Product touch in the real and digital world: How do consumers react?

Journal of Business Research xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Business Research journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jbusres

Product touch in the real and digital world: How do consumers react? ⁎

Giovanni Pinoa, , Cesare Amatullib, Rajan Nataraajanc, Matteo De Angelisd, Alessandro M. Pelusoe, Gianluigi Guidoe a

Department of Economics, University of Chieti-Pescara, Italy Ionian Department of Law, Economics and Environment, University of Bari, Italy Departments of Marketing and Economics, Auburn University, USA d Department of Business and Management, LUISS Guido Carli University, Italy e Department of Management and Economics, University of Salento, Italy b c

A R T I C LE I N FO

A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Product touch Tactile-functional products Tactile feedback Ease of use Instrumental need for touch Vicarious touch

This research examines how touching (versus not touching) tactile-functional products—namely those that provide a tactile feedback related to their utilitarian characteristics—affects these products’ expected ease of use, as well as consumers’ attitudes and intentions toward them. Three experimental studies investigated these effects by focusing on consumer electronics. Study 1 shows that product touch positively affects consumer attitude toward tactile-functional products via an increase of said products’ expected ease of use. Study 2 reveals that such an effect is moderated by consumers’ instrumental need for touch, that is, their propensity to touch products for diagnostic reasons. Study 3 demonstrates that even the mere imagination of product touch (vicarious touch) can boost the expected ease of using tactile-functional products and consumers’ intentions toward them. Thus, traditional and online retailers should be aware of the importance of actual and imagined product touch when striving to effectively market such products.

1. Introduction Despite the continuous growth of online retailing, brick-and-mortar stores still play a relevant role in the modern economy. In the U.S., chain store sales rose to 3 million dollars in mid-2019, up from 2.6 million at the beginning of the same year (Trading Economics, 2019). Meanwhile, over 70% of U.S. consumers prefer to shop in physical stores because they like to touch products before making a purchase decision (Timetrade, 2017). Offline purchasing provides consumers with richer experiences whereby they can physically interact with products. Consequently, consumers are inclined to shop in environments that allow them to physically inspect products, especially those with relevant tactile properties (e.g., softness), such as clothing or carpeting (McCabe & Nowlis, 2003). Retail companies are aware that product touch is an essential component of in-store experiences and explicitly encourage consumers to touch their products (Williams & Ackerman, 2011). On the other hand, online stores may use specific functionalities (e.g., picture zooming) to elicit a sense of tactile contact with products—the so-called “haptic imagery” or “mentally simulated” product touch (Peck, Barger, & Webb, 2013)—and engender a favorable disposition toward their

products (Overmars & Poels, 2015). Meanwhile, the diffusion of touch interfaces may enhance consumers’ engagement with online shopping and significantly affect their purchase decisions (Chung, Kramer, & Wong, 2018). Past research noted that touching products increases consumers’ confidence in product evaluation, while the inability to touch may trigger frustration (e.g., Peck & Childers, 2003a). Nonetheless, it is still unclear how product touch affects consumers’ dispositions and intentions toward the products being touched, and whether the opportunity to touch (as compared to not touch) products can change consumers’ perceptions of product characteristics. The present research addresses this area of inquiry and predicts that the effect of product touch depends on the type of feedback consumers receive from the product being touched and on consumers’ chronic need for touch (hereafter, NFT). NFT reflects their general tendency to touch objects, or more specifically, their “preference for the extraction and the utilization of information obtained through the haptic system” (Peck & Childers, 2003b, p. 431). Our research focuses on tactile-functional products. A critical characteristic of such products is that, when touched, they provide consumers with information regarding their utilitarian features, such as

⁎

Corresponding author. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (G. Pino), [email protected] (C. Amatulli), [email protected] (R. Nataraajan), [email protected] (M. De Angelis), [email protected] (A.M. Peluso), [email protected] (G. Guido). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.10.002 Received 15 June 2019; Received in revised form 30 September 2019; Accepted 1 October 2019 0148-2963/ © 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Please cite this article as: Giovanni Pino, et al., Journal of Business Research, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.10.002

Journal of Business Research xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

G. Pino, et al.

firmness, size, maneuverability, or other technical qualities (Van Kerrebroeck, Willems, & Brengman, 2017). This category includes products such as consumer electronics, utensils, machinery, or even complex products such as vehicles and industrial equipment (Grohmann, Spangenberg, & Sprott, 2007). We hypothesize that touching (vs. not touching) a tactile-functional product (e.g., an electronic product) has a positive effect on consumers’ attitudes and intentions toward the product via an increased expectation that it is easy to use. Ease of use is one of the most relevant factors behind consumers’ adoption and use of technological products (Davis, 1989; Venkatesh, 2000). Importantly, we posit that this effect occurs even when consumers merely see a tactile-functional product being touched by another person and imagine that they are touching that product (hereafter, “vicarious” product touch). We argue that NFT may moderate the effect of tactile-functional product touch on expected ease of use. Notably, NFT encompasses two different dimensions: “instrumental” and “autotelic” (Peck & Childers, 2003b). The instrumental dimension captures consumers’ chronic desire to touch products for diagnostic, goal-oriented motivations (i.e., to better evaluate product properties such as weight or hardness, which often shape the final product assessment), while the autotelic dimension captures consumers’ chronic desire to touch products for hedonic motivations associated with the touch in and of itself (i.e., to experience fun, sensory stimulation and enjoyment). We propose that instrumental NFT only moderates the effect of product touch on the expected ease of using tactile-functional products, which, in turn, impacts consumers’ attitudes and purchase intentions. This research makes three main contributions to extant knowledge on actual and imagined touch. First, it contributes to the general literature on product touch (e.g., Peck & Childers, 2003a,b) by identifying expected ease of use as a relevant feedback activated by product touch. By exploring this particular response, we can explain how product touch shapes consumers’ attitudes and intentions toward such products. Second, our research contributes to the literature on haptic imagery (e.g., Peck et al., 2013) by demonstrating that such a reaction occurs not only when consumers have the opportunity to actually touch tactile-functional products, but also when they can just imagine themselves touching those products. Third, our research highlights that the effect of product touch on expected ease of use depends on instrumental NFT. Despite NFT’s bidimensionality, most research has treated it as a unidimensional predictor of consumers’ responses to product touch (Grohmann et al., 2007; Yazdamparast & Spears, 2013; Yoganathan, Osburg, & Akhtar, 2019). Our research comprised three experimental studies. Study 1 and Study 2 focused on real product touch and were conducted, respectively, in a store and in a laboratory setting. Study 3 focused on imagined product touch and was conducted online. The three studies adopted a between-subjects experimental design that exposed each respondent to only one treatment (Charness, Gneezy, & Kuhn, 2012). Compared to a within-subjects design, where the same respondent is exposed to several treatments, a between-subjects design helps reduce potential demand effects: namely, respondents’ tendency to adapt their behavior to what they think the experiment aims to prove (Geuens & De Pelsmacker, 2017). Such an approach allowed us to isolate the effect of product touch by comparing situations where product touch was either present or absent. Because even imagining the act of touching a product may trigger favorable attitudes toward it (Shen, Zhang, & Krishna, 2016), we also compared a situation in which individuals imagined themselves touching a tactile-functional product with a situation in which they only looked at the product. All our studies concentrated on consumer electronics, a product category that consumers naturally tend to evaluate via the sense of touch (Grohmann et al., 2007). Consumer electronics are a top-selling category for popular retailers, such as Amazon and Ebay, representing 17% of all items sold (Edison Trends, 2019). The market for these products is expected to grow annually by 1.2% (Statista, 2019a), with

