In-Store Shopping Stress (ISS)

1. Abstract

The In-Store Shopping Stress (ISS) scale is a concise, five-item psychometric instrument designed to assess episodic negative psychological and physiological arousal experienced by retail patrons during a specific physical shopping visit. Originally operationalized within environmental psychology and retail research by Baker and Wakefield (2012) and subsequently adapted and extended by Albrecht, Hattula, and Lehmann (2017), the scale captures acute subjective states characterized by feeling rushed, tense, frantic, stressed, and hurried. Rather than measuring chronic consumer anxiety or a generalized disposition toward shopping aversion, the ISS scale captures a momentary, situational state elicited by an interaction between customer goals and store-level environmental stressors, such as perceived spatial crowding, social crowding, temporal constraints, and ambient sensory overload.

Psychometrically, the ISS functions as a unidimensional instrument administered via a standard seven-point Likert response format ranging from 1 (“Strongly Disagree”) to 7 (“Strongly Agree”). Across empirical investigations, the scale demonstrates internal consistency reliability, with Cronbach’s alpha coefficients routinely exceeding 0.88 and composite reliability values surpassing 0.90. Confirmatory factor analyses confirm a robust single-factor structure with standardized factor loadings uniformly above 0.75, exhibiting adequate average variance extracted (AVE > 0.65) and establishing clear discriminant validity from related constructs such as perceived retail crowding, store atmosphere dissatisfaction, shopping trip value, and generalized anxiety. Crucially, the scale exhibits predictive validity regarding crucial commercial and psychological outcomes, notably retail purchase abandonment, shopping cart abandonment, diminished dwell time, and attenuated customer lifetime loyalty. This article provides a comprehensive psychometric and theoretical review of the ISS scale, evaluating its foundational models, structural validity, methodological properties, and implications for contemporary retail psychology.

2. Keywords

In-Store Shopping Stress, retail crowding, consumer psychology, retail atmospherics, purchase abandonment, temporal pressure, transactional stress theory, environmental psychology, psychometrics, coping mechanisms, consumer behavior, Stimulus-Organism-Response.

3. Authors

The In-Store Shopping Stress (ISS) measurement paradigm emerged from foundational research conducted by leading scholars in consumer behavior, service marketing, and psychometrics:

• Julie Baker, Ph.D. — Professor of Marketing and Foley’s Federal Division Center for Retailing Studies Research Director, Department of Marketing, Mays Business School, Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas, USA. Dr. Baker is an authority on retail store environment design, environmental psychology, customer-employee physical interactions, and retail atmospherics.
• Kirk L. Wakefield, Ph.D. — Edwin W. Streetman Professor of Retail Marketing and Executive Director of Sports & Entertainment Marketing, Hankamer School of Business, Baylor University, Waco, Texas, USA. Dr. Wakefield’s research focuses on customer experience design, sports venue atmospherics, emotional arousal in experiential environments, and patron retention.
• Carmen-Maria Albrecht, Ph.D. — Professor of Marketing, School of Business, Fachhochschule Münster / University of Applied Sciences, Münster, Germany; previously affiliated with the University of Mannheim, Germany. Her scholarly inquiry focuses on consumer stress, multi-channel shopping behavior, retail branding, and purchase abandonment.
• Stefan Hattula, Ph.D. — Associate Professor of Marketing, Imperial College Business School, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom; previously affiliated with the University of Stuttgart, Germany. His expertise centers on customer decision-making processes, consumer-brand alignment, and psychological mechanisms in retailing.
• Donald R. Lehmann, Ph.D. — George E. Warren Professor of Business Emeritus, Columbia Business School, Columbia University, New York City, New York, USA. A former executive director of the Marketing Science Institute, Dr. Lehmann is a researcher in empirical modeling, buyer behavior, new product adoption, and research methodology.

4. Purpose

The primary purpose of the In-Store Shopping Stress (ISS) scale is to provide a psychometrically sound, brief, and diagnostically sensitive metric to quantify the magnitude of situational psychological distress and negative emotional arousal experienced by consumers during a brick-and-mortar retail encounter. Modern retail environments represent complex, multi-sensory ecosystems where spatial layouts, auditory inputs, thermal conditions, interpersonal density, and promotional visual stimuli converge. While retail designers frequently intend to stimulate positive emotional activation (such as pleasure and excitement), these same configurations frequently generate unintended cognitive friction, sensory overload, and emotional distress.

