Avalilação PREreview de Rhythm and Retail: Music Effects on Consumer Behaviour in Hong Kong Fashion Stores

This review is the result of a virtual, collaborative Live Review discussion organized by the Preprint Review Enthusiasts Club (PRE) on September 18 2026. The discussion was joined by 7 people: 2 facilitators and 5 live review participants. The authors of this review have dedicated additional asynchronous time over the course of 2 weeks to help compose this final report using the notes from the Live Review. Special thanks to all participants who contributed to the discussion and made it possible to provide feedback on this preprint.

Summary:

This study looks at how background music affects shopping behavior in fashion stores in Hong Kong, focusing especially on differences between males and females. Researchers tested three conditions: pop music, instrumental music, and no music, and found that the type of music played had a significant effect (~68%) on how long people stayed in the store, how much they bought, and their overall shopping decisions. They used statistical (SPSS ) software to evaluate the responses gotten from 100 participants using digital questionnaire covering both genders. The responses were classified into 4 fields such as positive, negative, neutral, and undefined. Clear gender differences emerged: 65% of male respondents preferred instrumental music, while 55% of female respondents favored pop music. When asked whether they would enjoy shopping in a store with no music at all, only 34% responded positively, compared to 66% who responded negatively, showing that most shoppers prefer some form of music over silence.

One interesting part of the study is that it was established that music genre meaningfully shapes customer behaviour in Hong Kong fashion stores. However, a weakness of the study is its lack of statistical rigor and that it didn't explore whether the effects of music on consumers' behaviour also depend on other demographic factors like education level, income, marital status, or age.

List of major concerns and feedback:

Concerns with techniques/analyses

• The study appears to lack statistical rigor. The study mentions that SPSS analysis was used to distinguish between variations existing between different demographic groups. Yet, there is no specific reference to the type of analysis of variance (whether one-way or two-way ANOVA) used to determine the results. As a result, there is no way to determine the level of significance of the results. It was also difficult to establish whether other demographic groups beyond gender were investigated. The authors should clearly state which statistical test was used, report relevant statistics (F-values, p-values, degrees of freedom), and specify all demographic variables examined in the study.

• In section 3.3, the following statement needs clarification: "Since there is a higher level of significance in researching preferences from different genders than from different age groups, SPSS analysis was performed to study the differences between males and females under different music settings in fashion stores." The authors appear to erroneously justify their exclusion of age (a potentially crucial demographic factor) due to its lower level of significance compared to gender, which clearly represents a bias that may have led to the intentional omission of data that could have provided more insight into their findings. How did the authors determine that gender differences hold higher significance than age differences if no ANOVA was performed? The authors should either provide statistical evidence supporting this comparative claim or revise the statement to avoid implying a significance comparison that was not formally tested.

• In section 3.3, the authors also appear to discredit the results of this study (unless this was a miscommunication) by stating that the SPSS analysis performed is not practical for either accepting or rejecting their hypothesis. For the results of this study to be credible, proper statistical analysis of variance must be performed and correctly interpreted. This statement should be clarified, and if the analysis genuinely cannot test the hypothesis, then explain what role it actually serves, or conduct the appropriate test.

• In section 3.2, the reasons why fashion retail stores in Hong Kong (presumably the sellers) were included among the questionnaire respondents should be provided and justified, since the study concerns the effect of music on consumers' behavior and spending. Clarify whether seller responses were analyzed separately from consumer responses, or explain their relevance to the study's consumer-focused research question.

• In section 4.1, paragraphs 2 and 3 appear to contain redundancies, and the interpretation of the results is somewhat contradictory. In paragraph 2, it is stated that 77% of respondents said that having no in-store music in fashion stores would not affect them positively (meaning it would affect them negatively, and that they would not like to shop there, according to the paper), while 34% preferred this fashion store setting, bringing the overall total to 111%. Yet, in paragraph 3, 66% of the same respondents said the same fashion store setting would have a negative effect on them, while 34% said positive, for an overall total of 100%. This discrepancy needs to be addressed by the authors for readers' correct interpretation of the results. Recheck the raw data and ensure the same figures are reported consistently across both paragraphs, with percentages summing to 100%.