the number of users potentially reaching over 2 billion by 2023 (Statista, 2019b). Because of the increasing competition among major players and the threats posed by new entrants (Global Market Insights, 2018), marketers may benefit from a deeper comprehension of the way consumers form their judgments about these products, both in physical and online stores. 2. Theoretical framework 2.1. Ease of use and tactile-functional products Consumer electronics are a relevant product category in many markets worldwide (Statista, 2019a). Their commercial success often depends on their perceived ease of use (Dabholkar & Bagozzi, 2002; Venkatesh, 2000): namely consumers’ expectation that using such products will be free of effort (Davis, 1989). Past research suggests that, while consumers typically form their perceptions about a product’s ease of use based on their general knowledge, they might later adjust such perceptions based on their “hands-on” experience with said product (Hamilton & Thompson, 2007). Indeed, as consumers gain more knowledge about and confidence with technological products through their direct experience with them, using those products requires increasingly less effort, which heightens their perceived ease of use (Kim, Lee, & Taylor, 2013; Kulviwat, Bruner II, & Neelankavil, 2014). For instance, consumers who have the opportunity to try a mobile TV may rate it as easier to use than consumers who do not have this opportunity (Soscia, Arbore, & Hofacker, 2011). This effect stems from the hands-on experience offered by the trial (Hamilton & Thompson, 2007; Murray & Häubl, 2007). Although touch represents a fundamental aspect of hands-on product experiences, no study has, to our knowledge, investigated whether touching electronic products engenders a sense of their ease of use. Yet, empirical evidence supports the idea of a positive relationship between touching such products and their expected ease of use. Schlosser (2003) showed that consumers visiting an online store tend to perceive the product being viewed (e.g., a digital camera) as easier to use when they are allowed to virtually touch it (e.g., by using the pointer to press one of its virtual buttons) than when they are not allowed to do so. Peck and Shu (2009) proved that being able to touch an object (relative to not being able to touch it) activates a sense of physical control over the object. Furthermore, available research suggests that electronic products that allow for tactile contact may be perceived as easy to use. For instance, Hewett, Togerson, and Douglas (2014) and Cooley et al. (2001) found that electronic devices with touch screens are considered more intuitive, accessible and easy to use than devices with traditional keypads. Electronics such as mobile phones and digital cameras are clear examples of tactile-functional products (Van Kerrebroeck et al., 2017): By touching them, consumers glean practical information and a deeper understanding of their functionalities (e.g., portability, technical complexity, robustness). Thus, given this reasoning, we predict that the act of touching such tactile-functional products positively affects consumers’ expectations about these products’ ease of use. Formally: H1. Touching (vs. not touching) a tactile-functional product increases the expected ease of using that product. 2.2. Mediating role of expected ease of use Building on previous studies, we speculate that the expected ease of use influences consumers’ attitudes toward tactile-functional products. Indeed, Kim and Forsythe (2009) observed that the perceived ease of using sensory enabling technologies—i.e., technologies that provide sensory inputs in the online shopping environment as a proxy of the sensory experience (e.g., 2D larger view, 3D rotation views, or virtual try-on)—favorably impacts consumers’ attitudes toward the displayed 2

Journal of Business Research xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

G. Pino, et al.

the autotelic dimension of NFT, functions as a moderator of the effect of product touch on expected ease of use. Formally:

products. Likewise, Siegenthaler, Bochuld, Wurtz, Schmid, and Bergamin (2012) suggest that electronic reading devices with a touch screen may allow for easier usage, which in turn promotes a better evaluation of the trial experience. These findings are consistent with previous studies, which documented a positive impact of ease of use on consumers’ attitudes toward technological products, such as virtual catalogs (Rese, Schreiber, & Baier, 2014), personal digital assistants (Nasco, Kulviwat, Kumar, & Bruner II, 2008), self-service machines (Dabholkar & Bagozzi, 2002), high-tech products in general (Lee, Ha, & Widdows, 2011), technology-based services such as mobile banking (Mohammadi, 2015), and retail websites (Elliott & Speck, 2005). Furthermore, ease of use was found to positively influence consumers’ intention to use a mobile application (Newman, Wachter, & White, 2018) and complete purchases on a website (e.g., Lynch, Kent, & Srinivasan, 2001). Hence, based on these findings, we hypothesize that touching tactile-functional electronic products increases the expected ease of using them, which then fosters positive attitudes and intentions toward such products. Formally:

H3. Instrumental NFT (but not autotelic NFT) moderates the effect of product touch on expected ease of use, whereby the effect holds for consumers with a higher level of instrumental NFT, but not for those with a lower level of instrumental NFT. 2.4. Vicarious product touch and expected ease of use Inducing consumers to imagine that they are touching products, rather than allowing them to make physical contact with them, may activate a mentally simulated haptic contact (Peck et al., 2013) and a sense of imagined ownership of those products (Peck & Shu, 2009). Past research has noted that the visual representation of objects can lead people to imagine that they are interacting with them (Tucker & Ellis, 1998). This is because images can recreate a perceptual experience, even in the absence of actual contact (Finke, 1989). For instance, there is evidence that the visual depiction of products—in tandem with cues that evoke their consumption (e.g., a fork beside food and oriented toward the viewer’s dominant hand)—can trigger mentally simulated consumption experiences (Elder & Krishna, 2012), which can then influence consumers’ behavioral intentions. Available research has proven that viewing and virtually touching a product on a touch screen can foster a sense of psychological ownership of said product and enhance consumer willingness to pay for it (Brasel & Gips, 2014). Touch screens may also foster engagement with the shopping experience, trigger positive affect, and induce consumers to buy a product (Chung et al., 2018). Moreover, touch interfaces may prompt consumers to mentally interact with the displayed products (i.e., imagining themselves using the products), which may, in turn, encourage consumers to choose those products (Shen et al., 2016). Even functionalities that enable consumers to interact with a product using non-touch interfaces (e.g., the mouse), such as picture zooming and dragging, can elicit tactile sensations that have a positive effect on consumers’ diagnostic judgments (Overmars & Poels, 2015; Petit, Velasco, & Spence, 2019). Globally considered, such findings led us to suppose that the mere visual representation of tactile contact with a product might elicit a vicarious tactile experience. This phenomenon has been highlighted in neuro-psychological research, which has found that individuals tend to experience tactile sensations when they see someone else being touched or touching something (the so-called mirror-touch synesthesia; Banissy & Ward, 2007; Keysers, Kaas, & Gazzola, 2010), but it has received little attention so far in marketing research. Thus, to advance knowledge on this topic, we predict that vicarious product touch can work like actual product touch and trigger expectations that tactile-functional products are easy to use, which then affect consumers’ purchase intention. Formally:

H2. Touching (vs. not touching) a tactile-functional product has a positive effect on consumers’ attitudes (H2a) and intentions (H2b) toward that product via expected ease of use. 2.3. Moderating role of NFT NFT captures consumer preference for acquiring and using information obtained through the sense of touch (Peck & Childers, 2003b) and affects the formation of individuals’ product evaluations. High NFT individuals tend to evaluate a product more favorably when they have the chance to touch it (Grohmann et al., 2007). However, when there is no chance to touch products, price promotions can compensate high NFT individuals for the lack of touch and increase their confidence in their product judgment (Yazdamparast & Spears, 2013). Recent research indicates that NFT may also influence consumers’ reactions to a product’s packaging design and texture (Serhal, Pantin-Sohier, & Peck, 2018). Instrumental and autotelic NFT—that is, consumers’ tendency to touch objects for diagnostic and hedonic reasons, respectively—may differentially impact consumer responses to touching tactile-functional products, but there is still little evidence for such differential effects. A number of studies on consumer response to product touch have focused on the autotelic dimension of NFT. According to these studies, marketing messages incorporating pleasing touch elements are more persuasive to consumers with a higher autotelic NFT, as they are more attracted to touch elements providing positive sensory feedback (e.g., sense of warmth or softness; Peck & Wiggins, 2006). Relatedly, consumers with a higher autotelic NFT are more likely to become attached to products with pleasing haptic properties and, by extension, to evaluate those products positively (Atakan, 2014). Recent studies have concentrated on the effect of NFT in online environments. Such studies found that consumers with a higher NFT tend to react more favorably to an ethical brand’s statement that primes tactile sensations (Yoganathan et al., 2019). Furthermore, these studies found that consumers with a higher autotelic NFT tend to experience greater enjoyment from “touching” food products displayed on touch interfaces (De Vries, Jager, Tijssen, & Zandstra, 2018), and that instrumental NFT may affect consumers’ search for product information online (Rodríguez-Torrico, San José Cabezudo, & San-Martín, 2017). Nonetheless, the role of instrumental NFT in consumer response to real product touch has received limited attention. Furthermore, there is a need to study the two NFT dimensions simultaneously in order to understand whether they differently affect consumers’ attitudes and intentions toward the products being touched. We attempt to fill this gap by hypothesizing that the positive effect of product touch on consumers’ responses to tactile-functional products via expected ease of use holds for consumers with a higher (vs. lower) instrumental NFT. In other words, we predict that the instrumental dimension, rather than