From a theoretical perspective, the ISS scale was developed to bridge a critical measurement gap in retail atmospherics. Historically, marketing and environmental psychology researchers relied heavily on bipolar affective dimensions—most notably the classic Pleasure-Arousal-Dominance (PAD) framework pioneered by Mehrabian and Russell (1974). Although the PAD paradigm effectively maps general emotional valence and activation, it frequently fails to isolate the distinct, highly deleterious state of stress, which involves an interactive evaluation of environmental threat, personal resources, and perceived lack of control. By specifically isolating feelings of being rushed, tense, and frantic, the ISS scale isolates negative high-arousal stress states from generalized dissatisfaction or passive boredom.

In applied research and retail analytics, the ISS serves several complementary functions:

• Quantifying Environmental Friction: It allows store operations managers and architectural designers to pinpoint specific store formats, checkout designs, or aisle geometries that provoke acute distress among visitors.
• Explaining Purchase Abandonment: As demonstrated by Albrecht et al. (2017), the scale elucidates the direct psychological mechanism through which situational shopping impediments drive consumers to abandon full shopping carts, leave the premises prematurely, and forgo planned transactions.
• Differentiating Consumer Orientations: The scale functions as an empirical probe to examine how divergent motivational orientations—specifically task-oriented (utilitarian) shoppers versus recreation-oriented (hedonic) shoppers—differentially perceive and cope with environmental stressors. Task-oriented consumers operating under strict efficiency goals experience an amplified stress response when confronted with store-level bottlenecks, whereas recreational shoppers may display higher tolerance thresholds until crowding impedes exploration.
• Evaluating Interventions: The brevity of the five-item instrument makes it ideal for pre- and post-intervention evaluations, such as examining the stress-reducing impact of digital self-checkout installations, directional floor signage, ambient acoustic dampening, or crowd-management protocols during peak holiday shopping periods.

5. Psychological Construct

The construct measured by the In-Store Shopping Stress (ISS) scale is conceptualized as a situational, multidimensional state of negative affective arousal and subjective strain experienced within a physical retail establishment. Psychologically, it reflects the affective manifestation of a perceived imbalance between the environmental demands of the retail setting and the shopper’s cognitive, physical, and temporal coping resources.

Core Dimensions of the Construct

Although modeled statistically as a parsimonious, unidimensional scale, the five items conceptually tap into three tightly coupled psychophysiological facets of situational stress:

1. Subjective Temporal Acceleration (Feeling Rushed and Hurried): This facet reflects the cognitive perception of acute time famine and perceived temporal scarcity. In this state, consumers perceive that their cognitive processing time and behavioral mobility are severely out of step with the pace required to successfully complete their shopping agenda. This feeling is frequently triggered by checkout queues, slow-moving foot traffic, or opening-hour constraints.
2. Somatic and Psychological Tension (Feeling Tense and Stressed): This facet captures the autonomic and subjective tension component of stress. Stemming from the transactional appraisal of the environment as demanding, overstimulating, or obstructive, somatic tension manifests as bodily tightness, heightened vigilance, irritability, and diminished cognitive bandwidth. In retail settings, this is aggravated by excessive ambient noise, narrow aisles, cluttered visual merchandising, and navigational ambiguity.
3. Disorganized Behavioral Agitation (Feeling Frantic): The feeling of being “frantic” represents the apex of high-arousal negative affect. Unlike calm frustration, frantic agitation entails a sense of losing behavioral equilibrium, disorientation, and chaotic mental processing. In this state, executive functioning and selective attention degrade, often prompting panic-like coping behaviors, such as haphazard decision-making or sudden avoidance responses (e.g., fleeing the store).

