Deconstructing the methods of manipulation and the psychological consequences of each method scientifically, proves that the ‘Mahrabian-Russell Model (Billings, 1990)(Figure 1) is still correct within today’s society, especially within the leisure sector.

​

Even though there are five key methods mentioned, after comparing the shopping centre case studies, it is apparent that some methods are used by designers more than others. From examining the case studies and comparing throughout, it is deemed that spatial layout and disorientation alongside the use of light are the main contributors when wanting to manipulate human behaviour.

​

This may because these methods can easily be implemented in multiple ways for different outcomes. All three case studies portrayed this by influencing the user through light, yet, all began with a variation of the method. In Westfield and The Bullring, Benoy created an eye-catching statement roofing structure, bringing natural light making customers comfortable following the natural light throughout the day. Whereas, IKEA used an artificial projection lighting approach, literally directing the user around the spatial layout provided. Overall these methods have proven to increase figures with regards to purchase margins and time spent in a retail outlet, which in turn is many industries objectives in business.

 

In contrast, symbols as a method, did indeed seem to be more integrated within this environment and did not work as effectively. This can especially be seen in the Participants responses within the observational experiment at the Bullring, Birmingham. After looking at comparative precedents of high octane leisure environments, such as casinos, symbolism is considered a more effective there as a method of manipulation.

​

As with the use of sound, a busier setting may benefit more from its manipulative qualities. This is due to the high quantity of variables mentioned by Tokunaga (2013), within a shopping centre. In cases such as Westfield, the placement and style of sound seems to work well in attracting and pleasing the user. On the other hand, both other case studies appeared to lack this consideration and overall element.

A method that may have not been immediately noticeable as its own quality within the architecture studies would be the proportions. The style of architecture itself may influence this, however where the designer has used proportions as a method of manipulation, it has been integrated alongside others in order to obtain a greater result on the user. In terms of pushing boundaries out of the ‘normal’ for users, proportions within everyday life have become larger, therefore we have adapted to be attracted to tall proportions that are integrated into a spatial layout.

​

Finally, on a microcosmic level, it is acknowledged that each of the manipulative methods have been used architecturally within the leisure sector. When relating them back to the environmental psychology theories, it is clear that users react emotionally and behaviourally to external stimuli. Since this is a proven quality of psychology, it is suggested that designers consider Altman’s (1973) chart (Figure 2) explaining the interconnections of environment and design in order to obtain exact predetermined behavioural results of the users. Especially where the client or business is looking to create an element of persuading or force without obvious intent.