, shoppers can sense the restorative potential of these centers. Resultantly, those who
spend time in restorative lifestyle centers may experience catharsis from negative symptoms
associated with mental burnout and fatigue.” (p. 72). Rosenbaum et al. (2018) also recommend
that landscape architects and service design researchers try to better understand the specific types
of natural elements (e.g., certain types of trees and plants, forms of water displays, or the
presence of small animal life such as birds and butterflies) that evoke positive consumer
responses. This study will help fill this void in the literature by examining not only the factors of
ART associated with different Christmas tree shopping environments (outdoor biophilic designs
offering real trees and indoor stores offering artificial trees), but also identify the specific natural
elements that contribute to positive consumer responses.
Shopping Environments, Restorative Benefits, and Shopping Preferences and
Behaviors
It is assumed that shopping environments, restorative benefits and shopping preferences and
behaviors are interrelated in a way that preferred shopping environments contribute to mental
fatigue recovery with restorative benefits, which, in turn, affect shopping preferences and
behaviors. In addition to shopping environments, other tree-related attributes such as price,
species, and height can also influence a consumer’s decision to purchase a real Christmas tree.
Therefore, it is important to understand a consumer’s choices and benefit trade-offs by
developing optimal products for different market segments. Choice-based conjoint analysis has
been used to determine the attribute importance and to understand what matters most to a
consumer.
Behe et al. (2005) conducted a web-based survey of 331 participants who were asked to view 27
photographs of tabletop Christmas trees to determine consumer preferences. They found that
tree species were the most important attributes, followed by decoration color and price. Zaffou
and Campbell (2017) identified four attributes (price, retail location such as real vs artificial
trees, tree species, and height) as being important in the decision process of purchasing
Christmas trees. Of these four attributes, tree height was most valued while tree species were
less important based on a conjoint analysis from data collected from an online survey of 640
Connecticut consumers.
Although conjoint analysis has been widely used to examine the consumer shopping preferences
its application is not without criticism. For example, Carson and Louviere (2011) argue that
stated preference data suffer from systematic biases (e.g., hypothetical commitment bias). To
mitigate this measurement bias, Behe et al. (2014) used eye tracking technology in conjunction
with the conjoint analysis to better understand consumers’ shopping decision and behaviors.
Similar to Behe et al. (2014), this study used Dialsmith’s online tool to objectively measure
consumers’ restorative responses when they watch videos that show different shopping
environments. This objective measure (dial scores) will be analyzed in combination with the
subjective measure (stated preferences) using conjoint analysis to understand the decision
process mechanism related to the purchase of Christmas trees.
12
4. Methodology
Video and Instrument Development for Online Surveys
Literature using visual representations of environmental conditions has traditionally been found
in studies of environmental aesthetics and restorative character. For example, methodologies
including photograph, simulation and video, and self-reported experiences (closed and open
ended survey/journal) have been used. The goal of these methods is to produce the most valid
and reliable data on measuring environmental preference (Brown & Daniel, 1987). Historically,
most research has been conducted posteriori with a researcher providing students with a series of
photographs or slides and asking participants to evaluate these images on a preference scale
(Ewing, et al., 2005). A review of three texts containing 58 research studies on aesthetics or
restorative character of the natural environment between 1973 and 2001 utilized 60 different
methodologies: 73% used photographs/slides, 17% experiential, 8% used computer
simulation/virtual reality, and 2% used video (Kaplan & Kaplan, 1989; Nasar, 1992; Sheppard &
Harshaw, 2001). Most studies were posteriori (conducted off site after photos, simulations, or
video were taken). Only two studies were conducted on site, asking participants to visit the area
of study and assess conditions. This proposed study will also help fill this void in the literature
by examining videos.
This study adopted a methodology similar to scenic beauty and attention restoration studies
published by Pierskalla, Deng, and Siniscalchi (2016) and Pierskalla et al. (2007). Two short
videos (3 minutes) that represent two categories of tree shopping environments: (1) real (or live)
trees displayed in the outdoors (i.e., choose and cut farm, garden centers, Boy Scout lot, and
home improvement store) and (2) artificial (or fake) trees displayed indoors (i.e., variety of chain
store displays). The authors wrote and used a similar video script for each Christmas tree
business including main entrance, landscape view or broad overview of full tree displays using
180 degree rotating view on a tripod, walk along tree display, and close up view of trees
(including trees with various heights and needles). Following the script, the videos were
produced by Elevation Media during the first week of December 2022 with each business
represented in random order within the video.
Continuous audience response technology (CART) provided by Dialsmith LLC was used to
collect moment-to-moment and post-video evaluation responses from respondents. The
perception analyzer system technology has been used to conduct focus groups and market
research, and to measure audience reaction to video such as advertisements, films, and campaign
messages “so everything that is perceived is also recorded...Nothing slips through the cracks"
(Dialsmith, 2014). In this proposed study, their newest technology, the on-screen slider for
online video evaluations, was used within an online survey instrument.
An online survey was developed by the authors (see Appendix A). The survey started by asking
respondents to read a definition of “restorative qualities”:
We would like you to evaluate the “restorative qualities” of Christmas tree shopping
environments or settings that you perceive in a 3-minute video. Before you start the short
video evaluation, take a moment to better understand what we mean by “restorative
qualities” of a Christmas tree shopping environment by carefully reading the following:
13
When you experience environments or settings with the highest “restorative qualities”
you are more likely to:
a. recover from mental fatigue
b. improve your ability to concentrate
c. restore your capacity to focus your attention
d. feel less irritable in these settings as you recover from mental and attentional
fatigue.
On the other hand, when you experience environments or settings with the lowest
“restorative qualities” you are less likely to recover from mental and attentional fatigue.
Following a 20 second practice video clip, respondents were asked to evaluate one of the two
randomly selected videos based on a 100-point “restorative quality” scale by using the on-screen
slider. The evaluation began with the on-screen slider set at the midpoint (50). Data were
collected during every second of the 3-minute video evaluation. Post-video evaluations also
were included to assess the 5 restorative factors of the Christmas tree shopping environment
based primarily on the work of Kaplan (1995), Hartig et al. (1997) and Pasini et al. (2014). A
total of 13 PRS items (representing 5 restorative factors including fascination, being-away,
coherence, scope, and compatibility) were evaluated on 0 to 10-point scale, where 0 = not at all
to 10 = completely. The specific items that were examined are provided in the literature review
and Appendix A of this report. In addition, respondents were asked to provide a post-video
assessment (0 = not at all to 10 = completely) of their overall perception of “restorative quality”
represented in the type of environments or settings shown in the video. Questions regarding
socio-demographics, shopping loyalty (e.g., intent to buy a real tree and recommend a real tree),
past shopping experiences, and conjoint analysis questions were also included in the survey.
Sampling
Sampling was conducted by Dialsmith, Inc. during the last week of January 2023. Dialsmith
uses the Cint platform which offers 4,500+ panel partners and 28,259,312 panelists in the USA.
Study participants were contacted through online recruitment, email recruitment, specific
invitations, and loyalty websites. All participants/panelists are subject to comprehensive quality
checks. Dialsmith, Inc. distributed the online survey using the sample provider. Study
participants included both current and potential customers of real Christmas trees. Upon
successful completion of a survey, the panelists were immediately credited with a $4.50 (or a
$4.50 points equivalent) incentive.
Data Analysis
Data were analyzed using IBM SPSS Statistics Version 28. Descriptive statistics for response
rate, socio-demographics, region, type of Christmas tree purchase, customer loyalty, etc. are
provided. Chi-square was used to examine the association of type of Christmas tree purchase
and household. Several t-tests examined differences of the 5 restorative factors (measured with
PRS scales) by type of video evaluated (real/outdoor vs artificial/indoor trees). ANCOVA was
used to examine the effect of a video on overall restorative quality (both real-time and post-video
evaluations) while controlling for the five restorative factors. Multivariate multiple regression
(MMR) was used to measure the effect of the 5 restorative factors on both measures of overall
14
restorative quality. Moment-to-moment results (e.g., timelines) helped pinpoint the peak
restorative quality identified in the real/outdoor trees video. Finally, conjoint analysis was used
to examine the utility value of 16 combinations of attributes including tree price, species, height,
and product.