H4. Vicarious product touch has a positive effect on consumers’ intention to buy a tactile-functional product via expected ease of use. The overall framework of the research is represented in Fig. 1. 3. Method This research tested the proposed hypotheses through three distinct studies by using an experimental approach (Morales, Amir, & Lee, 2017; Zellmer-Bruhn, Caligiuri, & Thomas, 2016). We examined samples drawn from three different populations, in three different research settings (a physical store, a laboratory, and an online environment), and used three different tactile-functional electronic products. We embraced such an approach in order to increase the generalizability of our results and the robustness of our conclusions. The three studies were designed as between-subjects experiments (Charness et al., 2012) with a minimum of thirty participants for each 3

Journal of Business Research xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

G. Pino, et al.

4. Study 1 Instrumental NFT

Study 1 tested H1’s prediction that touching a tactile-functional product, compared to not touching it, increases consumers’ expectations about the ease of using that product. Furthermore, it tested H2a’s prediction that product touch positively influences consumers’ attitudes toward the product being touched via a greater expected ease of use. We used a digital camera in the experiment, as it represents a frequently purchased electronic item (Statista, 2019b) and is thus familiar to a large number of consumers. We selected a new, medium-priced model of digital camera with a conventional design and feature set, and hence an average aesthetic appeal. At the time of the study, that digital camera was sold in a consumer electronics store that allowed us to utilize such a product to conduct the experiment. We hid both the brand name and price tag to avoid potential biases in consumers’ responses.

Expected ease of use

Attitude toward the product (Study 1) Purchase intention (Studies 2 and 3)

Product touch (absent vs. present)

Fig. 1. Research framework.

experimental condition (Jennings & McLean, 2013; Sekaran & Bougie, 2016). A between-subjects design exposes each participant to only one experimental treatment, thus reducing the likelihood that participants figure out the experiment’s real goal (Geuens & De Pelsmacker, 2017). Hence, in our experimental studies, each participant was exposed to either a “touch-absent” or a “touch present” condition. Each study randomly assigned participants to one of the experimental conditions and then compared the groups’ reactions. Such an approach allowed us to isolate the effect of product touch (real or vicarious) on consumer expectations and intentions. Study 1 employed a 2-cell (product touch: absent vs. present) between-subjects design. It was conducted in a real consumption context—a consumer electronic store in central Italy—with a random sample of customers. The study implemented a one-way ANOVA to test whether touching (vs. not touching) a digital camera increases its expected ease of use (H1). Also, the study implemented a mediation analysis (MacKinnon, 2008) to test whether such an expectation, in turn, improves consumers’ attitudes toward the product being touched (H2a). Study 2 employed a 2 (product touch: absent vs. present) × 2 (instrumental NFT: low vs. high) between-subjects design. It was conducted in a laboratory at an Italian university with a random sample of students. Like any laboratory study, our Study 2’s findings are weaker than Study 1’s in terms of external validity, because they are not easily generalizable to real shopping situations, but they are stronger in terms of internal validity. As more controllable environments (Knemeyer & Walker Naylor, 2011), laboratories enable researchers to exclude a number of confounding factors that are typically present in real consumption contexts—e.g., other customers, the store ambience, prices, etc. As regards this research, a laboratory setting seemed more suitable than a field setting to investigate respondents’ intentions. In a field setting, like a physical store, respondents may perceive some pressure to conclude a transaction (d’Astous, 2000), which may significantly influence their responses. The study implemented a mediation analysis to test whether touching (vs. not touching) a calculator increases the expected ease of using this product, and whether such an expectation, in turn, increases consumers’ intention to buy it (H2b). In addition, the study implemented a moderated mediation analysis (Preacher, Rucker, & Hayes, 2007) to assess whether this effect is more likely to occur for consumers with a higher (vs. lower) instrumental NFT (H3). Study 3 employed a 2-cell (imagined product touch: absent vs. present) between-subjects design. Because this study aimed to investigate consumer response to vicarious product touch, it was conducted online with a random sample of consumers recruited from a crowdsourcing platform. The study implemented a mediation analysis to test whether vicariously touching (vs. not touching) a tablet computer increases the expected ease of using this product, and whether such an expectation, in turn, increases the intention to buy it (H4). We focused on consumer electronics, as consumers typically touch them to glean the devices’ functionalities and understand how easy it is to use them (Van Kerrebroeck et al., 2017). The following sections describe each study’s method and results in detail.

4.1. Procedure Ninety-seven real shoppers (MAge = 38 years, SD = 15.32, 40% males) participated in a 2-cell between-subjects study that manipulated opportunity to touch a product (absent vs. present). The gender structure of this sample was in line with official statistics of the Italian population (ISTAT, 2018). A confederate, who was blind to the study’s goals, randomly approached participants in the selected consumer electronics store. The confederate told them that they were contributing to a study on consumers’ impressions about electronic products, and then showed them the selected model of digital camera. The confederate was instructed to randomly allow about half of the participants to just look at the product without touching it (touch-absent condition) and the other half to touch the product for a minimum of thirty seconds (touch-present condition). Notably, the confederate did not allow participants in the latter condition to demo the product (e.g., by turning it on/off or using software applications) in order to avoid potential confounds deriving from real product usage. Afterward, the confederate administered an online questionnaire (see the first three scales in the appendix) to all participants using a tablet computer. The questionnaire included two Likert scales (Allen & Seaman, 2007; Boone & Boone, 2012) and a semantic differential scale (Dimitrov, 2014; Wilson, 2018). Participants first rated their feeling of ownership toward the digital camera using two items drawn from Peck and Shu (2009) and assessed on a seven-point scale (e.g., “I feel like this is my digital camera,” “I feel like I own this digital camera,” 1 = Strongly disagree, 7 = Strongly agree; r = 0.91). Next, they rated their impression of the camera’s ease of use, using five items drawn from Davis (1989) and assessed on a seven-point scale (e.g., “I think that the digital camera is easy to use,” 1 = Strongly disagree, 7 = Strongly agree; α = 0.95). Then, they rated their attitudes toward the digital camera, using two items assessed on a seven-point semantic differential scale derived from prior studies (Atakan, Bagozzi, & Yoon, 2014; Rajagopal & Burnkrant, 2008; 1 = bad/negative, 7 = good/positive; r = 0.75). After completing the questionnaire, participants were thanked and debriefed. 4.2. Results Following an established procedure (Igbaria, Zinatelli, Cragg, & Cavaye, 1998; Saadé & Bahli, 2005), we created an aggregate measure of psychological ownership, expected ease of use, and attitude toward the camera by averaging the scores from the respective items. Then, we used a one-way ANOVA (Field, 2013) to assess statistically significant differences in the measured variables between the two experimental conditions. Consistent with H1, the analysis revealed that participants in the touch-present condition perceived the digital camera as easier to use (M = 5.60, SD = 1.26) than those in the touch-absent condition (M = 5.00, SD = 1.39), F(1, 95) = 4.80, p = 0.03. The results did not change substantially when we controlled for psychological ownership. 4

Journal of Business Research xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

G. Pino, et al.

completing the questionnaire, the students were thanked and debriefed.

