Science of Emotion and Sensibility (감성과학)

Korean Society for Emotion and Sensibility (한국감성과학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Get It Closer: Effect of the Approach-Avoidance Experience on Attitude through a Touchscreen Device

터치스크린을 통한 접근-회피 경험이 태도에 미치는 영향

  • Received : 2019.04.26
  • Accepted : 2019.05.31
  • Published : 2019.06.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

The touchscreen device is now commonly found in the form of mobile phones, tablet PCs, and other devices. Varied physical and visual experiences can be experienced through touchscreens. This study intended to explore how the physical and visual experiences provided by the touchscreen would affect people through their existing associations of behavior-attitude. Previous studies have found that certain behaviors affect attitudes. In particular, the approach-avoidance behavior has been noted to influence both social and personal attitudes. It was thus deemed necessary to ascertain the approach-avoidance effect exerted by touchscreens on the attitudes of users as the technology is widely used today. Experiment 1 provided an approach-avoidance experience via a touchscreen and demonstrated that touchscreen-based approach-avoidance dragging behavior on the touchscreen can affect a user's preference and purchase intent. It was found that a product that had been approached showed both higher preference and higher purchase intent than a product that had been avoided. Experiment 2 investigated whether a similar effect would occur when only the visual experience of approach-avoidance was provided. The outcome proved that products that had been visually approached had higher scores than products that had been avoided, both in terms of preference and purchase intent. The movement of the arm on the touchscreen (Experiment 1) and the visual perception of the approach-avoidance experience (Experiment 2) were both shown to influence participants' attitudes toward products. The results of this study suggest that the behavior and perception of users may be an important factor in designing touchscreen interfaces for online shopping.

현재 터치스크린은 핸드폰, 태블릿 PC 등 다양한 디바이스에 활용되고 있으며, 사람들은 터치스크린을 통해 다양한 동작과 시각적 경험을 하게 되었다. 본 연구에서는 터치스크린이 제공하는 동작, 시각적 경험이 기존 행동-태도의 연합으로 인해 사람들에게 어떤 영향을 미칠 수 있을지 알아보고자 하였다. 선행 연구들은 특정 행동이 사람들의 태도에 영향을 미친다고 주장하였고, 특히 접근-회피 행동은 다양한 방면에서 사람들이 사회적, 개인적으로 기존에 가지고 있던 태도에 영향을 주는 것으로 알려져 있다. 터치스크린에서의 동작은 접근-회피 경험을 가능하게 하므로 이 행동이 사람들의 태도에 어떤 영향을 미치는지 살펴볼 필요가 있다. 실험1에서는 터치스크린에서의 드래그 동작과 접근-회피 행동을 연합시킨 후, 제품에 대한 선호도와 구매의향을 살펴보았다. 그 결과, 접근 드래그를 했던 제품이 회피 드래그를 했던 제품보다 선호도와 구매의향 모두 높은 것으로 나타났다. 실험2에서는 행동을 배제한 접근-회피의 시각적 경험만을 제공하였을 때도 동일한 효과가 발생하는지 살펴보고자 하였다. 그 결과, 시각적으로 접근했던 제품이 회피했던 제품보다 선호도와 구매의향 모두 동일하게 높은 것으로 드러났다. 터치스크린에서의 팔의 움직임(실험1)과 접근-회피 경험의 지각(실험2)이 사람들의 제품에 대한 태도에 영향을 준다는 것을 알 수 있었다. 이는 모바일 혹은 온라인 쇼핑 상황에서 터치스크린 인터페이스 디자인 설계에 사람들의 행동과 지각이 중요하게 고려되어야 할 요소임을 제시한다.