5. Results and Discussion
• Nationwide survey--A nationwide sample of 1,208 qualified completed surveys (604
respondents per video) were collected. The response rate was 57% and the average
completion time was 14 minutes and 19 seconds (median=10:24). The sample was also
balanced across four regions of the US (South=30.6%, Northeast=22.1%,
Midwest=21.3%, and West=26.0) (Table 1).
• Balanced sample--The sample was reasonably balanced among several demographics
(Table 1) including gender (51.3% females), race (18% Black or African Americans,
61.3% White/Caucasian, 16.1% Hispanic or Latino, and 10.6% Asian), age (15% to 30%
per age category from 18-24 to 55-64 years old), education (ranging from 18% high
school graduate or equivalent to 16% graduate degree), and household income (12.6%
with less than $20,000 to 22.7% with $100,000).
• Top target market is households with children--Thirty-seven percent of the
respondents had a real Christmas tree in their home in 2022 and 50.7% only had an
artificial Christmas tree (Table 2). The remaining respondents (16.6%) did not have any
Christmas tree in their home. Table 3 further breaks down these frequencies by type of
household. Households most likely to have a real Christmas tree in their home include a
foster child (100%), roomer/boarder (100%), child (44.4%), opposite-sex spouse
(42.4%), other nonrelative (54.5%), grandchild (40.0%), and same-sex spouse (38.1%).
• Underserved market is those living alone--Those living alone were least likely
(34.4%) to have any tree and could potentially benefit from the restorative experience
associated with shopping for a real tree outdoors (Table 3). Cunic (2021), medically
reviewed by Morin, provided several ways to cope with being alone at Christmas
including addressing their mental state. The restorative benefits offered when shopping
for a real tree might be one way to accomplish that. Future research should examine the
constraints of this group that stands in the way of purchasing a real Christmas tree.
• Balanced location of sales--Of those respondents that indicated they had a real
Christmas tree in their home, most purchased their tree at a chain store (37.2%), followed
by a retail lot (29.2%), choose and cut farm (27.3%), nursery (23.0%), online (19.2%),
and non-profit group (12.2%) (Table 4).
• Real Christmas tree customers are loyal—The same respondents that indicated
they had a real Christmas tree in their home also expressed high levels of customer
loyalty on four different scales (means=4.2 to 4.3 on a 5-point scale) (Table 5).
15
Table 1. Socio-demographics.
n
Percent
Gender (Q11)
Male
574
47.5
Female
620
51.3
Transgender
9
0.7
None of these
5
0.4
Race (check all that apply) (Q12)
Black or African American
217
18.0
White/Caucasian
741
61.3
American Indian or Alaskan Native
29
2.4
Hispanic or Latino
195
16.1
Asian
128
10.6
Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander
4
0.3
Other
9
0.7
Age (Q13)
18-24
218
18.0
25-34
348
28.8
35-44
229
19.0
45-54
178
14.7
55-64
227
18.8
65+
3
0.2
Prefer not to say
5
0.4
Education (Q15)
Less than high school
7
0.6
Some high school
22
1.8
High school graduate or equivalent (e.g., GED)
217
18.0
Some college, but degree not received or is in progress
261
21.6
Associate's degree (e.g., AA, AS)
140
11.6
Bachelor's degree (e.g., BA, BS, AB)
367
30.4
Graduate degree (e.g., Masters, Professional, Doctorate)
194
16.1
Household Income (before taxes in 2022) (Q16)
Less than $20,000
152
12.6
$20,001 to $40,000
226
18.7
$40,001 to $60,000
208
17.2
$60,001 to $80,000
168
13.9
$80,001 to $100,000
135
11.2
$100,000+
274
22.7
Prefer not to say
45
3.7
Region of the US
South
370
30.6
Northeast
267
22.1
Midwest
257
21.3
West
314
26.0
16
Table 2. Type of Christmas tree(s) in your home in 2022 (Q5).
Type of tree
n
Percent
Only a real Christmas tree(s)
247
20.4
Only an artificial Christmas tree(s)
613
50.7
Both artificial and a real Christmas tree(s)
148
12.3
No Christmas tree (real or artificial)
200
16.6
Table 3. Household by type of Christmas tree(s) in home in 2022 (Q5) by household (Q14).
Type of Tree in Home
1
Household
(Check all that apply)
Real
Tree
Artificial
Tree
Only
No Tree
χ
2
df
Cramer’
s V
Opposite-sex Spouse
(Husband/Wife)
206
(42.4%)
244
(50.2%)
36
(7.4%)
64.50*
2
.231*
Opposite-sex Unmarried Partner
30
(27.5%)
63
(57.8%)
16
(14.7%)
2.41
2
.045
Same-sex Spouse (Husband/Wife)
8
(38.1%)
10
(47.6%)
3
(14.3%)
0.30
2
.016
Same-sex Unmarried Partner
3
(23.1%)
7
(53.8%)
3
(23.1%)
0.73
2
.025
Child
192
(44.4%)
212
(49.1%)
28
(6.5%)
69.97*
2
.241*
Grandchild
2
(40.0%)
2
(40.0%)
1
(20.0%)
0.23
2
.014
Parent (Mother/Father)
67
(27.8%)
130
(53.9%)
44
(18.3%)
3.34
2
.053
Brother/Sister
54
(33.3%)
87
(53.7%)
21
(13.0%)
1.81
2
.039
Other relative (Aunt, Cousin,
Nephew, Mother-in-law, etc.)
17
(32.7%)
30
(57.7%)
5
(9.6%)
2.10
2
.042
Foster Child
3
(100.0%)
0
(0%)
0
(0%)
6.19
2
.072
Housemate/Roommate
16
(32.0%)
25
(50.0%)
9
(18.0%)
0.08
2
.008
Roomer/Boarder
2
(100.0%)
0
(0%)
0
(0%)
4.12
2
.058
Other nonrelative
6
(54.5%)
4
(36.4%)
1
(9.1%)
2.45
2
.045
No one (I live alone)
46
(22.0%)
91
(43.5%)
72
(34.4%)
60.29*
2
.223*
*Significant (p < .001)
1
Percentages are by rows.
17
Table 4. Purchase location of your home's real Christmas tree(s) in 2022 (Q6).
Type of Business (check all that apply)
n
Percent
Real tree from a chain store (Walmart, Home Depot, Lowes, etc.)
147
37.2
Real tree from a choose and cut farm
108
27.3
Real tree from a retail lot
115
29.1
Real tree from a nursery
91
23.0
Real tree from a non-profit group (Boy Scouts, churches, etc.)
48
12.2
Real tree purchased online
76
19.2
Other location
8
2.0
I don't know
4
1.0
Table 5. Customer loyalty (Q7).
Statements regarding customer loyalty of real
Christmas Tree purchases
1
Mean
n
I would be in favor of the purchase of a real
Christmas tree for my home in the future
4.30
814
I would tell other people positive things about the
purchase of a real Christmas Tree
4.20
814
I would recommend the purchase of a real
Christmas tree to family or friends
4.26
814
I would recommend the purchase of a real
Christmas tree to people who seek my advice
4.26
814
1
Items measured on a 5-point scale (1=Strongly disagree, 2=Somewhat disagree, 3=Neither agree nor
disagree, 4=Somewhat agree, and 5=Strongly agree).
• Fascination is a restorative factor that is significantly higher for
artificial/indoor trees (Figure 1)—The Perceived Restorative Scales (PRS) are
reliable and have Cronbach’s alpha scores near or well above 0.70 (Table 6). The items
were included in question 3 of the survey instrument (see Appendix A) and measured on
an 11-point scale (0=Not At All to 10=Completely). Fascination and its items were the
only ratings that were significantly different (t-test, 2-sided p<.01) between participants
(n=604) who evaluated the video representing real/outdoor Christmas trees and
participants (n=604) who evaluated the video representing artificial/indoor Christmas
trees. Specifically, the fascination mean scores were higher (Cohen’s d=2.5 to 3.1) for
the group evaluating the artificial/indoor tree video. At first, this was an unexpected and
surprising finding, but additional analysis suggested that this type of fascination might
not be the “soft” fascination that is required for a restorative experience given the much
smaller effect (Partial ɳ
2
=.024) on overall restorative quality perceived in the
artificial/indoor trees video (see Table 9). (Partial eta squared indicates the size of the
effect that the independent variable has on the dependent variables). This is an important
finding of this study that is discussed in greater detail later in the report (see page 21).
18
Table 6. Perceived Restorative Scale (PRS) item mean scores by real/outdoor trees video
versus artificial/indoor trees video.