4.2.1. Mediating role of expected ease of use To assess whether product touch exerted an indirect effect on participants’ product attitude via expected ease of use, we implemented a mediation analysis using Hayes' (2018) PROCESS macro (Model 4). A mediation analysis assesses whether a predictor variable has an effect upon another variable via a third intervening variable; in this way, it aims to explain how the predictor affects the dependent variable (Frazier, Tix, & Barron, 2004; MacKinnon, 2008). In our analysis, expected ease of use served as the mediator of the relationship between product touch (coded as a binary variable taking value −1 when participants did not touch the product and 1 when they touched it) and product attitude. By regressing expected ease of use on product touch, we found a significant and positive effect of product touch on expected ease of use (b = 0.30, t(95) = 2.19, p = 0.03). Next, by regressing participants’ attitude toward the digital camera on expected ease of use, while controlling for the potential effect of product touch, we found that expected ease of use exerted a significant and positive effect on participants’ attitudes (b = 0.26, t(94) = 2.62, p = 0.01). Product touch had a significant and positive indirect effect on participants’ attitudes toward the product via expected ease of use (b = 0.08, 95% confidence interval: 0.01, 0.22). Thus, consistent with H2a, this analysis showed that product touch positively affects consumers’ attitudes toward the tested tactile-functional product via expected ease of use.

5.2. Results We created aggregate measures of psychological ownership, expected ease of use, purchase intention, instrumental NFT and autotelic NFT by averaging the scores from the respective items. Again, we used a one-way ANOVA to assess statistically significant differences in the measured variables between the two experimental conditions. The analysis revealed that participants in the touch-present condition perceived the calculator as easier to use (M = 5.21, SD = 1.39) than those in the touch-absent condition (M = 4.54, SD = 1.42), F(1, 98) = 5.71, p = 0.02. The results did not change substantially when we controlled for psychological ownership. 5.2.1. Mediating role of expected ease of use To assess whether product touch exerted an indirect effect on participants’ purchase intentions via expected ease of use, we implemented a mediation analysis (MacKinnon, 2008) using Hayes' (2018) PROCESS macro (Model 4). In our analysis, expected ease of use served as a potential mediator of the relationship between product touch (coded as a binary variable taking value −1 when participants did not touch the product and 1 when they did) and purchase intention. By regressing expected ease of use on product touch, we found a significant and positive effect of product touch on expected ease of use (b = 0.34, t (98) = 2.39, p = 0.02). Next, by regressing participants’ purchase intentions on expected ease of use, while controlling for the potential effect of product touch, we found that expected ease of use exerted a significant and positive effect on purchase intention (b = 0.26, t (97) = 2.65, p = 0.01). Product touch had a significant and positive indirect effect on purchase intention via expected ease of use (b = 0.09, 95% confidence interval: 0.02, 0.22). Thus, consistent with H2b, this analysis showed that product touch positively affects consumers’ intentions to buy the tested tactile-functional product via expected ease of use.

5. Study 2 Study 2 tested H2b’s prediction that touching a tactile-functional product, compared to not touching it, increases consumers’ purchase intentions via expected ease of use. Furthermore, it tested H3’s prediction that consumers with a higher instrumental NFT are especially responsive to product touch because of the moderating role of instrumental NFT. As participants in this study were undergraduate students, we used a calculator as the product stimulus—our rationale being that people typically touch calculators for diagnostic reasons and students are normally familiar with them. We procured a new, medium-priced calculator with a standard design sold in a local store. We hid the device’s brand name and removed the price tag to avoid biasing participants’ responses.

5.2.2. Moderating role of instrumental NFT To assess whether the effect of product touch on expected ease of use varies depending on individuals’ instrumental NFT, we implemented a moderation analysis using Hayes' (2018) PROCESS macro (Model 1). This analysis tests whether an independent variable’s effect on a dependent variable varies as a function of a third variable, i.e., the moderator (Fairchild & MacKinnon, 2009). In our study, instrumental NFT served as the moderator of the relationship between product touch (coded as a binary variable as above) and expected ease of use. By regressing expected ease of use on product touch, on participants’ instrumental NFT (as a continuous and mean-centered variable), and on their interaction, we found a significant main effect of product touch (b = 0.34, t(96) = 2.47, p = 0.02) on expected ease of use. Such an effect was qualified by a significant interaction between product touch and instrumental NFT (b = 0.38, t(96) = 3.00, p < 0.01). We probed this interaction more closely by looking at the conditional effects of product touch on expected ease of use at low (M – 1SD) and high (M + 1SD) levels of instrumental NFT. Product touch did not affect expected ease of use when participants had a lower instrumental NFT (p > 0.60). In contrast, the effect of product touch on expected ease of use was significant and positive when participants had a higher instrumental NFT (b = 0.75, t(96) = 3.87, p < 0.01). To confirm the predicted moderation, we implemented the JohnsonNeyman floodlight technique (Spiller, Fitzsimons, Lynch, & McClelland, 2013). This technique identifies the values of the moderator (instrumental NFT) for which the effect of the predictor (product touch) on the dependent variable (expected ease of use) is significant. The results revealed that such an effect was significant for values of participants’ (mean centered) instrumental NFT higher than −0.17 (bJN = 0.27, SE = 0.14, p = 0.05; Fig. 2). We repeated the analysis using autotelic

5.1. Procedure One hundred undergraduate students (MAge = 23 years, SD = 2.30, 62% males) participated in a 2-cell between-subjects study that manipulated opportunity to touch a product (absent vs. present) and used instrumental NFT as a measured moderator. The sample’s mean age was in line with the average age of the overall Italian student population (AlmaLaurea, 2018). A research assistant approached students on a university campus and asked them to participate in a laboratory experiment ostensibly about consumers’ product impressions. Participants entered the laboratory one at a time. The experimenter introduced the study and then invited each participant to either look at the calculator (touch-absent condition) or to touch it for a minimum of thirty seconds, albeit without turning it on/off and hence using it (touch-present condition). Afterward, participants completed the same measures of psychological ownership (r = 0.83) and expected ease of use (α = 0.93) as in Study 1. Furthermore, they reported their purchase intentions using two items, assessed on a seven-point scale, derived from Borges and Gomez (2015) (“I will probably purchase the test product,” “I would buy that product”; 1 = Strongly disagree, 7 = Strongly agree; r = 0.66). Finally, following the same approach as in previous studies (see Peck & Childers, 2003a), we had the students participate in a seemingly unrelated study in which they first performed a filler task and then completed the instrumental NFT (α = 0.88) and autotelic NFT (α = 0.80) scales by Peck and Childers (2003b) (see Appendix). After 5

Journal of Business Research xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

G. Pino, et al.

Fig. 2. Conditional effect of product touch on expected ease of use at all levels of instrumental NFT (as a mean centered variable).

Fig. 3. Stimuli used in Study 3.

0.41). Hence, consistent with H2b, this analysis confirmed that product touch positively affects consumers’ intention to buy the tested tactilefunctional product via expected ease of use. Furthermore, consistent with H3, this analysis showed that such an effect holds only among consumers with a higher instrumental NFT, who are more inherently motivated to touch products for diagnostic reasons.