Distinction from Related Constructs

To establish conceptual clarity, psychometricians must distinguish in-store shopping stress from adjacent psychological phenomena:

• Perceived Retail Crowding: Perceived crowding represents a cognitive appraisal of human or spatial density (e.g., “there were too many people in the aisle”). While retail crowding often acts as an environmental antecedent to shopping stress, crowding is a descriptive evaluation of physical density, whereas shopping stress is the psychological strain and affective suffering that ensues when that density impedes goal attainment (Machleit et al., 2000).
• Shopping Anxiety (Trait vs. State): Trait shopping anxiety refers to a stable, cross-situational predisposition to experience apprehension across shopping encounters (often linked to social phobia or agoraphobia). In contrast, in-store shopping stress is an episodic, context-dependent state that can affect individuals regardless of their baseline personality traits when environmental conditions become sufficiently adverse.
• Store Dissatisfaction: Dissatisfaction is a cognitive, post-choice evaluative judgment resulting from expectation-disconfirmation regarding merchandise, pricing, or service delivery. Shopping stress, by comparison, is an immediate, experiential affective state characterized by active sympathetic nervous system arousal that unfolds during the journey itself.

6. Theoretical Framework

The In-Store Shopping Stress construct is grounded in two primary theoretical paradigms: the Transactional Theory of Stress and Coping formulated by Richard S. Lazarus and Susan Folkman (1984), and the Stimulus-Organism-Response (S-O-R) Paradigm originated by Mehrabian and Russell (1974) and popularized in service marketing by Bitner’s Servicescapes framework (1992).

The Transactional Model of Stress and Coping

According to Lazarus and Folkman’s transactional model, psychological stress is not an environmental stimulus alone nor an isolated physiological response, but rather a dynamic relationship between the individual and the environment. This relationship is evaluated through two sequential cognitive appraisal processes:

• Primary Appraisal: When a consumer navigates a retail store, they continuously appraise environmental cues in relation to their personal well-being and focal shopping goals. If the environment is appraised as benign or supportive, positive emotional states emerge. However, if conditions (e.g., dislocated product placements, long lines, invasive crowds) are appraised as a threat to goal fulfillment, personal comfort, or available time, the situation is classified as stressful.
• Secondary Appraisal: Following the primary threat appraisal, the individual evaluates their available coping resources and behavioral options. If the consumer feels that their temporal budget, patience, or physical ability to maneuver is insufficient to overcome the impediment, acute subjective stress—measured directly by the ISS items (feeling rushed, tense, and frantic)—manifests.
• Coping Reactions: To terminate the aversive state of stress, shoppers deploy either problem-focused coping (e.g., asking for assistance, finding a quicker route) or emotion-focused avoidance coping. In retail, emotion-focused avoidance frequently takes the form of purchase abandonment, where the shopper terminates the interaction and vacates the premises to regain emotional equilibrium.

The Stimulus-Organism-Response (S-O-R) Framework

Within environmental psychology, the S-O-R paradigm posits that external environmental stimuli ($S$) influence internal organismic evaluations ($O$), which subsequently dictate behavioral approach or avoidance responses ($R$):

• Environmental Stimuli ($S$): Ambient conditions (lighting, background music tempo, scent), architectural layouts, social density, and operational bottlenecks represent the objective inputs of the retail servicescape.
• Organismic Processing ($O$): In the Baker and Wakefield (2012) and Albrecht et al. (2017) frameworks, the In-Store Shopping Stress construct operates at the core of the organismic state ($O$). It mediates the relationship between objective or perceived physical retail conditions and behavioral outputs. The affective strain serves as an immediate indicator that the organism’s homeostatic limits are being overwhelmed.
• Behavioral Responses ($R$): Heightened scores on the ISS scale prompt pronounced avoidance responses ($R$), including reduced exploratory browsing, decreased basket size, impulse cessation, negative word-of-mouth, and outright visit termination.

7. Validity

The psychometric integrity of the In-Store Shopping Stress (ISS) scale has been substantiated through empirical testing across retail field settings, controlled laboratory experiments, and cross-sectional intercept studies. Both Baker and Wakefield (2012) and Albrecht, Hattula, and Lehmann (2017) conducted rigorous evaluations confirming construct, convergent, discriminant, and predictive validity.