Real/Outdoor
Tree Video
Artificial/
Indoor Tree
Video
Perceived Restorativeness Scale
(PRS) items
(Q3
1
)
M
SD
M
SD
t(1206)
p
(2-sided)
Cohen's
d
Fascination
5.80
2.54
6.35
2.49
-3.76*
<.001
2.51
Places like this are fascinating
5.83
2.94
6.28
2.87
-2.72
.007
2.90
In places like this, my attention is
drawn to many interesting things
6.23
2.71
6.96
2.55
-4.79
<.001
2.63
In places like this, it is hard to be
bored
5.35
3.04
5.80
3.09
-2.58
.010
3.06
Scale reliability: Cronbach's alpha
.849
.847
Being-away
5.60
2.63
5.50
2.88
0.61
.541
2.75
Places like this are a refuge from
nuisances
5.65
2.84
5.41
3.03
1.37
.171
2.94
To stop thinking about the things
that I must get done, I like to go
to places like this
5.55
3.13
5.59
3.33
-.205
.838
3.23
Scale reliability: Cronbach's alpha
.709
.773
Coherence
7.03
2.10
6.96
2.12
0.56
.577
2.11
There is a clear order in the physical
arrangement of places like this
6.99
2.31
6.84
2.43
1.09
.275
2.37
In places like this, it is easy to see
how things are organized
7.11
2.34
7.07
2.37
0.269
.788
2.35
In places like this, everything seems
to have its proper place
6.99
2.34
6.97
2.34
.135
.892
2.34
Scale reliability: Cronbach's alpha
.885
.873
Compatibility
5.77
2.72
5.99
2.82
-1.36
.174
2.77
Being in places like this suits my
personality
5.82
2.95
6.02
3.04
-1.18
.237
2.99
I can do things I like in places like
this
5.84
2.86
6.05
2.90
-1.30
.194
2.88
I have a sense that I belong in
places like this
5.66
2.99
5.89
3.10
-1.32
.187
3.05
Scale reliability: Cronbach's alpha
.918
.930
Scope
6.63
2.11
6.59
2.16
0.34
.731
2.13
That place is large enough to allow
exploration in many directions
7.16
2.36
7.10
2.37
0.44
.662
2.37
In places like that, there are few
boundaries to limit my possibility
for moving about
6.10
2.58
6.08
2.62
0.17
.868
2.60
Scale reliability: Cronbach's alpha
.623
.658
1
Perceived Restorativeness Scale (PRS) items measured on a 11-point scale (0=Not At All to
10=Completely).
Note: The abbreviations M and SD stand for mean and standard deviation respectively.
19
Figure 1. Examples of indoor artificial Christmas tree displays examined in this study.
20
• Perceived restorative quality (e.g., affording recovery from mental and
intentional fatigue) is highest for places with real/outdoor Christmas
trees—This is the key finding of this study and can be added to the list of benefits of
purchasing a real Christmas tree. When the authors used analysis of covariance
(ANCOVA) to test for differences in restorative quality represented in the videos, the
results were significant (p<.05). ANCOVA is a general linear model that combines
ANOVA and regression to examine random treatment effects (real/outdoor trees vs.
artificial/indoor trees video evaluations) on overall perceived restorative quality.
Covariates (i.e., fascination, being-away, compatibility, coherence, and scope) were
included in the general linear models to help increase precision of the treatment effect.
By controlling for those five restorative factors using ANCOVA, both measures of
perceived restorative quality were significantly (p<.05) higher for the real/outdoor
Christmas trees video (Tables 7 and 8). That is, the authors reject the null hypothesis that
our treatment (randomly assigned video) results in equal mean restorative quality: real-
time video evaluation F(1, 1201) = 4.126, p=.042 (Table 7) and post-video evaluation
F(1, 1201) = 15.96, p<.001 (Table 8). The effect of video on overall perceived
restorative quality was greater for the post-video evaluation measure (Table 8). These
significant results are promising for future research, and the measured effects could be
improved by controlling for more external factors such as display type.
Table 7. ANCOVA: Real-time video evaluations of overall perceived restorative quality (Q2
1
) by
video
(controlling for five restorative factors, Q3
2
)
Effect of Video
Treatment Groups (videos)
Mean
SD
F
p
Partial ɳ
2
Real/outdoor trees video
61.79
21.37
4.126
.042
.003
Artificial/indoor trees video
60.70
19.75
1
Dependent variable: Perceived restorative quality was measured every second (in real time) during the
video evaluation on a 100-point scale from 0=lowest quality to 100=highest quality.
2
Covariance: The five restorative factor mean scores include Fascination, Being-away, Coherence,
Compatibility, and Scope.
Table 8. ANCOVA: Post-video evaluations of overall perceived restorative quality (Q4
1
) by video
(controlling for five restorative factors, Q3
2
)
Effect of Video
Treatment Groups (videos)
Mean
SD
F
p
Partial ɳ
2
Real/outdoor trees video
6.40
2.81
15.96
<.001
.013
Artificial/indoor trees video
6.16
2.66
1
Dependent variable: Overall
perceived restorative quality (post-video evaluation) was measured on a 11-
point scale (0=Not at All to 10=Completely).
2
Covariance: The five restorative factors include Fascination, Being-away, Coherence, Compatibility, and
Scope.
21
• Multivariate multiple regression--MMR is used to model the relationship
between more than one independent variable (predictors) and more than one dependent
variable (responses). In this study, MMR analysis was used to better understand the
effect that the five restorative factors (predictors) have on two measures of overall
perceived restorative quality (1. post-video assessment and 2. real-time video assessment)
for each video (Table 9). The overall test for multiple responses (two dependent
variables) was used in this study because it is more powerful than separate univariate
regressions (one dependent variable) and it avoids multiplying error rates.
The assumptions for MMR that were examined in this study were satisfied. Both
dependent variables are related conceptually and are at least moderately correlated
(r=.583) which is ideal. Scatterplots indicate that the relationships between the dependent
and independent variables are positive and linear. The predicted values that were plotted
against standardized residuals (i.e., residual plot) were symmetrically distributed
(clustering towards the middle of the plot) and did not have any clear patterns which is
also ideal.
The effects (partial ɳ
2
) of the 5 restorative factors (predictors) on the overall perceived
restorative quality can be compared for both videos in Table 9. Most notable is the larger
effect fascination, coherence and scope have on overall restorative quality perceived in
the real/outdoor trees video. Compatibility was the only factor to have a notably larger
effect size for the artificial/indoor trees video. The discussion of these results follows.
The positive effect of fascination on perception of restorative quality is larger for
real/outdoor Christmas trees—Fascination had about twice the effect on perceived
restorative quality for real/outdoor trees when compared to artificial/indoor trees (Table
9). This means that although artificial/indoor trees were considered more fascinating by
study participants (see Table 6), it is the kind of fascination that does not make a major
contribution to the overall perceived restorative quality. Artificial Christmas trees
located inside stores (see Figure 1), with all the lights displayed, are very fascinating, but
it is more likely a "hard" fascination. Hard fascination includes factors like fast
movements and loud noises including watching sports games on television or visiting
amusement parks. Perhaps the flashy tree lights and indoor Christmas tree displays are
also a type of hard fascination. On the other hand, “soft” fascination involves stimuli that
does not require much effort (which reduces the internal noise and burden). Classic
examples include wind blowing through leaves or ripples of water traveling across a
pond. Based on this study’s findings, shopping for real Christmas trees outdoors may
provide another example of “soft fascination”—a type of fascination that has a larger
effect on restorative quality. This finding helps address Basu et. al (2018) and others’
call to better understand fascination. They argue that soft fascination is key but an
underexamined element of Attention Restoration Theory.
22
The positive effect of scope on the perception of restorative quality is substantially
larger for real/outdoor Christmas trees—Scope has a much larger (partial ɳ
2
=.046) and
significant (p<.001) effect on perceived restorative quality of real/outdoor Christmas
trees when compared to artificial/indoor trees (partial ɳ
2
=.007, p=.141) (Table 9).
Outdoor Christmas tree farms and other outdoor retailers have an advantage over indoor
stores because they offer a setting (or the impression of a setting) that is physically or
conceptually large enough so that one’s mind can wonder and their thoughts can drift
away from daily activities (i.e., scope).
It is not surprising that scope is an important restorative factor. Research suggests that
park-like stands of trees with increased visual access and depth are appealing landscapes
to people. In addition, distant views that are opened-up, especially to the horizon, are
highly preferred landscapes (Heerwagen & Orians, 1993). Examples of these
impressions found in Christmas tree displays are provided in Table 11. It seems possible
that Christmas tree retailers can enhance the desired effect of depth perception (and
scope) by modifying the landscape's textural density, relative size, occluding events,
and linear perspective (see pages 24-25 for details). These designed liminal spaces
may be best suited for small outdoor displays where space is a premium. That is, a
smaller outdoor space can appear larger when the pattern of Christmas trees is organized
in such a way as to enhance the impression of a receding landscape. Not only is it
possible to enhance the perception of restorative quality, but this type of gateway that is
characterized by gradual changes in tree patterns might also contribute to long-term
memory (e.g., create memorable event boundaries), fascination, mystery, surprise, etc.
(Note: Event segmentation theory or EST, is a theoretical perspective that claims event
segmentation regulates the contents of active memory, and event boundaries have an
advantaged status in long-term and episodic memory). Future research is still needed to
examine if these propositions apply to tree displays. This could be done by creating
Christmas tree demonstration displays where differences in customer perceptions can be
measured and compared.
The positive effect of compatibility on the perception of restorative quality was
larger for artificial/indoor Christmas trees—Compatibility was a significant predictor
(p<.001) for the restorative quality perceived during both videos, but it was notably larger
(about 3 times larger) for artificial/indoor Christmas trees (Table 9). Analogs of
compatibility include Czikszentmihalyi’s (1975) “flow” experience which is an optimal
experience that involves becoming immersed or feeling “in the zone”. It can occur when
the degree of challenge is balanced with one’s skillfullness (physical or mental). The real
Christmas tree industry should continue to find ways to improve services (e.g., tree
delivery and set-up) that can reduce the challenge of purchasing a real Christmas tree or
increasing the perceived self-efficacy of some prospective customers. For example,
Hilderbrandt (1991) found that 27.6% of study respondents of Kansas households listed
allergies or health problems as a reason for purchasing an artificial tree. Providing
23
allergy-friendly trees might help those customers perceive compatibility. This deserves
additional research to better understand the constraints of some customers.
Table 9. Multivariate Multiple Regression (MMR): Effects of Restorative Factors
1
on Restorative
Quality
2
.
Real/Outdoor Christmas Trees Video
Artificial/Indoor Christmas Trees
Video
Restorative factors
p
Partial ɳ
2
p
Partial ɳ
2
Fascination
<.001
.052
<.001
.024
Being-away
<.001
.045
<.001
.049
Coherence
<.001
.057
<.001
.047
Compatibility
<.001
.032
<.001
.096
Scope
<.001
.046
.141
.007
1
Independent variables: The five restorative factors were measured on 11-point scales from 0=Not At All
to 10=Completely.
2
Dependent variables: Perceived restorative quality was measured with two variables: Real-time video
evaluation measured on a 100-point scale from 0=lowest quality to 100=highest quality and post-video
evaluation measured on an 11-point scale from 0=Not at All to 10=Completely.
Table 10. Positive correlation between customer loyalty items and overall perception of restorative
quality of real/outdoor Christmas trees (real-time and post-video assessments).
Real-time video assessment (Q2)
2
Post-video assessment (Q4)
3
Statements regarding customer
loyalty of real Christmas tree
purchases (Q7)
1
Pearson
Correlation
(n=209)
P (2-sided)
Pearson
Correlation
(n=209)
P (2-sided)
I would be in favor of the
purchase of a real Christmas
tree for my home in the future
.183
.008
.246
<.001
I would tell other people positive
things about the purchase of a
real Christmas Tree
.179
.009
.262
<.001
I would recommend the purchase
of a real Christmas tree to
family or friends
.157
.023
.281
<.001
I would recommend the purchase
of a real Christmas tree to
people who seek my advice
.187
.007
.317
<.001
1
Items measured on a 5-point scale (1=Strongly disagree, 2=Somewhat disagree, 3=Neither agree nor
disagree, 4=Somewhat agree, and 5=Strongly agree).
2
Perceived restorative quality was measured every second (in real time) during the video evaluation on a
100-point scale from 0=lowest quality to 100=highest quality.
3
Overall
perceived restorative quality (post-video evaluation) was measured on an 11-point scale from
0=Not at All to 10=Completely.
24
•
Perceived restorative quality of real/outdoor Christmas trees is
significantly and positively correlated with customer loyalty—Pearson
correlation coefficients were calculated to measure the relationship between perceived
overall restorative quality of real/outdoor tree videos and measures of real tree customer
loyalty. Measures are reported for both real-time and post-video assessments of
restorative quality (Table 10). All measures were significant (2-sided, p<.05) and
positively related. That is, those customers that perceive high levels of overall restoration
in the video also tend to be more loyal customers. Therefore, Customer loyalty is another
benefit of providing a positive restorative shopping experience.
• Top 10 restorative scenes of the real/outdoor Christmas trees video—
Figure 2 shows the evaluation timeline and the top 10 scenes with peak restorative quality
that were perceived in the real trees video. Those scene snapshots are provided in Table
11. Rosenbaum et al. (2018) recommend that landscape architects and service design
researchers try to better understand the specific types of natural elements (e.g., certain
types of trees and plants, forms of water displays, or the presence of small animal life
such as birds and butterflies) that evoke positive consumer responses. This study helps
address his call for additional research and offers propositions and recommendations
about how to improve the biophilic design of real Christmas tree farms and lots (e.g.,
choose and cut farm, garden centers, Boy Scout lot, and home improvement store).
Pictures 1, 3, 5, 6, and 9 are innovative tree displays that represent coherence and
scope in varying degrees (Table 11)—These pictures further support the importance of
coherence (organized trees) and scope (a receding landscape or depth) as contributing
factors of restorative quality and compliments the findings presented in Table 9 (see page
23). They represent a type of organized complexity (the right balance of order and
variety or contrast) that affords an ideal perception of depth and spaciousness. That is,
distant views that are opened-up, especially to the horizon, are highly preferred
landscapes (Heerwagen & Orians, 1993). However, the authors propose that scope
(depth perception) in these displays (pictures 1, 3, 5, 6, and 9) could be enhanced by
modifying the (1) textural density, (2) relative size, (3) occluding events, and (4) linear
perspective of the trees—each are explained in detail below. These propositions seem
promising for Christmas tree displays but still require additional research.
(1) Gibson's ecological perception theory suggests that the rate of change in a landscape's
textural density provides cues for depth perception (Bruce & Green, 1990). For
example, a customer who views a display of trees (having uniform tree size and
density throughout the display) will naturally notice an apparently lower density of
trees in the near setting and higher density of trees in the distant setting. The trees
nearest the customer will also appear larger in scale than distant trees. These
gradients of texture are perceived invariants and inform the visitor about the depth of
the setting (i.e., provide scope). It is possible for retailers to heighten the perception
of depth by altering this gradient pattern of trees. Establishing higher densities of
smaller trees on the outmost edge, while allowing lower densities of larger trees to
25
exist in the near setting by the entrance, can potentially heighten impressions of a
landscape surface receding away; thus the authors propose that it can enhance depth
perception and make the space appear larger. Exiting this same space would have the
opposite effect because the space would be compressed, and the customer would feel
pulled into the setting which could also provide a unique and enjoyable experience.
(2) Similar to gradient pattern cues, we propose that relative size cues can also be
enhanced to give the impression of a receding landscape of a space. The relative size
of an object depends upon its distance. When a retinal image is large it can either be
a small object up close or a large object that is far away. Therefore, when perceiving
two similar objects such as two trees, there can be a tendency to see the smaller tree
further away. Because the distant or background trees (on the outmost edge) are
smaller in absolute size, the relative depth would be increased.
(3) A third type of cue that is used to perceive depth is occlusion. Occlusion is a
category of events wherein objects (e.g., smaller background trees) occasionally
disappear and reappear when overlapping with other objects (e.g., larger foreground
trees) or as they become wiped away or hidden from our peripheral view during
human movement (Strickland & Scholl, 2015). Our visual systems make effective
use of these monocular interpositions (overlapping objects) to deduce the depth
relations among objects (Kaplan, 1969). This impression can be magnified by
transitioning from large to small trees, wherein a larger number of background trees
are hidden.
(4) Linear perspective is a fourth type of depth cue that can enhance the impression of
receding landscape scenery. The technique involves using parallel lines (like railroad
tracks) that converge in a single vanishing point, and it is often used by artists and
architects. In theatre, it is used to make small spaces appear larger. In our Christmas
tree display example, trees can be presented in such a way (V-shaped or triangular
pattern) as to create linear perspective (convergence of landscape pattern near the
horizon or background) and enhance the perception of depth of an otherwise small
space.
Pictures 2 and 10 represent large trees (Table 11)--Although conjoint analysis (see
Table 14) indicates that customers tend to prefer purchasing smaller trees (6-8’), they
perceive higher restorative quality when larger trees were presented in the video (pictures
2 and 10). The preference of large trees in studies of scenic beauty is well established.
For example, based on preference rating (5-point scale) of 100 scenes, Herzog (1984)
identified three dimensions or categories of scenes including one called, large trees,
which received the highest scores among the dimensions (3.79 on a 5-point scale). The
ratings increased to 4.0 when the trees were viewed in combination with pathways which
can offer a pleasing effect as a boarder element or refuge. (Note: Similar to this study,
Herzog would sometimes refer to the work of Kaplan and Gibson in his publications).
26
Locating the larger trees near the pathway entrance (foreground or front row) might also
enhance the impression of depth and scope of a place.
Pictures 7 and 8 represent short and long needle trees (Table 11)—Both short and
long needle trees were rated high by study participants. This supports the findings of the
conjoint analysis (see Table 14). That is, tree species was the least important attribute
examined in the conjoint analysis.
Picture 4 represents the positive effect of smell on restorative quality (Table 11)—
This finding adds additional support to the Real Christmas Tree Board social post in
2022: “real Christmas trees are the #1 scent of the season. Not even grandma’s cookies
can top that.” Larson (2004) also reported that natural tree buyers ranked fragrance as a
top reason for their purchase. He also suggests that scents affect product and store
ratings, shopping times, and sales. More specifically Leenders et al. (1999) advise that at
least 70 percent of shoppers should be aware of the scent.
27
5
4
6
1
2
3
7
8
9
10
Figure 2. Evaluation timeline for the real/outdoor Christmas trees video.
28
Table 11. Peak restorative moments identified during the evaluation of real/outdoor
trees video.
Timeline
Position
Peak restorative video scenes
Timeline
Position
Peak restorative video scenes
1
6
2
7
3
8
4
9
5
10
29
• Conjoint analysis--It is assumed that shopping environments, restorative
benefits and shopping preferences and behaviors are interrelated in a way that
preferred shopping environments contribute to mental fatigue recovery with
restorative benefits, which, in turn, affect shopping preferences and behaviors. In
addition to shopping environments, other tree-related attributes such as price,
species, and height can also influence a consumer’s decision to purchase a real
Christmas tree. Therefore, it is important to understand consumer’s choices and
benefit trade-offs by developing optimal products for different market segments.
Choice-based conjoint analysis has been used to determine the attribute
importance and to understand what matters most to a consumer.
Four important attributes (price, species, height, and product) were included in the
conjoint analysis (Table 12). Specifically, price is measured at four levels ($60-
80, $80-100, $100-120, and $120-140) for each of three species (fir, spruce, and
pine) with three different heights (6-8', 8-10', and 10-12') and two types of trees:
real vs. artificial.
Table 12. Christmas tree attributes and levels used in the conjoint analysis (Q8).
Attributes
Levels
Price
$60-80
$80-100
$100-120
$120-140
Species
Fir
Spruce
Pine
Height
6-8'
8-10'
10-12'
Product
Real
Artificial
From a total of 72 (4x3x3x2) possible combinations of attributes and levels, 16
orthogonal designs were generated using the Statistical Package for the Social
Sciences (SPSS) software. These 16 (not the total 72) designs were used to
reduce the cognitive burden of participants (Table 13). Respondents were asked
to score each combination/choice using a scale of 1 to 10 where 1 = least
preferred and 10 = most preferred (Andrada et al., 2015). Conjoint analysis is
used to determine the utility for each level of the attributes and the importance of
each attribute which have important implications for the production and
marketing of Christmas trees.
Of the 1,208 valid responses, 48 had equal values in all 16 choices. These 48
responses were considered not valid and hence removed from the conjoint
analysis. Table 14 presents conjoint analysis results on the utility estimate for
each attribute level as well as importance value for each attribute (also see Figures
3 and 4).
30
Table 13. A total of 16 orthogonal designs were used in the survey.
Design
Price
Species
Height
Product
1
80-100
Fir
8-10'
Real
2
120-140
Fir
6-8'
Artificial
3
100-120
Fir
10-12'
Artificial
4
60-80
Pine
6-8'
Real
5
120-140
Spruce
8-10'
Real
6
80-100
Fir
6-8'
Artificial
7
100-120
Fir
6-8'
Real
8
100-120
Spruce
6-8'
Real
9
80-100
Pine
10-12'
Real
10
120-140
Fir
10-12'
Real
11
120-140
Pine
6-8'
Artificial
12
60-80
Fir
6-8'
Real
13
100-120
Pine
8-10'
Artificial
14
60-80
Fir
8-10'
Artificial
15
80-100
Spruce
6-8'
Artificial
16
60-80
Spruce
10-12'
Artificial
Table 14. Results of the conjoint analysis.
Importance Values
Utilities
Utility Estimate
Std. Error
Price
60.839
60-80
.383
.020
80-100
.169
.020
100-120
-.165
.020
120-140
-.387
.020
Species
1.940
Fir
-.009
.016
Spruce
.015
.018
Pine
-.006
.018
Height
25.246
6-8'
.162
.016
8-10'
-.003
.018
10-12'
-.159
.018
Product
12.275
Real
.078
.012
Artificial
-.078
.012
(Constant)
5.698
5.698
.013
Note. Observed and estimated preferences are highly correlated. Pearson’s R = .993, p < .001;
Kendall’s tau = .993, p < .001.
31
Figure 3. Utilities at different attribute levels.
32
Respondents considered price as the most important (60.839 out of 100), followed
by height (25.246) and product (12.275) while species was regarded as the least
important (1.940). This finding is somewhat consistent with Zaffou and
Campbell (2017) who also reported that tree height was most valued while tree
species were less important based on a conjoint analysis of data collected from an
online survey of 640 Connecticut consumers. However, another study (Behe et
al., 2005) on tabletop Christmas trees found that tree species was the most
important followed by decoration color and price.
In terms of the utility value for a specific level within an attribute, price at a
higher level is less preferred than price at a lower level; spruce is more preferred
than other two species, fir and pine; trees at a height of 6-8’ are more preferred
than trees at 8-10’ and 10-12’, or the taller the tree the less preferred it is. Finally,
in terms of product, 100% of customers preferred real trees over artificial ones.
Table 15 presents utility values by design (ordered by utility values from the
largest to the smallest). As shown, the combination of “$60-80, pine, 6-8', real” is
the most preferred/optimal among all 16 combinations designed (0.617), closely
followed by the combination of “$60-80, fir, 6-8', real” (0.614), and the
combination of “$80-100, fir, 8-10', real” (0.235). Overall, the top 7 most
preferred combinations of Christmas tree attributes include the choice of “real”,
suggesting customers prefer real trees, even with a compromise/trade-off of other
less favorable attribute options or levels with negative utility values such as
higher prices and taller trees.
Figure 4. Importance values by attribute.
33
Table 15. Utility values by design.
Design
Price
Species
Height
Product
Utility*
4
60-80
Pine
6-8'
Real
0.617
12
60-80
Fir
6-8'
Real
0.614
1
80-100
Fir
8-10'
Real
0.235
8
100-120
Spruce
6-8'
Real
0.09
9
80-100
Pine
10-12'
Real
0.082
7
100-120
Fir
6-8'
Real
0.066
5
120-140
Spruce
8-10'
Real
-0.297
14
60-80
Fir
8-10'
Artificial
-0.409
15
80-100
Spruce
6-8'
Artificial
-0.434
6
80-100
Fir
6-8'
Artificial
-0.458
10
120-140
Fir
10-12'
Real
-0.477
16
60-80
Spruce
10-12'
Artificial
-0.541
13
100-120
Pine
8-10'
Artificial
-0.954
11
120-140
Pine
6-8'
Artificial
-1.011
2
120-140
Fir
6-8'
Artificial
-1.014
3
100-120
Fir
10-12'
Artificial
-1.113
*Ordered by utility values from the largest to the smallest.
6. Conclusion
This study provides the first empirical evidence to support the recommendation to shop
for Christmas trees at local choose and cut farms, garden centers, Boy Scout lots, home
improvement stores, or other type of outdoor tree lots, especially for customers seeking
recovery from mental fatigue. By controlling additional external factors such as type of
tree display in future research, this can be the beginning of a promising line of research.
The study findings also provide support for a recent CNN article’s proposition that real
Christmas trees can provide important health benefits such as the reduction in anxiety,
psychological stress, and depression. The Mayo Clinic recognizes that many people
experience stress around the holidays. For example, households with children and those
that are living alone during the Christmas holiday might be feeling mentally fatigued or
maybe they simply want to improve their mental state. The main finding of this study is
that the outdoor biophilic designs that are common at a Christmas tree farm or any
outdoor retail tree lot can help those customers recover from mental fatigue, improve
their ability to concentrate, restore their capacity to focus their attention, and help them
feel less irritable as they recover from mental and attentional fatigue.
The potential lure of artificial trees and their flashy lights often found in indoor Christmas
tree displays should be questioned by customers seeking attention restoration and the
recovery from mental fatigue, and it should be further examined in future research. The
findings from this study suggest that this type of fascination might be similar to other
“hard” fascinations such as fast movements and loud noises including watching sports
games on television or visiting amusement parks, and they do not contribute to overall
34
restoration at a level similar to real Christmas tree displays. ‘“Stimuli categorized as
“hard” fascination forcefully grab one’s attention and are difficult to resist. As a result,
they tend to fill the mind, leaving little room for more peripheral mental activity or
reflection.”’ (Basu et al., 2018, p.1057). Hard fascination “eventually leads to mental
fatigue and symptoms such as distractibility, impulsivity, and irritability.” (Basu et al.,
2018, p. 1056). On the other hand, the biophilic nature of outdoor tree displays may offer
the “soft” fascination that reduces the internal noise and mental burden for customers
much like the effect of wind blowing through leaves or ripples of water traveling across a
pond. It is this “soft” fascination that contributes more to restoration because it captures
attention effortlessly. This study’s finding is especially important and fascinating
considering it can be connected to William James’ (1962/1892) discussion of attention
that was published over 130 years ago and more recently by Kaplan (1995) and others.
The display of real Christmas trees may also have an advantage over indoor displays of
artificial trees because they offer a setting that is physically or conceptually large enough
so that a customer’s mind can wonder and their thoughts can drift away from daily
activities (i.e., scope). That type of setting can also offer coherence when there are
orderly displays of trees with repeated themes and textures. In fact, most of the peak
restorative moments identified during the evaluation of real/outdoor trees video involved
innovative displays that had the characteristics of scope and coherence. Based on these
findings, the authors provide some propositions on how to further improve the perception
of depth, spaciousness, and the impression of a receding landscape, especially for small
spaces. They suggest that tree displays can be enhanced by modifying the textural
density, relative size, occluding events, and linear perspectives of trees. By doing so,
businesses can improve opportunities for restoration which is also associated with
stronger customer loyalty. These propositions seem promising and deserve the attention
of future research.
Other restorative design elements of real Christmas tree displays that were identified in
the video evaluation include the presence of larger (or taller) trees. Based on the
literature, these larger trees could be located near a pathway as a boarder element to the
customers experience’ (even though they are not the most preferred size tree for
purchase). And as proposed in this report, they could be located near the pathway
entrance (foreground or front row) to enhance the impression of depth and scope of a
place that can improve the perceived restorative quality.
Compatibility was a significant predictor of restorative quality for both real/outdoor and
artificial/indoor trees, but the effect was about 3 times larger for the latter. This is a
concern that the real Christmas tree industry should continue to address by finding
additional services that can reduce the challenge of purchasing a real Christmas tree for
some customers. Some current examples include tree delivery and setup services. Are
there other services that can be offered during the shopping experience to enhance
compatibility?
Finally, conjoint analysis indicates that the combination of “$60-80, pine, 6-8', real” is
the most preferred/optimal by study respondents, closely followed by the combination of
35
“$60-80, fir, 6-8', real”, and the combination of “$80-100, fir, 8-10', real”. These
findings can help marketers find a price point for the different tree combinations such as
for the most preferred 6-8’ real trees. In fact, price was the most important attribute,
followed by height and product. The importance of price is somewhat surprising given
the early work of Davis and Wohlgenant (1993) that showed demand for natural trees is
inelastic (lower sensitivity of Christmas tree customers to change in price) suggesting that
marketers can increase revenue by raising prices. Richards (2020) most recently found
similar findings. He reported that both short-run and long-run price elasticity for real
Christmas trees continues to be relatively inelastic. Perhaps the conjoint analysis
findings presented in this report provide justification for a reexamination of price
elasticity of demand for real trees given the recent changes in economic conditions in the
US such as rising inflation. Perhaps travel cost models in addition to willingness to pay
methodology can be used to measure demand. In the meantime, Larson (2004) provides
helpful price tactics that should be considered by marketers that are seeking additional
information.
In conclusion, recovery from mental and attentional fatigue is another benefit of
purchasing real Christmas trees, and it might be especially important during the holiday.
This information should be used to help with industry marketing campaigns and
merchandising. For example, displaying this additional benefit of real Christmas tree
shopping on a sign, website, advertisement, etc. for retail operations, informational
booths, trade shows, and community events can increase customer interest (Larson,
2004). For example, “Feel the Quality” signs have increased impulse purchases (Peck &
Childers, 2003). Perhaps a similar message could be created for the presence of biophilic
design elements (e.g., soft fascination, coherence, and scope as well as more specific
setting attributes such as tree fragrance) that afford recovery from mental and attentional
fatigue. What are your ideas? Finally, this study contributes to Attention Restoration
Theory and the biophilia design paradigm by examining restoration in the context of
shopping for real Christmas trees.
36
7. References
Andrada, R., Deng, J., & Gazal, K. (2015). Exploring people’s preferences on specific
attributes of urban forests in Washington DC: A conjoint approach. Journal of
Horticulture and Forestry, 7(10), 200-209.
Basu, A., Duvall, J., & Kaplan, R. (2018). Attention restoration theory: Exploring the role
of soft fascination and mental bandwidth. Environment and Behavior, 51(9-10), 1055-
1081.
Behe, B.K., Campbell, B.L., Khachatryan, H., Hall, C.R., Dennis, J.H., Huddleston, P.T.,
& Fernandez, R.T. (2014). Incorporating eye tracking technology and conjoint analysis to
better understand the green industry consumer. Hortscience, 49(12), 1550-1557.
Behe, B.K., Walden, R.M., Duck, M.W., Cregg, B.M., & Kelley, K.M. (2005). Consumer
preferences for Tabletop Christmas trees. Hortscience, 40(2), 409-412.
Berto, R. (2005). Exposure to restorative environments helps restore attentional capacity.
Journal of Environmental Psychology, 25(3), 249-259. DOI:
10.1016/j.jenvp.2005.07.001
Berto, R. (2007). Assessing the restorative value of the environment: A study on the
elderly in comparison with young adults and adolescents. International Journal of
Psychology, 42(5), 331-341. DOI: 10.1080/00207590601000590
Brengman, M., Willems, K., & Joye, Y. (2012). The impact of in-store greenery on
customers. Psychology & Marketing, 29(11), 807–821.
Bringslimark, T., Hartig, T., & Patil, G. G. (2009). The psychological benefits of indoor
plants: A critical review of the experimental literature. Journal of Environmental
Psychology, 29(4), 422-433.
Brown, T. C. & Daniel, T. C. (1987). Context effects in perceived environmental quality
assessment: scene selection and landscape quality ratings. Journal of Environmental
Psychology, 7: 233-250.
Bruce, V., & Green, P. R. (1990). Visual perception: Physiology, psychology and ecology
(2nd ed.). Hove and London, UK; Hillsdale, USA: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates
Publishers.
Carson, R.T., & Louviere, J.J. (2011). A common nomenclature for stated preference
elicitation approaches. Environmental and Resource Economics, 49, 539-559.
Christmas Tree Promotion Board. (n.d.). Why Real? Retrieved May 18, 2022, from
https://itschristmaskeepitreal.com/why-real/
37
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1975). Beyond Boredom and Anxiety. Washington: Jossey-Bass
Publishers.
Cuncic, A. (2021). How to cope when you are alone on Christmas. Verywell Mind.
Retrieved on May 26, 2023. https://www.verywellmind.com/how-to-cope-when-you-are-
alone-at-christmas-
3024301#:~:text=In%20general%2C%20there%20are%20three%20ways%20to%20cope,
next%20year%20if%20you%20don%27t%20want%20to%20be.
Dalton, P. (1999). Cognitive influences on health symptoms from acute chemical
exposure. Health Psychology, 18(6), 579–590.
Davis, G. C. & Wohlgenant, M. K. (1993). Demand elasticities from a discrete choice
model: The natural Christmas tree market. American Journal of Agricultural Economics,
75(3): 730-738.
Dialsmith, LLC., 2014. Retrieved on June 8, 2015.
http://www.perceptionanalyzer.com/applications/research.html.
Ewing, R., King, M. R., Raudenbush, S. W., & Clemente, O. J. (2005). Turning highways
into main streets: Two innovations in planning methodology. Journal of the American
Planning Association, 71(3): 1-14.
Haertig, T., Kaiser, F. G., & Bowler, P. A. (1997). Further development of a measure of
perceived environmental restorativenesss. Working Paper No. 5. Institute for Housing
Research, Uppsala Universitet.
Hartig, T., Korpela, K., Evans., G. W., & Gärling T. (1997). A measure of restorative
quality of environments. Scandinavian Housing & Planning Research, 14, 175-194. DOI:
10.1080/02815739708730435
Heerwagen, J. H., & Orians, G. H. (1993). Humans, habitats, and aesthetics. In: S. R.
Kellert, & E. O. Wilson (Eds.), The biophilia hypothesis. Washington, DC: Island Press.
Herzog, T.R. (1984). A cognitive analysis of preference for field-and-forest
environments. Landscape Research, 9, 10 – 16.
Hilderbrandt, R. (1991). Marketing Christmas trees: Implications of a Kansas study.
Journal of Forestry, 89(7): 33-37.
James, W. (1962). Psychology: The briefer course. New York, NY: Collier. (Original
work published 1892).
Jiang, S. (2022). Nature Through a Hospital Window: The Therapeutic Benefits of
Landscape in Architectural Design. Routledge.
38
Joye, Y., Willems, K., Brengman, M., & Wolf, K. (2010). The effects of urban retail
greenery on consumer experience: Reviewing the evidence from a restoration
perspective. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 9, 57-64. DOI:
10.1016/j.ufug.2009.10.001
Kaplan, G. A. (1969). Kinetic disruption of optical texture: The perception of depth at an
edge. Perception & Psychophysics, 6, 193-198.
Kaplan, S. (1995). The restorative benefits of nature: Toward an integrative framework.
Journal of Environmental Psychology, 15: 169-182.
Kaplan, S. (2001). Meditation, restoration, and the management of mental fatigue.
Environment and Behavior, 33, 480–506. DOI: 10.1177/00139160121973106
Kaplan, R., & Kaplan, S. (1989). The experience of nature: A psychological perspective.
Cambridge University Press.
Larson, R. B. (2004). Christmas tree marketing: Product, price, promotion, and placed
tactics. Journal of Forestry, 102(4): 40-45.
Leenders, M., Smidts, A., & Langeveld, M. (1999). Effects of ambient scent in
supermarkets: A field experiment. Marketing and competition in the information age.
Proceedings of the 28
th
European Marketing Academy Conference at Humboldt
University, 1-8.
Lin, Y., Tsai, C., Scullivan, W.C., & Chang, C. (2014). Does awareness effect the
restorative function and perception of street trees? Frontiers in Psychology, 5(906), 1-9.
DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00906
Marples, M. (2021). These Christmas trees may improve your health. Retrieved May 18,
2022, from https://www.cnn.com/2021/12/08/health/christmas-tree-mental-health-
wellness/index.html
Mayo Clinic. (2020). Stress, depression and the holidays: Tips for coping. Retrieved May
8, 2022, from https://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/stress-management/in-
depth/stress/art-20047544
Mower, J.M., Kim, M., & Childs, M.L. (2012). Exterior atmospherics and consumer
behavior: Influence of landscaping and window display. Journal of Fashion Marketing
and Management, 16(4), 442–453.
Nasar, J. L. (Ed.). (1992). Environmental Aesthetics: Theory, Research, & Applications.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
39
Pasini, M., Berto, R., Brondino, M., Hall, R., & Ortner, C. (2014). How to measure the
restorative quality of environments: The PRS-11. Social and Behavioral Sciences, 129,
293-297. DOI: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.12.375
Peck, J., & Childers, T. L. (2003). To have and to hold: The influence of haptic
information on product judgements. Journal of Marketing, 67(2): 35-48.
Pierskalla, C.D., Deng, J., & Siniscalchi, J.M. (2016). Examining the product and process
of scenic beauty evaluations using moment-to-moment data and GIS: The case of
Savannah, GA. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 19: 212-222.
Pierskalla, C.D., Siniscalchi, J.M., Hammitt, W.E., Smaldone, D.A., & Storck, S.J.
(2007). Identifying predictors for quality and quantity restorative character of wilderness:
Using events as an analysis unit. In R. Burns, & K. Robinson (comp.), Proceedings of the
2006 Northeastern Recreation Research Symposium (pp. 497-508). 2006 April 9-11;
Bolton Landing, NY. Gen. Tech. Rep. NRS-P-14. Newtown Square, PA: U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Research Station.
Reynolds, K., Ganesh, J., & Luckett, M. (2002). Traditional malls vs factory outlets:
comparing shopper typologies and implications for retail strategy. Journal of Business
Research, 5(9), 687–696.
Richards, T. J. (2020). Christmas tree promotion board evaluation report. Retrieved on
June 9, 2023. https://realchristmastreeboard.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/CTPB-
Independent-Evaluation-2020.pdf
Rosenbaum, M.S., Wong, I.A., 2015. When gambling is healthy: the restorative potential
of casinos. Journal of Services Marketing, 29(6/7), 622–633.
Rosenbaum, M. S., Ramirez, G. C., & Camino, J. R. (2018). A dose of nature and
shopping: The restorative potential of biophilic lifestyle center designs, Journal of
Retailing and Consumer Services, 40, 66-73. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00906
Sheppard, S.R.J. & Harshaw, H.W. (Eds.). (2001). Forests and Landscapes: Linking
Ecology, Sustainability, and Aesthetics. IUFRO Research Series, No. 6. Wallingford,
UK: CABI Publishing.
Söderlund, S., & Newman, P. (2015). Biophilic architecture: a review of the rationale and
outcomes. AIMS Environmental Science, 2(4): 950-964.
Squire, D. (2002). The healing garden: Natural healing for mind, body and soul. Robson
Books Limited.
Strickland, B., and Scholl, B. J. (2015). Visual perception involves 'event type'
representations: The case of containment vs. occlusion. Journal of Experimental
Psychology: General, 144(3), 570-580.
40
Szczygiel, B., & Hewitt, R. (2001). Nineteenth-century medical landscapes: John H.
Rauch, Frederick Law Olmsted, and the search for salubrity. Bulletin of Anesthesia
History, 19(2), 27–28.
Ulrich, R. S. (1981). Natural versus urban scenes: Some psychological effects.
Environment and Behavior, 13, 523-556. DOI: 10.1177/0013916581135001
Ulrich, R.S., Simons, R.F., Losito, B.D., Fiorito, E., Miles, M.A., & Zelson, M. (1991).
Stress recovery during exposure to natural and urban environments. Journal of
Environmental Psychology, 11, 201-230. DOI: 10.1016/S0272-4944(05)80184-7
Ulrich, R. S. (1981). Natural versus urban scenes: Some psychological effects.
Environment and Behavior, 13, 523–556.
Verde/Wharton. (2019). Shoppers At Risk: An Annual Study of Retail Dissatisfaction.
Retrieved on June 15, 2023. https://verdegroup.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/Verde-
Dynamics-of-Retail-Customer-Satisfaction.pdf
Wang, R., Zhao, J., Meitner, M. J., Hu, Y., & Xu, X. (2019). Characteristics of urban
green spaces in relation to aesthetic preference and stress recovery. Urban Forestry &
Urban Greening, 41, 6–13.
Zaffou, M., & Campbell, B. (2017). Willingness to pay for retail location and product
origin of Christmas trees. Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, 46(3), 464–478.
41
Appendix A: Study Instrument
Section I: Perceived Attention Restoration Scale
2. We would like you to evaluate the “restorative qualities” of Christmas tree shopping
environments or settings that you perceive in a 3-minute video. Before you start the
short video evaluation, take a moment to better understand what we mean by
“restorative qualities” of a Christmas tree shopping environment by carefully reading
the following underlined sentences: When you experience environments or settings
with the highest “restorative qualities” you are more likely to:
a. recover from mental fatigue
b. improve your ability to concentrate
c. restore your capacity to focus your attention.
d. feel less irritable in these settings as you recover from mental and attentional
fatigue.
On the other hand, when you experience environments or settings with the lowest
“restorative qualities” you are less likely to recover from mental and attentional
fatigue.
3. You will be shown a video clip of Christmas tree shopping environments or settings.
Evaluate the “restorative quality” of the shopping environments that you see
throughout the video. If you feel the restorative quality has improved in the setting,
move the slider to the right (100=highest quality). If you feel the restorative quality
of the setting has decreased, move the slider to the left (0=lowest quality). The
midpoint of the restorative quality scale is 50. Remember to rate the restorative
quality (by moving the slider) of what you see WHILE you are watching the video.
Your ratings will be continuously recorded during every second of your video
evaluation.
“Let's practice. Please continuously rate the 20 second video clip. If you feel the
restorative quality has improved in the setting, move the slider to the RIGHT
(100=highest quality). If you feel the restorative quality of the setting has decreased,
move the slider to the LEFT (0=lowest quality). The midpoint of the restorative
quality scale is 50.”
Again, you will be shown a video clip of Christmas tree shopping environments or
settings. Evaluate the “restorative quality” of the shopping environments that you see
throughout the video. If you feel the restorative quality has improved in the setting,
move the slider to the RIGHT (100=highest quality). If you feel the restorative
quality of the setting has decreased, move the slider to the LEFT (0=lowest quality).
The midpoint of the restorative quality scale is 50. Remember to rate the restorative
quality (by moving the slider) of what you see WHILE you are watching the video.
Your ratings will be continuously recorded during every second of your video
evaluation. When you’re ready to proceed, click the "play" button to view and rate the
video.
42
[Show 1 of 2 videos—randomly assigned].
4. We are interested in how you might experience the type of environments or settings
shown in the overall video. To help us understand your overall experience, we would
like you to respond to the following statements. Please read the statement carefully,
then ask yourself: "how much would this statement apply to my experience in places
like those that were shown in the video?" To indicate your answer, select only one
number on the rating scale beside the statement from 0 (not at all) to 10 (completely),
or any number in between that reflects your perception. For example, if you think
that the statement does not at all apply to your experience of the environments shown
in the video, then you would circle "0" (not at all). If you think it completely applies,
then you would circle "10" (completely).
Places like this are fascinating
Not At All
Completely
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
In places like this my attention is drawn to many interesting things
Not At All
Completely
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
In places like this it is hard to be bored
Not At All
Completely
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Places like that are a refuge from nuisances
Not At All
Completely
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
To get away from things that usually demand my attention I like to go to places like this
Not At All
Completely
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
To stop thinking about the things that I must get done I like to go to places like this
Not At All
Completely
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
43
There is a clear order in the physical arrangement of places like this
Not At All
Completely
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
In places like this it is easy to see how things are organized
Not At All
Completely
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
In places like this everything seems to have its proper place
Not At All
Completely
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Being in places like this suits my personality
Not At All
Completely
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
I can do things I like in places like this
Not At All
Completely
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
I have a sense that I belong in places like this
Not At All
Completely
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
That place is large enough to allow exploration in many directions
Not At All
Completely
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
In places like that there are few boundaries to limit my possibility for moving about
Not At All
Completely
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
5. Please report your overall perception of “restorative quality” represented in the type
of environments or settings shown in the video by responding to the following
statement:
44
In places like this it is possible to recover from mental fatigue and the capacity to focus
attention
Not At All
Completely
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Section II: Past Shopping Experiences
6. Which of the following Christmas tree(e) did you have in your home in 2022? (Select
only one).
__only a real Christmas tree(s) (Go to question 6)
__ only an artificial (fake) tree(s) (Go to question 8)
__ both artificial (fake) and real Christmas tree(s) (Go to question 6)
__no Christmas tree (real or artificial/fake) (Go to question 8)
7. Where was your home’s real Christmas tree(s) purchased in 2022? (Select all that
apply).
___real tree from a chain store (Walmart, Home Depot, Lowes, etc.)
___real tree from a choose and cut farm
___real tree from a retail lot
___real tree from a nursery
___real tree from a non-profit group (Boy Scouts, churches, etc.)
___real tree purchased online
___other location (please explain)______________________________________
___I don’t know
45
Section III: Customer Loyalty
7. Please respond to the following statements regarding repeat purchases of a real
Christmas tree for your home and recommendations you might make to others.
Strongly
disagree
Somewhat
disagree
Neither
agree nor
disagree
Somewhat
agree
Strongly
agree
I would be in favor of the
purchase of a real
Christmas tree for my
home in the future
I would tell other people
positive things about the
purchase of a real
Christmas tree
I would recommend the
purchase of a real
Christmas tree to family or
friends
I would recommend the
purchase of a real
Christmas tree to people
who seek my advice
46
Section IV: Conjoint analysis
8. The following are 16 combinations of Christmas tree shopping preferences. Please
score each combination using a rating scale of 1 to 10, where 1 means least preferred
and 10 means most preferred. Scores can be identical if you like two or more of the
combinations. Please go over them carefully before scoring.
Combinations of Christmas tree
characteristics
Score
Price
Species
Height
Product
Least preferred Most preferred
80-100
Fir
8-10'
Real
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
120-140
Fir
6-8'
Artificial
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
100-120
Fir
10-12'
Artificial
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
60-80
Pine
6-8'
Real
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
120-140
Spruce
8-10'
Real
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
80-100
Fir
6-8'
Artificial
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
100-120
Fir
6-8'
Real
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
100-120
Spruce
6-8'
Real
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
80-100
Pine
10-12'
Real
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
120-140
Fir
10-12'
Real
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
120-140
Pine
6-8'
Artificial
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
60-80
Fir
6-8'
Real
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
100-120
Pine
8-10'
Artificial
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
60-80
Fir
8-10'
Artificial
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
80-100
Spruce
6-8'
Artificial
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
60-80
Spruce
10-12'
Artificial
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Section V. About You
9. Please indicate the state in which reside full-time: ____________
10. Please provide your home zip code: ___________
11. Do you currently describe yourself as male, female or transgender? (Select only one).
___Male
___Female
___Transgender
___None of these
47
12. Choose one or more races that you consider yourself to be (select all that apply):
___Black or African American
___White/Caucasian
___American Indian or Alaskan Native
___Hispanic or Latino
___Asian
___Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander
___Other _______________
13. What is your age?
___18-24
___25-34
___35-44
___45-54
___55-64
___65+
___Prefer not to say
48
14. Who lives in your home full-time or part-time, besides yourself? (Check all that
apply).
___Opposite-sex Spouse (Husband/Wife)
___Opposite-sex Unmarried Partner
___Same-sex Spouse (Husband/Wife)
___Same-sex Unmarried Partner
___Child
___Grandchild
___Parent (Mother/Father)
___Brother/Sister
___Other relative (Aunt, Cousin, Nephew, Mother-in-law, etc.)
___Foster Child
___Housemate/Roommate
___Roomer/Boarder
___Other nonrelative
___No one (I live alone)
15. What is the highest level of education you have completed? (Select only one).
___Less than high school
___Some high school
___High school graduate or equivalent (for example GED)
___Some college, but degree not received or is in progress
___Associate’s degree (for example AA, AS)
___Bachelor’s degree (for example BA, BS, AB)
___Graduate degree (for example master’s, professional, doctorate)
49
16. What was your approximate household income from all sources, before taxes, in
2022? (Select only one).
___Less than $20,000
___$20,001 to 40,000
___$40,001 to 60,000
___$60,001 to $80,000
___$80,001 to 100,000
___$100,000+
___Prefer not to say