NFT as a moderator. However, as predicted in H3, we observed no significant interaction between product touch and autotelic NFT (p > 0.15). Therefore, we excluded autotelic NFT from the subsequent analysis. Furthermore, we repeated the analysis using psychological ownership as a covariate, but the results did not significantly change. 5.2.3. Moderated mediation analysis To assess whether the indirect effect of product touch on purchase intention, via expected ease of use, was stronger for individuals with higher instrumental NFT, we implemented a moderated mediation analysis using Hayes' (2018) PROCESS Macro (Model 7). This analysis assesses whether a mediating process that explains the relationship between an independent variable and a dependent variable varies in intensity or direction as a function of a moderator (Preacher et al., 2007). In our study, expected ease of use served as the mediator of the relationship between product touch (as a binary variable coded as above) and purchase intention, while instrumental NFT (as a continuous and mean-centered variable) served as the moderator of the relationship between product touch and expected ease of use. The moderated mediation analysis yielded a significant and positive index of moderated mediation (b = 0.10, 95% confidence interval: 0.03, 0.23), thus suggesting that the conditional indirect effects estimated at different values of the moderator were significantly different from each other (Hayes, 2015). We observed that, when participants had a lower instrumental NFT (M – 1SD), that indirect effect was not significant (zero fell in the 95% confidence interval). In contrast, when participants had a higher instrumental NFT (M + 1SD), the indirect effect of product touch on purchase intention, via expected ease of use, was significant and positive (b = 0.20, 95% confidence interval: 0.07,

6. Study 3 Study 3 tested H4’s prediction that inducing consumers to imagine that they are touching a tactile-functional product (vicarious product touch) increases the product’s expected ease of use and, consequently, consumers’ intention to buy it. To this end, the study focused on consumer exposure to the visual representation of tactile contact with an electronic product, particularly a tablet computer, which is another relevant typology of tactile-functional product (Statista, 2019c). We used two pictures of the same unbranded tablet computer: one featuring only the product (touch-absent condition; Fig. 3A) and the other featuring the product being touched by human hands (touchpresent condition; Fig. 3B). We chose this technique based on past research showing that people can achieve a mentally simulated consumption experience by viewing human hands touching a product (Elder & Krishna, 2012; Katz, 1989; Klatzky, Lederman, & Matula, 1991). We purposely refrained from showing the entire person in order to avoid any actor-related confounds (e.g., physical attractiveness, facial expression). Considering that participants only received a visual stimulus, we did not investigate a possible moderating effect of instrumental NFT in this study. 6

Journal of Business Research xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

G. Pino, et al.

Table 1 Results summary. Hyp.

Study

Relationship tested

Outcome

H1 H2a H2b H3 H4

1 2 2 2 3

Product touch → Expected ease of use Product touch → Expected ease of use → Product attitude Product touch → Expected ease of use → Purchase intention Product touch × Instrumental NFT → Expected ease of use Vicarious Product touch → Expected ease of use → Purchase intention

Supported Supported Supported Supported Supported

by regressing participants’ purchase intentions on expected ease of use, while controlling for the potential effect of vicarious product touch (coded as above), we found that expected ease of use exerted a significant and positive effect on participants’ purchase intentions (b = 0.76, t(80) = 4.97, p < 0.01). Importantly, we found that vicarious product touch had a significant and positive indirect effect on purchase intention via expected ease of use (b = 0.26, 95% confidence interval: 0.10, 0.50). Thus, consistent with H4, this analysis showed that vicarious product touch positively affects consumers’ intention to buy the tested tactile-functional product via expected ease of use.

6.1. Procedure Eighty-three U.S. respondents (MAge = 36, SD = 13.67, 53% males) participated in a 2-cell between-subjects study that manipulated vicarious product touch (absent vs. present). Participants were recruited on the Amazon Mechanical Turk crowdsourcing platform. Samples drawn from this platform are considered to be at least as representative of the U.S. population as other subject pools and their demographic characteristics match the U.S. population’s characteristics more closely than student samples (Goodman & Paolacci, 2017; Paolacci, Chandler, & Ipeirotis, 2010). Participants were presented with either the picture featuring only the tablet computer (touch-absent condition) or the picture of the same tablet computer being touched by human hands (touch-present condition). After looking at the picture for a twenty seconds, participants indicated the extent to which they imagined themselves touching the product, using one item assessed on a seven-point scale (i.e., “The picture makes me imagine myself with that product in my hands”; 1 = Strongly disagree, 7 = Strongly agree). This measure served as our manipulation check. Next, participants rated their sense of psychological ownership toward the tablet computer (r = 0.81) and the expected ease of using it (α = 0.93), alongside their intention to purchase that product (r = 0.82). Participants completed these measures using seven-point scales (1 = Strongly disagree, 7 = Strongly agree).

7. Results summary The three studies described above supported our hypotheses (see Table 1). Study 1 confirmed that merely touching a tactile-functional product, compared to not touching it, can increase the expected ease of using that product. Such an expectation, in turn, engenders a positive attitude toward the product. Study 2 demonstrated that touching a tactile-functional product also enhances the intention to buy that product via an increase in its expected ease of use. However, such an effect is observable only among consumers with a higher (vs. lower) instrumental NFT, who have a higher tendency to touch products to inspect their material properties (Peck & Childers, 2003b). In contrast, autotelic NFT has no role in this relationship. Study 3 illustrated that even a vicarious product touch situation, in which consumers merely see a tactile-functional product being touched by another person, can increase their expected ease of using the product. Such an expectation, in turn, positively influences consumers’ intention to buy the product. This study suggests that the mere view of another person touching a tactilefunctional product generates a “mirror-touch” effect, which leads consumers to mentally simulate tactile sensations (Keysers et al., 2010). Importantly, the effects that mirror touch exerts—whether directly on individuals’ expectations and indirectly on their intentions toward the product—seem comparable to those exerted by real product touch on individuals’ expectations and intentions.

6.2. Results We created aggregate measures of psychological ownership, expected ease of use, and purchase intention by averaging the scores from the respective items. Like in the previous studies, we used a one-way ANOVA to assess statistically significant differences in the measured variables between the two experimental conditions. The analysis revealed that participants in the vicarious touch-present condition were more able to visualize themselves touching the tablet computer (M = 5.28, SD = 1.45) than those in the vicarious touch-absent condition (M = 4.61, SD = 1.50), F(1, 81) = 4.24, p = 0.04. This result confirmed that our manipulation elicited a vicarious tactile contact in participants’ minds. Another one-way ANOVA revealed that participants in the vicarious touch-absent condition reported a lower expected ease of use (M = 5.40, SD = 1.29) compared to those in the touch-present condition (M = 6.08, SD = 0.73), F(1, 81) = 8.39, p < 0.01. The results did not change substantially when we controlled for psychological ownership.

8. General discussion This research demonstrated that allowing consumers to touch a product, as well as inducing them to imagine they are touching it, enhances their product attitudes and purchase intentions. Our studies offer three main contributions to the literature on product touch. First, they demonstrate that merely touching a product with the opportunity for diagnostic and utilitarian tactile feedback (tactile-functional) increases the product’s expected ease of use. Past research documented that touching products impacts consumers’ overall evaluation of the product being touched (Grohmann et al., 2007) and may foster a sense of psychological ownership toward it (Peck & Shu, 2009). More recent studies have concentrated on touch interfaces (e.g., tablet computers) and found that “touching” products on these devices may similarly increase the desire to own them (Brasel & Gips, 2014). These interfaces trigger higher engagement than traditional devices (e.g., mice) and positive affective responses, which then affect consumer decisions (Chung et al., 2018). Likewise, a remote (i.e., computer-mediated) interaction with a product may affect consumers’ diagnostic judgments of that product (Overmars & Poels, 2015; Schlosser, 2003). However,

6.2.1. Mediating role of expected ease of use To assess whether vicarious product touch exerted an indirect effect on participants’ purchase intentions via expected ease of use, we implemented a mediation analysis (MacKinnon, 2008) using Hayes' (2018) PROCESS macro (Model 4). In this analysis, expected ease of use served as the mediator of the impact of vicarious product touch (coded as a binary variable taking value −1 when participants did not imagine that they were touching the product and 1 when they did) on purchase intention. By regressing expected ease of use on vicarious product touch, we observed a significant and positive effect of vicarious product touch on expected ease of use (b = 0.34, t(81) = 2.90, p < 0.01). Next, 7

Journal of Business Research xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

G. Pino, et al.

facilitate tactile interactions and the formation of positive expectations about the ease of using them. In this respect, even a product’s packaging might play an important role by influencing consumers’ product expectations and experiences (Spence, 2018). These tactics could increase the likelihood that consumers, especially those high in instrumental NFT, would find tactile-functional products easy to use and potentially purchasable.