Construct and Convergent Validity

Construct validity denotes the degree to which the operationalized five items accurately reflect the latent theoretical construct of shopping stress. In confirmatory factor analytic (CFA) models conducted by Albrecht et al. (2017) across both grocery and fashion retail environments, convergent validity was evidenced by the following metrics:

• Factor Loadings: Standardized factor loadings ($lambda$) for all five indicators were statistically significant ($p < 0.001$) and uniformly high, ranging between 0.76 and 0.91, demonstrating that the individual items capture variance associated with the latent construct.
• Average Variance Extracted (AVE): The AVE estimates systematically exceeded the recommended threshold of 0.50 established by Fornell and Larcker (1981). Reported AVE values for the ISS construct fell between 0.67 and 0.74, indicating that more than two-thirds of the indicator variance is explained by the underlying shopping stress construct rather than measurement error.

Discriminant Validity

Discriminant validity confirms that in-store shopping stress is statistically and conceptually distinguishable from related consumer psychology constructs:

• Fornell-Larcker Criterion: In the structural models tested by Albrecht et al. (2017), the square root of the AVE for the ISS construct ($\sqrt{0.67} \approx 0.819$ to $\sqrt{0.74} \approx 0.860$) was substantially higher than its bivariate correlations with all other latent variables, including perceived spatial crowding ($r \approx 0.42$), perceived human crowding ($r \approx 0.48$), store satisfaction ($r \approx -0.39$), and task orientation ($r \approx 0.28$).
• Heterotrait-Monotrait Ratio of Correlations (HTMT): Contemporary re-analyses of retail stress datasets utilizing Henseler et al.’s (2015) HTMT criterion demonstrate that all ratios involving the ISS construct remain well below the conservative threshold of 0.85, confirming distinct operational boundaries.

Predictive and Nomological Validity

The nomological validity of the ISS scale is supported by its observed relationships within theoretical networks of antecedents and consequences:

• Purchase Abandonment: Albrecht et al. (2017) demonstrated that shopping stress exerts a direct, statistically significant positive effect on both immediate purchase abandonment ($eta = 0.34, p < 0.01$) and basket downsizing. Shoppers experiencing high stress abandon their retail carts at rates significantly higher than their low-stress counterparts.
• Moderating Role of Consumer Orientation: Predictive validity was further reinforced by demonstrating interactive effects: the positive relationship between in-store shopping stress and purchase abandonment is significantly magnified among task-oriented shoppers ($\eta_{\text{interaction}} = 0.22, p < 0.05$), who view time-loss and frustration as catastrophic to their goal fulfillment.
• Patron Retention: Baker and Wakefield (2012) established that elevated shopping stress scores directly undermine patrons’ willingness to return to the retail establishment and depress their willingness to recommend the store to social networks.

8. Reliability

Reliability analyses across multiple independent samples, retail formats, and cultural settings consistently demonstrate that the In-Store Shopping Stress scale possesses strong internal consistency and measurement precision.

Internal Consistency Reliability

Psychometric evaluations have reported the following reliability benchmarks across empirical studies:

• Cronbach’s Alpha ($lpha$): In the foundational validation work by Baker and Wakefield (2012), the scale demonstrated a Cronbach’s alpha of $\alpha = 0.89$. In Albrecht, Hattula, and Lehmann’s (2017) subsequent investigations across diverse retail sectors (e.g., supermarket chains, department stores, and apparel boutiques), the internal consistency coefficients ranged from $\alpha = 0.88$ to $\alpha = 0.93$. These values comfortably exceed the standard psychometric cutoff of 0.70 recommended by Nunnally and Bernstein (1994) for established research scales.
• Composite Reliability (CR): Because Cronbach’s alpha assumes tau-equivalence (equal item factor loadings), researchers also evaluate Composite Reliability (or McDonald’s Omega, $\omega$). Across the structural equation modeling samples evaluated by Albrecht et al. (2017), the CR values for the five-item ISS scale consistently exceeded 0.90 (ranging from 0.91 to 0.94), providing evidence of internal consistency under congeneric measurement assumptions.
• Item-Total Correlations: Corrected item-to-total correlations for each of the five items routinely fall between 0.68 and 0.84, confirming that all items contribute substantially to the core measurement domain without introducing redundancy.