Keywords

References

  1. Cacioppo, J. T., Priester, J. R., & Berntson, G. G. (1993). Rudimentary determinants of attitudes: II. Arm flexion and extension have differential effects on attitudes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65(1), 5. DOI: 10.1037/0022-3514.65.1.5
  2. Cano, M. B., Perry, P., Ashman, R., & Waite, K. (2017). The influence of image interactivity upon user engagement when using mobile touch screens. Computers in Human Behavior, 77, 406-412. DOI: 10.1016/j.chb.2017.03.042
  3. Chandler, J. J., Reinhard, D., & Schwarz, N. (2012). To judge a book by its weight you need to know its content: Knowledge moderates the use of embodied cues. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48(4), 948-952. DOI: 10.1016/j.jesp.2012.03.00
  4. Chen, M., & Bargh, J. A. (1999). Consequences of automatic evaluation: Immediate behavioral predispositions to approach or avoid the stimulus. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25(2), 215-224. DOI: 10.1177/0146167299025002007
  5. Forster, J. (2003). The influence of approach and avoidance motor actions on food intake. European Journal of Social Psychology, 33(3), 339-350. DOI: 10.1002/ejsp.150
  6. Forster, J., & Strack, F. (1997). Motor actions in retrieval of valenced information: A motor congruence effect. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 85(3_suppl), 1419-1427. DOI: 10.2466/pms.1997.85.3f.1419
  7. Huijding, J., Muris, P., Lester, K. J., Field, A. P., & Joosse, G. (2011). Training children to approach or avoid novel animals: Effects on self-reported attitudes and fear beliefs and information-seeking behaviors. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 49(10), 606-613. DOI: 10.1016/j.brat.2011.06.005
  8. Kawakami, K., Phills, C. E., Steele, J. R., & Dovidio, J. F. (2007). (Close) distance makes the heart grow fonder: Improving implicit racial attitudes and interracial interactions through approach behaviors. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92(6), 957. DOI: 10.1037/0022-3514.92.6.957
  9. Kawakami, K., Steele, J. R., Cifa, C., Phills, C. E., & Dovidio, J. F. (2008). Approaching math increases math= me and math= pleasant. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44(3), 818-825. DOI: 10.1016/j.jesp.2007.07.009
  10. Kraus, A. A., & Hofmann, W. (2014). Getting in touch with motivation: The swipe approach-avoidance procedure (SwAAP): Indirect procedures for the measurement of approach-avoidance motivation, manuscript for publication, 176-195.
  11. Kim, Y. (2016). [Focus] The desktop is falling, the tablet is rising... ([Focus] 데스크톱 지고 태블릿 뜨고...). PC Market. Midas, 2016(1), 82-83.
  12. Kim, J. (2012). Introduction to human computer interaction: Principles and methods for UX innovation (Human computer interaction 개론: UX innovation을 위한 원리와 방법), Angraphics. 79-80.
  13. Kwon, M., & Adaval, R. (2017). Going against the Flow: The Effects of Dynamic Sensorimotor Experiences on Consumer Choice. Journal of Consumer Research, 44(6), 1358-1378. DOI: 10.1093/jcr/ucx107
  14. Laham, S. M., Kashima, Y., Dix, J., & Wheeler, M. (2015). A meta-analysis of the facilitation of arm flexion and extension movements as a function of stimulus valence. Cognition and Emotion, 29(6), 1069-1090. DOI: 10.1080/02699931.2014.968096
  15. Macy, J. T., Chassin, L., Presson, C. C., & Sherman, J. W. (2015). Changing implicit attitudes toward smoking: results from a web-based approach-avoidance practice intervention. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 38(1), 143-152. DOI: 10.1007/s10865-014-9585-2
  16. Neumann, R., & Strack, F. (2000). Approach and avoidance: The influence of proprioceptive and exteroceptive cues on encoding of affective information. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79(1), 39. DOI: 10.1037/0022-3514.79.1.39
  17. Neumann, R., Forster, J., & Strack, F. (2003). Motor compatibility: The bidirectional link between behavior and evaluation. The psychology of evaluation: Affective processes in cognition and emotion, 371-391.
  18. Niedenthal, P. M., Barsalou, L. W., Winkielman, P., Krauth-Gruber, S., & Ric, F. (2005). Embodiment in attitudes, social perception, and emotion. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 9(3), 184-211. DOI: 10.1207/s15327957pspr0903_1
  19. Osugi, T., & Kawahara, J. I. (2018). Effects of Head Nodding and Shaking Motions on Perceptions of Likeability and Approachability. Perception, 47(1), 16-29. DOI:10.1177/0301006617733209
  20. Priester, J. R., Cacioppo, J. T., & Petty, R. E. (1996). The influence of motor processes on attitudes toward novel versus familiar semantic stimuli. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22(5), 442-447. DOI: 10.1177/0146167296225002
  21. Ren, H., Kang, H., Ryu, S., & Han, K. (2017). The Effects of Swiping Orientation on Preference and Willingness to Pay: The Interaction Between Touch Interface and Need-For-Touch. Science of Emotion & Sensibility, 20(4), 65-78. DOI: 10.14695/KJSOS.2017.20.4.65
  22. Rinck, M., & Becker, E. S. (2007). Approach and avoidance in fear of spiders. Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry, 38(2), 105-120. DOI: 10.1016/j.jbtep.2006.10.001
  23. Rougier, M., Muller, D., Ric, F., Alexopoulos, T., Batailler, C., Smeding, A., & Aube, B. (2018). A new look at sensorimotor aspects in approach/avoidance tendencies: The role of visual whole-body movement information. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 76, 42-53. DOI: 10.1016/j.jesp.2017.12.004
  24. Schonberg, T., Bakkour, A., Hover, A. M., Mumford, J. A., Nagar, L., Perez, J., & Poldrack, R. A. (2014). Changing value through cued approach: an automatic mechanism of behavior change. Nature Neuroscience, 17(4), 625. DOI: 10.1038/nn.3673
  25. 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. DOI: 10.1509/jmr.14.0563
  26. Solarz, A. K. (1960). Latency of instrumental responses as a function of compatibility with the meaning of eliciting verbal signs. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 59(4), 239. DOI: 10.1037/h0047274
  27. Sundar, R., Balaji, A. N., & Kumar, R. S. (2014). A review on lean manufacturing implementation techniques. Procedia Engineering, 97, 1875-1885. DOI: 10.1016/j.proeng.2014.12.341
  28. Tom, G., Pettersen, P., Lau, T., Burton, T., & Cook, J. (1991). The role of overt head movement in the formation of affect. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 12(3), 281-289. DOI: 10.1207/s15324834basp1203_3
  29. Van Dessel, P., Hughes, S., & De Houwer, J. (2018). How do actions influence attitudes? An inferential account of the impact of action performance on stimulus evaluation. Personality and Social Psychology Review. DOI:10.1177/1088868318795730
  30. Woud, M. L., Becker, E. S., & Rinck, M. (2008). Implicit evaluation bias induced by approach and avoidance. Cognition and Emotion, 22(6), 1187-1197. DOI: 10.1080/02699930801906843