available research has never proven that merely touching tactile-functional products affects consumers’ expectations of the products’ ease of use. Our studies demonstrate that, by triggering such an expectation, product touch indirectly affects consumers’ attitudes and intentions. In this respect, past research (Grohmann et al., 2007) found that the impact of product touch on consumers’ attitudes is mediated by a positive affective response (i.e., feelings of pleasure), whereas our research offers evidence for a cognitive (diagnostic) mechanism (i.e., expected ease of use). Importantly, this research revealed that the above-illustrated effects occur not only when consumers have the opportunity to actually touch the product, but also when they can only imagine that they are touching it. The research on touch interfaces indicates that such devices influence the formation of consumers’ attitudes and intentions because they promote mental product interaction (Shen et al., 2016) and a positive affective response (Chung et al., 2018) through simulated product touch. However, our research shows that even the mere view of product touch elicits tactile sensations in viewers, likely because of the so-called “mirror touch synesthesia” (Banissy & Ward, 2007). Such a form of multisensory stimulation affects consumers’ expectations and intentions toward a tactile-functional product in the same way as actual product touch does. These findings contribute to the emerging literature on imagined product touch—or “haptic imagery” (Peck et al., 2013)—by showing that the visual representation of the tactile contact with a (tactile-functional) product activates a vicarious tactile experience in viewers’ minds (Keysers & Gazzola, 2009). In other words, our results indicate that, because of a sort of mirroring mechanism, consumers exposed to a visual representation of product touch imagine themselves touching a tactile-functional product and have the same diagnostic and intentional reactions as consumers who actually touch that product. Finally, this research sheds light on the effect of instrumental NFT on consumers’ responses to product touch. Past work has often examined NFT as a unidimensional construct (e.g., Grohmann et al., 2007; Yazdamparast & Spears, 2013) or focused only on its autotelic dimension (e.g., Atakan, 2014; Overmars & Poels, 2015). Instead, our research proves that instrumental (but not autotelic) NFT moderates the positive effect of product touch on consumers’ intentions toward tactile-functional products.

10. Limitations and future research The results of this research remained consistent across different experimental settings (i.e., field, laboratory, and online settings), tactile-functional products (i.e., digital cameras, calculators, and tablet computers), and samples of respondents drawn from different populations and different countries (i.e., real customers of an Italian electronic store, students at an Italian university, and U.S. consumers recruited on the Internet). Nonetheless, we remain cautious about the generalizability of our conclusions. Therefore, we first call for future studies to extend our results to other electronic products, such as printers or laptops. Furthermore, as we only considered consumer electronics as instances of tactile-functional products (Van Kerrebroeck et al., 2017), future studies could test whether our results hold for other types of tactile-functional products, such as utensils or appliances. Future studies could also explore if our results vary across different types of physical and online stores. Second, our studies examined samples of consumers extracted from Western countries; therefore, future studies could concentrate on different cultural contexts. Such studies could, for instance, consider samples of Eastern consumers. Compared to Western consumers, who tend to process information in a more analytical manner, Eastern consumers are more inclined to process information in a holistic manner (Hildebrand, Harding, & Hadi, 2019); as such, these consumers may be less motivated to touch products for diagnostic reasons. Future studies could also compare different age groups in order to explore possible age-related differences in consumer response to product touch. For instance, older consumers might be particularly inclined to touch products because of a greater reliance on sensory feedback in the wake of reduced cognitive abilities (Gilly, Wolfinbarger Celsi, & Jensen Schau, 2012; Yoon et al., 2005). Third, because past research (Yazdamparast & Spears, 2013) has found that price promotions can compensate high NFT consumers for the lack of product touch, it would be interesting to know if such a marketing tactic can also affect consumers’ attitudes and intentions toward tactile-functional products, as well as their expectations about such products’ ease of use. On the other hand, it would be interesting to assess whether consumers’ general skepticism about advertising messages (Obermiller, Spangenberg, & MacLachlan, 2005) may negatively affect their expectations about a product’s ease of use or heighten their need to touch products in order to form their own decisions.

9. Managerial implications Our results have relevant implications for marketers and retailers interested in improving their customers’ attitudes and purchase intentions. In line with previous studies (Grohmann et al., 2007; McCabe & Nowlis, 2003), our research suggests that allowing consumers to touch tactile-functional products helps in both regards. On a deeper level, our research suggests that consumers might want to touch tactile-functional products to gain a better idea of product functionality (Van Kerrebroeck et al., 2017). Therefore, based on our findings, retailers might consider allowing consumers to touch tactile-functional products (e.g., consumer electronics)—for instance, by reducing physical barriers to touching this type of product (e.g., showcases)—to bolster their expected ease of use. By increasing such an expectation, product touch could improve consumers’ product evaluations and possibly their buying intentions. The present research also features important implications for ecommerce, given our finding that vicarious product touch can positively affect consumers’ purchase intentions in online shopping contexts. Because exposing consumers to touch-evoking product images triggers effects comparable to those deriving from actual product touch, online retailers might use such pictures to trigger vicarious tactile experiences and increase virtual store traffic and sales (Overmars & Poels, 2015; Petit et al., 2019). Manufacturers and retailers could leverage instrumental NFT in their marketing tactics. To this end, the sales force could encourage consumers to physically interact with the items. Furthermore, manufacturers could design tactile-functional products in such a way as to

Appendix. Measurement scales Psychological ownership (based on Peck & Shu, 2009) (Items anchored at 1 = “Strongly disagree” and 7 = “Strongly agree”) 1. I feel like the test product is mine. 2. I feel like I own the test product. Expected ease of use (based on Davis, 1989) (Items anchored at 1 = “Strongly disagree” and 7 = “Strongly agree”) 1. I think that the test product is easy to use. 2. I would have no difficulty using that product. 3. I would find it simple to use that product. 8

Journal of Business Research xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

G. Pino, et al.

4. Learning to use that product would be easy for me. 5. It would be easy for me to become skillful at using that product.