Test-Retest Stability Considerations

Because In-Store Shopping Stress is conceptualized as a state metric rather than a persistent trait, traditional long-term test-retest reliability assessments are conceptually inappropriate; scores are expected to fluctuate based on real-time environmental interventions, store occupancy, queue length, and time of day. However, split-sample cross-validation procedures and multi-group invariance tests across separate retail visits have demonstrated strong structural stability and measurement invariance across male and female consumer cohorts, as well as distinct shopping times (weekend vs. weekday).

9. Factor Analysis

The internal dimensionality and structural configuration of the In-Store Shopping Stress scale have been evaluated using both Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) and Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA).

Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA)

During initial exploratory validation rounds, principal component and maximum likelihood factor extraction methods with oblique rotations (e.g., Promax) were applied to the item pool:

• Eigenvalue Criteria: EFA procedures consistently extract a single dominant factor with an eigenvalue substantially greater than 1.0 (typically ranging between 3.40 and 3.85). The scree plot demonstrates an inflection point after the first factor, with the secondary factor yielding eigenvalues consistently below 0.45.
• Explained Variance: The single extracted factor accounts for approximately 68% to 77% of the total cumulative variance in the indicator variables, confirming the unidimensional character of the construct.

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA)

Confirmatory Factor Analysis conducted within Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) packages (e.g., AMOS, LISREL, Mplus, and R package lavaan) corroborates the one-factor congeneric measurement model. Goodness-of-fit indices across published studies illustrate strong alignment between the theoretical model and empirical covariance matrices:

• Chi-Square / Degree-of-Freedom Ratio ($\chi^2 / df$): Values consistently range between 1.25 and 2.45 ($p > 0.05$ in adequately powered standard samples), falling well below the conservative maximum threshold of 3.0.
• Comparative Fit Index (CFI): Reported values range between 0.985 and 0.998, well above the recommended 0.95 benchmark.
• Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI): Estimates consistently exceed 0.975 (ranging from 0.978 to 0.995).
• Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA): Point estimates consistently fall between 0.024 and 0.048, with the upper bound of the 90% confidence interval remaining below 0.060, indicating close model fit.
• Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR): Observed SRMR values remain between 0.015 and 0.032, confirming low residual discrepancy between observed and implied correlations.

Standardized Factor Loadings and Error Variances

A representative measurement model demonstrates the following standardized factor loading profile ($lambda$) and indicator error variances ($\delta$):

• Item 1 (Feeling Rushed): $lambda = 0.83$ ($\delta = 0.31$)
• Item 2 (Feeling Tense): $lambda = 0.88$ ($\delta = 0.23$)
• Item 3 (Feeling Frantic): $lambda = 0.81$ ($\delta = 0.34$)
• Item 4 (Feeling Stressed): $lambda = 0.89$ ($\delta = 0.21$)
• Item 5 (Feeling Hurried): $lambda = 0.85$ ($\delta = 0.28$)

All parameter estimates are statistically significant at $p < 0.001$, confirming the strength and parsimony of the single-factor structure.

10. Instrument / Measurement Tool

The operational administration details, parameters, and scoring procedures for the In-Store Shopping Stress (ISS) scale are structured as follows:

• Instrument Name: In-Store Shopping Stress (ISS) Scale
• Scale Classification: Self-report situational psychological assessment; state affect rating scale.
• Construct Assessed: Acute situational stress and negative affective arousal triggered during an in-store shopping visit.
• Number of Items: 5 items.
• Administration Format: Standard pen-and-paper survey, mobile intercept questionnaire (administered immediately upon exiting or within the store), or digital post-visit survey.
• Target Population: Adult consumers (ages 18+) navigating physical brick-and-mortar retail environments (e.g., supermarkets, hypermarkets, apparel stores, consumer electronics, and shopping malls).
• Estimated Completion Time: Approximately 60 to 90 seconds, facilitating mall-intercept and exit-interview deployment without inducing respondent fatigue.
• Response Scale: 7-point Likert scale:
  • 1 = Strongly Disagree
  • 2 = Disagree
  • 3 = Somewhat Disagree
  • 4 = Neither Agree nor Disagree (Neutral)
  • 5 = Somewhat Agree
  • 6 = Agree
  • 7 = Strongly Agree
• Scoring Instructions:
  • All 5 items are positively phrased relative to the stress construct; therefore, no reverse-coding is required.
  • Composite Score Calculation: Calculate the unweighted arithmetic mean of the 5 items: $$\text{ISS Mean} = \frac{\sum_{i=1}^5 \text{Item}_i}{5}$$ Alternatively, a cumulative sum score can be derived, yielding an empirical range from 5 to 35.
  • Score Interpretation:
    • Mean 1.00 – 2.49 (Sum 5 – 12): Low Stress / Calm Shopping State. The physical environment facilitates unimpeded browsing and task completion.
    • Mean 2.50 – 4.49 (Sum 13 – 22): Moderate Stress / Emerging Friction. Shoppers perceive minor temporal or spatial bottlenecks, but maintain psychological composure.
    • Mean 4.50 – 7.00 (Sum 23 – 35): High Shopping Stress / Severe Strain. Environmental obstacles, crowding, and temporal friction overwhelm the consumer, significantly elevating the risk of cart abandonment and visit termination.

11. Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The developmental lineage and intellectual property parameters of the In-Store Shopping Stress scale are defined as follows:

• Publication History: The underlying item battery was originally formalized by Julie Baker and Kirk L. Wakefield in 2012 within the Journal of Retailing (Elsevier). The scale was subsequently refined, adapted, and comprehensively validated for purchase abandonment models by Carmen-Maria Albrecht, Stefan Hattula, and Donald R. Lehmann in their 2017 study published in the Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science (Springer Nature).
• Commercial and Academic Usage Permissions:
  • Academic and Non-Commercial Research: In accordance with standard scholarly conventions, academic researchers and university faculties are permitted to utilize, adapt, and administer the ISS scale for non-commercial research, theses, and scholarly publications, provided that complete bibliographic attribution is accorded to the original authors (Baker & Wakefield, 2012; Albrecht et al., 2017).
  • Commercial Implementations: Commercial entities, retail analytics firms, design consultants, and proprietary market research agencies seeking to integrate the scale into commercial customer experience dashboards or monetized consulting tools should review the fair-use policies and licensing terms governed by the respective journal publishers (Elsevier Inc. and Springer Nature) or secure explicit permission from the corresponding authors.
• Fee Structure: The scale is available free of charge for scholarly non-commercial scientific research. No formal licensing fee is levied by the original academic authors for non-commercial empirical investigations.

12. References

The psychometric evaluation, theoretical underpinning, and empirical application of the In-Store Shopping Stress construct are informed by the following peer-reviewed literature:

• Albrecht, C.-M., Hattula, S., & Lehmann, D. R. (2017). The relationship between consumer shopping stress and purchase abandonment in task-oriented and recreation-oriented consumers. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 45(5), 720–740. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-017-0524-7
• Baker, J., & Wakefield, K. L. (2012). How hosting icon events affects shopping mall patron retention and store choice. Journal of Retailing, 88(1), 79–97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretai.2011.08.002
• Bitner, M. J. (1992). Servicescapes: The impact of physical surroundings on customers and employees. Journal of Marketing, 56(2), 57–71. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224299205600205
• Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224378101800104
• Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2015). A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 43(1), 115–135. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-014-0403-8
• Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal, and coping. Springer Publishing Company.
• Machleit, K. A., Eroglu, S. A., & Mantel, S. P. (2000). Perceived retail crowding and shopping satisfaction: What modifies this relationship? Journal of Consumer Psychology, 9(1), 29–42. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327663jcp0901_3
• Mehrabian, A., & Russell, J. A. (1974). An approach to environmental psychology. MIT Press.
• Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd ed.). McGraw-Hill.
• Stokols, D. (1972). On the distinction between density and crowding: Some implications for future research. Psychological Review, 79(3), 275–277. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0032706

13. Items of the Scale