Journal of the Korean Society of Clothing and Textiles (한국의류학회지)

The Korean Society of Clothing and Textiles (한국의류학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Touch Effect of Mental Simulation in Online Fashion Shopping -The Role of Instrumental and Autotelic Needs for Touch-

  • Lee, Ha Kyung (Dept. of Textiles, Merchandising and Fashion Design, Seoul National University) ;
  • Choi, Dooyoung (Dept. of STEM Education and Professional Studies, Old Dominion University)
  • Received : 2021.02.22
  • Accepted : 2021.03.31
  • Published : 2021.04.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

This study investigates the effects of the interplay of device types and the need for touch (NFT) on product attitudes and determines how the mental simulation of touch mediates such relationships. Specifically, we test the roles of instrumental and autotelic NFT in the moderated mediation effect of mental simulation of touch. We instructed the potential participants to shop for a leather jacket on a webpage. With a total of 152 data points from the responses of participants who used a laptop and a touch device that uses a direct-touch interface (e.g., tablets), we conducted descriptive statistics, analysis of variance, and PROCESS procedures using SPSS 20.0. The results show a greater mental simulation for touch when using a touch device than a laptop. When individuals' instrumental NFT is low, using a touch device while shopping online heightens mental simulation of touch, which impacts product attitudes. In particular, such a moderated mediation effect strengthens as the value of individuals' autotelic NFT increases. However, when individuals' instrumental NFT is high, a touch device cannot drive mental simulation for touch, increasing favorable attitudes toward the product.

Keywords

Acknowledgement

This work was supported by the Ministry of Education of the Republic of Korea and the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF-2017S1A5B5A01025566).

References

  1. Atakan, S. S. (2014). Consumer response to product construction: the role of haptic stimulation. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 38(6), 586-592. doi:10.1111/ijcs.12121
  2. Bagozzi, R. P., & Yi, Y. (1988). On the evaluation of structural equation models. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 16(1), 74-94. doi:10.1007/BF02723327
  3. Barsalou, L. W. (2008). Grounded cognition. Annual Review of Psychology, 59, 617-645. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.59.103006.093639
  4. Brasel, S. 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. doi:10.1016/j.jcps.2013.10.003
  5. Brasel, S. A., & Gips, J. (2015). Interface psychology: Touchscreens change attribute importance, decision criteria, and behavior in online choice. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 18(9), 534-538. doi:10.1089/cyber.2014.0546
  6. Cho, S., & Workman, J. (2011). Gender, fashion innovativeness and opinion leadership, and need for touch: Effects on multichannel choice and tough/non-touch preference in clothing shopping. Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management, 15(3), 363-382. doi:10.1108/13612021111151941
  7. Chung, S., Kramer, T., & Wong, E. M. (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. doi: 10.1002/mar.21135
  8. Citrin, A. V., Stem Jr., D. E., Spangenberg, E. R., & Clark, M. J. (2003). Consumer need for tactile input: An internet retail- ing challenge. Journal of Business Research, 56(11), 915-922. doi:10.1016/S0148-2963(01)00278-8
  9. Davis, M. L. (1996). Visual design in dress (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
  10. Diehl, K., van Herpen, E., & Lamberton, C. (2015). Organizing products with complements versus substitutes: Effects on store preferences as a function of effort and assortment perceptions. Journal of Retailing, 91(1), 1-18. doi:10.1016/j.jretai.2014.10.003
  11. Duarte, P., & e Silva, S. C. (2020). Need-for-touch and online purchase propensity: A comparative study of Portuguese and Chinese consumers. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 55:102122. doi:10.1016/j.jretconser.2020.102122
  12. Elder, R. S., & Krishna, A. (2012). The "visual depiction effect" in advertising: Facilitating embodied mental simulation through product orientation. Journal of Consumer Research, 38 (6), 988-1003. doi:10.1086/661531
  13. Escalas, J. E. (2004). Imagine yourself in the product: Mental simulation, narrative transportation, and persuasion. Journal of Advertising, 33(2), 37-48. doi:10.1080/00913367.2004.10639163
  14. Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Buchner, A., & Lang, A.-G. (2009). Statistical power analyses using G*Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behavior Research Methods, 41(4), 1149-1160. doi:10.3758/BRM.41.4.1149
  15. Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A.-G., & Buchner, A. (2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39(2), 175-191. doi:10.3758/BF03193146
  16. Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39-50. doi:10.1177/002224378101800104
  17. 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. doi:10.1016/j.jretai.2006.09.001
  18. Hair, J. F. Jr., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2010). Multivariate data analysis (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.
  19. Hattula, J., Herzog, W., & Ravi, D. (2017). When touch interfaces boost consumer confidence: the role of instrumental need for touch. In A. Gneezy, V. Griskevicius, & P. Williams (Eds.), NA - Advances in Consumer Research Vol. 45 (pp. 25-30). Duluth, MN: Association for Consumer Research.
  20. Hirschman, E. C., & Holbrook, M. B. (1982). Hedonic consumption: Emerging concepts, methods and propositions. Journal of Marketing, 46(3), 92-101. doi:10.1177/002224298204600314
  21. Holbrook, M. B., & Hirschman, E. C. (1982). The experiential aspects of consumption: Consumer fantasies, feelings, and fun. Journal of Consumer Research, 9(2), 132-140. doi:10.1086/208906
  22. Joreskog, K. G. (1971). Simultaneous factor analysis in several populations. Psychometrika, 36(4), 409-426. doi:10.1007/BF02291366
  23. Lee, H. K., & Ahn, S. (2018). The effect of recommended product presentation on consumers' usage intentions of a website-Focusing on the mediating roles of mental simulation-. Journal of the Korean Society of Clothing and Textiles, 42 (6), 977-987. doi:10.5850/JKSCT.2018.42.6.977
  24. Lee, S.-H., Workman, J. E., & Jung, K. (2017). The influence of need for touch and gender on Internet shopping attitudes among Korean consumers. International Journal of Fashion Design, Technology and Education, 10(2), 230-239. doi:10.1080/17543266.2016.1250287
  25. Liu, Y., Jiang, Z., & Chan, H. C. (2019). Touching products virtually: Facilitating consumer mental imagery with gesture control and visual presentation. Journal of Management Information Systems, 36(3), 823-854. doi:10.1080/07421222.2019.1628901
  26. Manzano, R., Gavilan, D., Ferran, M., