Find routes and classify shopper movement
Use mall wayfinding evidence and CCTV movement traces to explain how layout, signs and shopping missions shape routes—without turning study-specific patterns into fixed shopper identities.
Original StudyForA teaching mapped to the Cambridge 2028–2030 Version 1 syllabus. It is not Cambridge material, an official mark scheme or an awarded grade. Research findings are summarised for learning and should not be treated as universal consumer rules.
Before you begin
- This lesson covers Cambridge Psychology 9990 Consumer Psychology section 2.2.1 in the 2028–2030 Version 1 syllabus. The trip and shopper profiles describe study-specific clusters, not universal or fixed identities.
Work on paper. Try each question before revealing help, and explain why your method works.
Quick readiness check
Which result is stronger evidence that a shopper can orient toward a destination?
What you will learn
- Evaluate mall wayfinding using building configuration, visual accessibility, circulation, signs and you-are-here maps
- Describe Dogu and Erkip (2000) and distinguish reported ease from demonstrated route accuracy
- Distinguish short, round, central and wave shopping trips
- Explain the specialist, native, tourist, explorer and raider patterns and Gil et al. (2009)
- Evaluate reductionism versus holism, idiographic versus nomothetic explanations, questionnaires, generalisation and reliability
Wayfinding depends on a readable environment and a person’s route knowledge
Wayfinding is the process of working out where you are, choosing a route and reaching a destination. A mall can support it with a legible floor plan, visible landmarks, clear circulation paths, consistent signs and well-positioned you-are-here maps. A map is useful only if a visitor can see it, identify their location and match its orientation to the building.
Building configuration and visual access matter alongside signs. A central atrium can reveal several floors and landmarks, while a hidden shop or confusing numbering system may remain difficult to locate even when a sign exists. Familiarity, purpose, mobility, language and sensory access can also affect the route a person takes.
Separate perceived ease from demonstrated accuracy. A questionnaire asks what shoppers think or remember; asking them to point toward a randomly selected destination provides a performance measure. These measures can disagree, which is informative rather than automatically an error.
Dogu and Erkip (2000) studied one Turkish shopping mall
Dogu and Erkip examined Karum, a shopping mall in Ankara, Turkey. They analysed the mall’s spatial features and surveyed 155 adult shoppers on weekends. The questionnaire included perceptions of the building and signage; participants also completed a direction-pointing task for a randomly selected store.
Shoppers generally described the mall as reasonably easy to navigate, yet many said the signage system was insufficient. They wanted better help locating less visible destinations such as restrooms, telephone booths and stores. This shows why an overall rating of ‘easy’ does not prove that every destination is easy to find.
Combining self-report with a standardised pointing task gives a fuller account than either measure alone. However, one mall and weekend visitors cannot represent every building, culture or shopping purpose. A pointing response is also a limited test of navigation: it does not measure the full route, time, errors or accessibility of the journey.
Trip patterns describe routes; shopper types describe broader movement profiles
Gil et al. (2009) tracked more than 480 shoppers in one supermarket and combined video-derived movement traces with shopper information. They clustered the routes into four trip patterns. A short trip entered and left with few targets; a round trip followed an outer route and returned along a central corridor; a central trip used the main corridor with trips into aisles; a wave trip progressed through the store while zigzagging through aisles.
The authors separately clustered five spatial behaviour profiles using trip duration, walking speed, product interactions, purchase conversion and the parts of the shop visited. A specialist focused on a few products with longer interactions; a native made a longer, relevant-aisle trip with more purchases; a tourist moved quickly near the entrance with lower purchase conversion; an explorer covered many aisles slowly and repeatedly; a raider moved quickly through main corridors, sometimes going far into the shop.
Do not confuse a route type with a shopper profile. A round trip is a path pattern; a native is a profile based on several measures. The labels summarise clusters in one store, not permanent personalities. The authors found that route clusters were not strongly distinguished by demographic profile; movement depended on the store layout and shopping mission. The high male share in one sample cluster is not a rule about men.
CCTV can show paths but needs careful interpretation
Video tracking can record route, time in areas and repeated visits without relying only on memory. Replaying footage and using a shared coding scheme can help researchers check classifications and inter-observer reliability. Interviews can then help explain a route: a path alone does not reveal the shopper’s goal or thoughts.
Gil et al. combined tracked paths and shopper profiles, but their observations came from one supermarket with a particular grid layout and product arrangement. A route cluster may change when the layout, product locations or task changes. Classification is also reductionist if used as a complete description of an individual; it is nomothetic because it looks for group patterns, while a detailed interview can add an idiographic account.
CCTV observation raises privacy and consent questions. Research should explain what is recorded, obtain informed consent where required, minimise identifiable footage, restrict access and retention, and offer a clear way to withdraw where feasible. Observation can be unobtrusive, but that does not remove ethical responsibilities.
Sources for this lesson
Pause and explain
Which statement correctly separates Gil et al.’s route and shopper classifications?
Worked example
A mall manager says, ‘Shoppers rated our signs positively, so every visitor can find every shop.’ Improve the conclusion using Dogu and Erkip (2000).
Show the worked solution
- Distinguish self-reported perceptions from observed or tested route performance.
- State what the study found about overall ease and hard-to-see destinations.
- Limit the conclusion to the study setting and name a stronger follow-up measure.
Answer A positive overall rating does not show that every destination is easy to find. In one Ankara mall, Dogu and Erkip found that shoppers generally described wayfinding as easy but still wanted better signage for less visible destinations. The study included a direction-pointing task, but it covered one mall; a manager should time real destination-finding tasks, record errors and test the signs with visitors who have different levels of familiarity and accessibility needs.
Try a topic test
Choose Easy, Normal or Difficult. Save your answers and open worked review after finishing.
Test this topic →From guided practice to a new situation
Write your answer and reasoning first. Use a hint only if you are stuck. The model solution is for self-checking; your written work is not automatically marked.
A visitor says the mall feels easy to navigate but cannot locate a shop behind an atrium. Explain why these two observations can both be true and propose a useful measure.
Give me a hint
Separate overall perceived ease from accuracy for a particular destination.
Compare my reasoning
- The visitor’s rating is a subjective summary; one difficult destination can still be hidden or poorly signed.
- Give several visitors the same destination-finding task and record route time, wrong turns and whether they arrive.
- Ask about familiarity and accessibility needs so that an average score does not conceal different experiences.
The overall ease rating and one failed route measure different things. A manager could ask visitors to find the same hard-to-see shop, record time and wrong turns, and compare results across visitors with different familiarity and access needs.
Look for these in your work
- Perception and performance distinguished
- A route measure is operationalised
- Different visitors considered
A student writes: ‘A native shopper takes a round trip, so Gil et al. proved that regular shoppers always follow the same route.’ Evaluate this statement.
Give me a hint
Identify the two classification systems, then use the study’s limits.
Compare my reasoning
- A round trip is one of four route clusters; a native is one of five profiles based on movement and shopping measures.
- Gil et al. studied more than 480 shoppers in one supermarket; the route clusters were not simply demographic identities and depended on the store context.
- The study cannot establish that every native follows a round trip or that regular shoppers use the same route in other stores.
The statement confuses a route with a shopper profile. Gil et al. clustered route traces separately from five broader profiles in one supermarket. The labels describe patterns in that setting; they do not prove that every native uses a round trip or that an individual repeats the same route in all shops.
Look for these in your work
- Route and profile separated
- Study evidence used accurately
- Generalisation limited
A library wants to improve signs to quiet study rooms and compare two floor-map designs. Propose a fair wayfinding test and explain how video tracking could be used ethically.
Give me a hint
Use the same destinations and starting points, and define both route success and data protection.
Compare my reasoning
- Randomly assign consenting visitors to one of the two map designs, use the same starting point and destination instructions, and keep sign placement and task timing consistent.
- Measure time to reach the room, wrong turns and completion; ask separately how easy the route felt. Do not treat one self-report as proof of accuracy.
- Explain the video recording, avoid capturing unrelated visitors, remove identifiers, restrict access and retention, and offer a non-recorded route where practical.
A fair test changes the map while holding the route task and sign locations constant. Record time, errors and completion alongside a separate ease rating. If video is used, gain consent, minimise incidental capture, protect footage and offer an alternative where feasible.
Look for these in your work
- One map variable compared fairly
- Objective and subjective measures separated
- Privacy and consent addressed
Common mistakes
- Treating a shopper’s self-rating as proof that their route was accurate
- Mixing the four trip patterns with the five spatial behaviour profiles
- Treating Gil et al.’s cluster labels as fixed personalities or universal gender differences
- Claiming that CCTV alone explains why a shopper chose a route
- Generalising a single mall or supermarket study to every building and culture
What can you explain now?
What is the difference between a wave trip and an explorer profile?
Compare with the explanation
A wave trip is one route pattern through aisles; an explorer is a profile defined by several movement and shopping measures.
The route and the profile answer different classification questions and should not be used as synonyms.
After trying it yourself, choose your next review. This is your self-assessment.
Your review choice appears on Today. Sign in to sync it across devices.
Make it stick
State the four trip patterns and five spatial behaviour profiles, then explain one reason why a tracked route cannot reveal a shopper’s full purpose.
If you needed the solution, close it and solve the problem again from a blank page. A correct answer is stronger when you can explain the reason for each step.