Chung, S., Kramer, T., & Wong, E. (2018). Do touch interface users feel more engaged? The impact of input device type on online shoppers’ engagement, affect, and purchase decisions. Psychology & Marketing, 35(11), 795–806. Cooley, P. C., Rogers, S. M., Turner, C. F., Al-Tayyib, A. A., Willis, G., & Ganapathi, L. (2001). Using touch screen audio-CASI to obtain data on sensitive topics. Computers in Human Behavior, 17(3), 285–293. Dabholkar, P. A., & Bagozzi, R. P. (2002). An attitudinal model of technology-based selfservice: Moderating effects of consumer traits and situational factors. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 30(3), 184–201. d’Astous, A. (2000). Irritating aspects of the shopping environment. Journal of Business Research, 49(2), 149–156. Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319–340. De Vries, R., Jager, G., Tijssen, I., & Zandstra, E. H. (2018). Shopping for products in a virtual world: Why haptics and visuals are equally important in shaping consumer perceptions and attitudes. Food Quality and Preference, 66, 64–75. Dimitrov, D. M. (2014). Statistical methods for validation of assessment scale data in counseling and related fields. Hoboken (USA): John Wiley & Sons. Edison Trends (2019). These were 2018’s top selling product categories at Amazon and eBay. Retrieved from: https://medium.com/edison-discovers/these-were-2018s-topselling-product-categories-at-amazon-and-ebay-1c8a5c62d49c, Accessed date: 2 April 2019. Elder, R. S., & Krishna, A. (2012). The ʻvisual depiction effect' in advertising: Facilitating embodied mental simulation through product orientation. Journal of Consumer Research, 38(6), 988–1003. Elliott, M. T., & Speck, P. S. (2005). Factors that affect attitude toward a retail web site. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 13(1), 40–51. Fairchild, A. J., & MacKinnon, D. P. (2009). A general model for testing mediation and moderation effects. Prevention Science, 10(2), 87–99. Field, A. (2013). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics. Thousand Oaks (USA): Sage. Finke, R. A. (1989). Level of equivalence in imagery and perception. Psychological Review, 87(2), 113–132. Frazier, P. A., Tix, A. P., & Barron, K. E. (2004). Testing moderator and mediator effects in counseling psychology research. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 51(1), 115–134. Geuens, M., & De Pelsmacker, P. (2017). Planning and conducting experimental advertising research and questionnaire design. Journal of Advertising, 46(1), 83–100. Gilly, M. C., Wolfinbarger Celsi, M., & Jensen Schau, H. (2012). It don’t come easy: Overcoming obstacles to technology use within a resistant consumer group. Journal of Consumer Affairs, 46(1), 62–89. Global Market Insights (2018). Consumer electronics market to hit $1,500bn by 2024. Retrieved from: https://www.globenewswire.com/news-release/2018/01/29/ 1313412/0/en/Consumer-Electronics-Market-to-hit-1-500bn-by-2024-GlobalMarket-Insights-Inc.html, Accessed date: 16 July 2019. Goodman, J. K., & Paolacci, G. (2017). Crowdsourcing consumer research. Journal of Consumer Research, 44(1), 196–210. Grohmann, B., Spangenberg, E. R., & Sprott, D. E. (2007). The influence of tactile input on the evaluation of retail product offerings. Journal of Retailing, 83(2), 237–245. Hamilton, R. W., & Thompson, D. V. (2007). Is there a substitute for direct experience? Comparing consumers’ preferences after direct and indirect product experiences. Journal of Consumer Research, 34(4), 546–555. Hayes, A. F. (2015). An index and test of linear moderated mediation. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 50(1), 1–22. Hayes, A. (2018). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional processing analysis. New York (USA): The Guilford Press. Hewett, R., Torgerson, C., & Douglas, G. (2014). Accessibility of Apple iPad for partially sighted users: Pilot study. Journal of Assistive Technologies, 8(1), 2–13. Hildebrand, D., Harding, R. D., & Hadi, R. (2019). Culturally contingent cravings: How holistic thinking influences consumer responses to food appeals. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 29(1), 39–59. Igbaria, M., Zinatelli, N., Cragg, P., & Cavaye, A. L. (1997). Personal computing acceptance factors in small firms: A structural equation model. MIS Quarterly, 21(3), 279–305. ISTAT (2018). Popolazione e famiglie. Retrieved from: https://www.istat.it/it/files// 2018/12/C03.pdf, Accessed date: 20 July 2019. Jennings, L. E., & McLean, K. C. (2013). Storying away self-doubt: Can narratives dispel threats to the self? Journal of Research in Personality, 47(4), 317–329. Katz, D. (1989). The world of touch. Hillsdale (USA): Erlbaum. Keysers, C., & Gazzola, V. (2009). Expanding the mirror: Vicarious activity for actions, emotions, and sensations. Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 19(6), 666–671. Keysers, C., Kaas, J., & Gazzola, V. (2010). Somatosensation in social perception. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 11, 417–428. Kim, J., & Forsythe, S. (2009). Adoption of sensory enabling technology for online apparel shopping. European Journal of Marketing, 43(9/10), 1101–1120. Kim, J., Lee, K. H., & Taylor, C. R. (2013). Effects of mobile direct experience on perceived interactivity and attitude toward smartphone applications. Journal of Global Scholars of Marketing Science: Bridging Asia and the World, 23(3), 282–296. Klatzky, R., Lederman, S. J., & Matula, D. E. (1991). Imagine haptic exploration in judgments of object properties. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 17(2), 314–322. Knemeyer, A. M., & Walker Naylor, R. (2011). Using behavioral experiments to expand our horizons and deepen our understanding of logistics and supply chain decision making. Journal of Business Logistics, 32(4), 296–302. Kulviwat, S., Bruner, G. C., II, & Neelankavil, J. P. (2014). Self-efficacy as an antecedent of cognition and affect in technology acceptance. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 31(3), 190–199. Lee, S., Ha, S., & Widdows, R. (2011). Consumer responses to high-technology products: Product attributes, cognition, and emotions. Journal of Business Research, 64(11),

Attitude toward the test product (based on Atakan et al., 2014; Rajagopal & Burnkrant, 2008) (Items anchored at 1 and 7) My opinion about the test product is… 1. negative/positive. 2. bad/good. Intention to buy the test product (based on Borges & Gomez, 2015) (Items anchored at 1 = “Strongly disagree” and 7 = “Strongly agree”) 1. I will probably purchase the test product. 2. I would buy that product. Need for Touch (based on Peck & Childers, 2003b) (Items anchored at 1 = “Strongly disagree” and 7 = “Strongly agree”) Instrumental dimension 1. I place more trust in products that can be touched before purchase. 2. I feel more comfortable purchasing a product after physically examining it. 3. If I can’t touch a product in the store, I am reluctant to purchase the product. 4. I feel more confident making a purchase after touching a product. 5. The only way to make sure a product is worth buying is to actually touch it. 6. There are many products that I would only buy if I could handle them before purchase. Autotelic dimension 1. When walking through stores, I can’t help touching all kinds of products. 2. Touching products can be fun. 3. When browsing in stores, it is important for me to handle all kinds of products. 4. I like to touch products even if I have no intention of buying them. 5. When browsing in stores, I like to touch lots of products. 6. I find myself touching all kinds of products in stores. References AlmaLaurea (2018). Rapporti 2018 sul profilo e sulla condizione occupazionale dei laureati. Retrieved from: https://www.almalaurea.it/sites/almalaurea.it/files/docs/ universita/profilo/profilo2018/cs_almalaurea_rapporti_2018.pdf, Accessed date: 28 July 2019. Allen, I. E., & Seaman, C. A. (2007). Likert scales and data analyses. Quality Progress, 40(7), 64–65. Atakan, S. (2014). Consumer response to product construction: The role of haptic stimulation. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 38(6), 586–592. Atakan, S. S., Bagozzi, R. P., & Yoon, C. (2014). Consumer participation in the design and realization stages of production: How self-production shapes consumer evaluations and relationships to products. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 31(4), 395–408. Banissy, M. J., & Ward, J. (2007). Mirror-touch synesthesia is linked with empathy. Nature Neuroscience, 10(7), 815–816. Boone, H. N., & Boone, D. A. (2012). Analyzing likert data. Journal of Extension, 50(2), 1–5. Borges, A., & Gomez, P. (2015). How products induce regulatory fit: Evidence from the health domain. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 32(6), 441–449. Brasel, A., & Gips, J. (2014). Tablets, touchscreens, and touchpads: How varying touch interfaces trigger psychological ownership and endowment. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 24(2), 226–233. Charness, G., Gneezy, U., & Kuhn, M. A. (2012). Experimental methods: Between-subject and within-subject design. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 81(1), 1–8.

9

Journal of Business Research xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

G. Pino, et al.

Statista (2019a). Consumer electronics. Retrieved from: https://www.statista.com/ outlook/15000000/109/consumer-electronics/united-states, Accessed date: 20 July 2019. Statista (2019b). Electronics & media worldwide. Retrieved from: https://www.statista. com/outlook/245/100/electronics-media/worldwide, Accessed date: 20 July 2019. Statista (2019c). Consumer electronics report 2019. Retrieved from: https://www. statista.com/study/55488/consumer-electronics-market-report, Accessed date: 20 July 2019. Timetrade (2017). The state of retail 2017. Retrieved from: https://www.timetrade.com/ resource/state-retail-report-2017, Accessed date: 16 February 2019. Trading Economics (2019). United States chain store sales. Retrieved from: https:// tradingeconomics.com/united-states/chain-store-sales, Accessed date: 31 July 2019. Tucker, M., & Ellis, R. (1998). On the relations between seen objects and components of potential actions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 24(3), 830–846. Van Kerrebroeck, H., Willems, K., & Brengman, M. (2017). Touching the void: Exploring consumer perspectives on touch-enabling technologies in online retailing. International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, 45(7/8), 892–909. Venkatesh, V. (2000). Determinants of perceived ease of use: Integrating control, intrinsic motivation, and emotion into the technology acceptance model. Information Systems Research, 11(4), 342–365. Williams, L., & Ackerman, J. (2011). Please touch the merchandise. Harvard Business Review. Retrieved from: https://hbr.org/2011/12/please-touch-the-merchandise, Accessed date: 16 February 2019. Wilson, A. (2018). Marketing research. London (UK): MacMillan. Yazdamparast, A., & Spears, N. (2013). Can consumers forgo the need to touch products? An Investigation of nonhaptic situational factors in an online context. Psychology and Marketing, 30(1), 46–61. Yoganathan, V., Osburg, V. S., & Akhtar, P. (2019). Sensory stimulation for sensible consumption: Multisensory marketing for e-tailing of ethical brands. Journal of Business Research, 96, 386–396. Yoon, C., Laurent, G., Fung, H. H., Gonzalez, R., Gutchess, A. H., Hedden, T., ... Skurnik, I. (2005). Cognition, persuasion and decision making in older consumers. Marketing Letters, 16(3–4), 429–441. Zellmer-Bruhn, M., Caligiuri, P., & Thomas, D. C. (2016). From the editors: Experimental designs in international business research. Journal of International Business Studies, 47(4), 399–407.