Tables

• In section 4.2, the authors interpret the results in Table 4 incorrectly, which may compromise the integrity of their findings. First, consider the statement: "The number of responses for each of the options in the absence of in-store music spread more evenly, showing that people have more varied opinions about the effectiveness of music in affecting consumer behaviour." The results in Table 4 clearly show that responses for the presence of in-store music spread more evenly than responses for the absence of music. If this was a typographical error, it needs to be corrected. Re-examine the table and revise the statement so it accurately reflects which condition shows more even distribution.

• In the first table inside Table 4, only the responses in the "No in-store music" column add up to 100 total participants, as stated in the study's methodology. The totals for the other two columns, instrumental and pop music, add up to 104 and 106 respectively, which clearly represents a calculation error, thus negatively impacting the results. Recheck how responses were tallied for each column and correct the totals before using the table for further analysis.

• In section 4.3, Table 5, which compares variations among music genres, directly replicates the columns in Table 4 (section 4.2). Since the content of Table 5 duplicates Table 4, it would be best to retain only Table 4 and use it to interpret the findings, rather than breaking the data into smaller tables. Another issue is that the same data used to interpret the findings in Table 5 contains the same errors found in Table 4, casting doubt on the credibility of the results and their interpretation. Interpret findings directly from a corrected Table 4, or clearly explain what additional insight Table 5 is intended to provide if it is retained.

• In section 4.3, the interpretation of the results in the first paragraph cannot be confirmed from Table 5. What can be confirmed (although from partially incorrect data) is that 47%, 45%, and 41% of respondents preferred (agreed with) instrumental music across the three categories (longer shopping duration, buying more items, and spending more, respectively), compared to 41%, 38%, and 35% who preferred pop music, respectively. Once the underlying data errors are corrected, re-verify this interpretation to ensure it aligns with the corrected table.

List of minor concerns and feedback:

• The approaches used were generally suitable for examining consumer opinions, but the study relies mainly on self-reported responses. A field experiment or direct observation could have provided stronger evidence of actual consumer behavior.

• The findings were generally interpreted in line with the data, but the small sample of 100 participants limits how widely the results can be applied. A clear statement should be made on generalizability in the limitations section and avoid overstating the broader applicability of the findings.

• The open-ended questions used to generate the data for this study were not disclosed, nor was the type of keyword analysis used to categorize participants' responses, making reproducibility and validation of the study difficult. The authors should include the full survey instrument (or an appendix with it) and describe their keyword analysis process in enough detail for other researchers to replicate it.

• Tables 4 and 5 contain many response categories and percentages, which makes them slightly difficult to interpret quickly. The presentation could be improved with clearer visual summaries, such as simple bar charts, and more explicit labels explaining the percentages.

List of additional comments and feedback:

• The research gap should have been stated clearly at the beginning of the abstract rather than towards the end.

• The research provides useful insight into the possible psychological effect of music on consumer decision making.

• It is interesting how the study shows how different genres of music may produce different effects on consumers and potentially influence their shopping behavior.

• The study raises an important question about whether the findings from Hong Kong consumers can be generalized to consumers in other cultural or geographical locations.

• No ethical statement was provided. Although it appears all participants were anonymous since the data were generated from online surveys, the authors still need to state the ethical guidelines followed in this study.

• The manuscript would benefit from greater clarity and rigor in both research methods and presentation of findings. Specifically, the statistical procedures used (e.g., type of ANOVA, demographic variables tested) should be explicitly stated and justified, and results should be presented consistently and accurately across the text and tables so that readers can easily follow and verify the evidence. Addressing these issues would strengthen the reproducibility and credibility of the study's conclusions.

Concluding remarks

We thank the authors of the preprint for posting their work openly for feedback. Many thanks also to all participants of the Live Review call for their time and for engaging in the lively discussion that generated this review.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI)

The authors declare that they did not use generative AI to come up with new ideas for their review.