1195–1200. Lynch, P. D., Kent, R. J., & Srinivasan, S. S. (2001). The global internet shopper: Evidence from shopping tasks in twelve countries. Journal of Advertising Research, 41(4), 15–23. MacKinnon, D. (2008). Introduction to statistical mediation analysis. New York (USA): Routledge. McCabe, D. B., & Nowlis, S. M. (2003). The effect of examining actual products or product descriptions on consumer preference. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 13(4), 431–439. Mohammadi, H. (2015). A study of mobile banking loyalty in Iran. Computers in Human Behavior, 44, 35–47. Morales, A. C., Amir, O., & Lee, L. (2017). Keeping it real in experimental research–Understanding when, where, and how to enhance realism and measure consumer behavior. Journal of Consumer Research, 44(2), 465–476. Murray, K. B., & Häubl, G. (2007). Explaining cognitive lock-in: The role of skill-based habits of use in consumer choice. Journal of Consumer Research, 34(1), 77–88. Nasco, S. A., Kulviwat, S., Kumar, A., & Bruner, G. C., II (2008). The CAT model: Extensions and moderators of dominance in technology acceptance. Psychology & Marketing, 25(10), 987–1005. Newman, C. L., Wachter, K., & White, A. (2018). Bricks or clicks? Understanding consumer usage of retail mobile apps. Journal of Services Marketing, 32(2), 211–222. Obermiller, C., Spangenberg, E., & MacLachlan, D. L. (2005). Ad skepticism: The consequences of disbelief. Journal of Advertising, 34(3), 7–17. Overmars, S., & Poels, K. (2015). A touching experience: Designing for touch sensations in online retail environments. International Journal of Design, 9(3), 17–31. Paolacci, G., Chandler, J., & Ipeirotis, P. G. (2010). Running experiments on Amazon Mechanical Turk. Judgment and Decision Making, 5(5), 411–419. Peck, J., Barger, V. A., & Webb, A. (2013). In search of a surrogate for touch: The effect of haptic imagery on perceived ownership. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 23(2), 189–196. Peck, J., & Childers, T. L. (2003a). To have and to hold: The influence of haptic information on product judgments. Journal of Marketing, 67(2), 35–48. Peck, J., & Childers, T. L. (2003b). Individual differences in haptic information processing: The ʻNeed for Touch’ scale. Journal of Consumer Research, 30(3), 430–442. Peck, J., & Shu, S. (2009). The effect of mere touch on perceived ownership. Journal of Consumer Research, 36(3), 434–447. Peck, J., & Wiggins, J. (2006). It just feels good: Customers’ affective response to touch and its influence on persuasion. Journal of Marketing, 70(4), 56–69. Petit, O., Velasco, C., & Spence, C. (2019). Digital sensory marketing: Integrating new technologies into multisensory online experience. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 45, 42–61. Preacher, K. J., Rucker, D. D., & Hayes, A. F. (2007). Addressing moderated mediation hypotheses: Theory, methods, and prescriptions. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 42(1), 185–227. Rajagopal, P., & Burnkrant, R. E. (2008). Consumer evaluations of hybrid products. Journal of Consumer Research, 36(2), 232–241. Rese, A., Schreiber, S., & Baier, D. (2014). Technology acceptance modeling of augmented reality at the point of sale: Can surveys be replaced by an analysis of online reviews? Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 21(5), 869–876. Rodríguez-Torrico, P., San José Cabezudo, R., & San-Martín, S. (2017). Tell me what they are like and I will tell you where they buy. An analysis of omnichannel consumer behavior. Computers in Human Behavior, 68, 465–471. Saadé, R., & Bahli, B. (2005). The impact of cognitive absorption on perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use in on-line learning: An extension of the technology acceptance model. Information & Management, 42(2), 317–327. Schlosser, A. E. (2003). Experiencing products in the virtual world: The role of goal and imagery in influencing attitudes versus purchase intentions. Journal of Consumer Research, 30(2), 184–198. Sekaran, U., & Bougie, R. (2016). Research methods for business: A skill building approach. Hoboken (USA): John Wiley & Sons. Serhal, R., Pantin-Sohier, G., & Peck, J. (2018). Packaging texture and shape as enhancers for brand positioning: The moderating role of Need for Touch (NFT): An abstract. Academy of Marketing Science Annual Conference (pp. 281–282). Cham (Switzerland): Springer. Shen, H., Zhang, M., & Krishna, A. (2016). Computer interfaces and the “Direct-Touch” effect: Can iPads increase the choice of hedonic food? Journal of Marketing Research, 53(5), 745–758. Siegenthaler, E., Bochuld, Y., Wurtz, P., Schmid, L., & Bergamin, P. (2012). The effects of touch screen technology on the usability of e-reading devices. Journal of Usability Studies, 7(3), 94–104. Soscia, I., Arbore, A., & Hofacker, C. (2011). The impact of trial on technology adoption: The case of mobile TV. Journal of Research in Interactive Marketing, 5(2/3), 226–238. Spence, C. (2018). Tactile/Haptic aspects of multisensory packaging design. In C. Velasco, & C. Spence (Eds.). Multisensory packaging (pp. 127–159). Cham (Switzerland): Palgrave. Spiller, S. A., Fitzsimons, G. J., Lynch, J. G., Jr, & McClelland, G. H. (2013). Spotlights, floodlights, and the magic number zero: Simple effects tests in moderated regression. Journal of Marketing Research, 50(2), 277–288.

Giovanni Pino is an assistant professor of marketing at the University of Chieti-Pescara, Italy and a former lecturer in marketing at the University of Portsmouth, UK. His research activity focuses on consumers’ responses to technological innovations, sustainable consumption behavior, and marketing communications. He has published several articles in international peer-reviewed journals, such as Journal of Business Research, Journal of Advertising Research, and Marketing Letters. Cesare Amatulli is an associate professor of marketing at the University of Bari “Aldo Moro”, Italy. He has been Visiting Professor at LUISS University, Italy, and Visiting Researcher at the Ross School of Business, USA, and at the University of Hertfordshire, UK. He has published several articles in major international scholarly journals such as Journal of Consumer Research, International Marketing Review, and Journal of Business Research. Rajan Nataraajan retired from Auburn University in 2018 after serving as a professor of marketing and consumer economics for three decades. Since then he has been a freelance professor doing academic stints across the globe. He is also the executive editor of the well-known journal Psychology & Marketing. Matteo De Angelis is an associate professor of marketing at LUISS University, Italy, and has been a Visiting Scholar at Kellogg School of Management and Visiting Professor at the University of Wisconsin, USA. His articles have been published in several leading marketing journals such as Journal of Marketing Research, Journal of Consumer Research, International Journal of Research in Marketing, and Journal of Business Research. Alessandro M. Peluso is an associate professor of business management at the University of Salento, Lecce, Italy. His research activity mainly focuses on consumer behavior, sustainable consumption, and social communications. He has published three research monographs and several articles in international peer-reviewed journals, such as Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Marketing Research, International Journal of Research in Marketing, Journal of Business Research, and Journal of Business Ethics. Gianluigi Guido is a full professor of marketing at the Department of Management and Economics of the University of Salento, Lecce, Italy. He is the author of more than 200 articles on consumer behavior and marketing strategies published in renowned international scholarly journals.

10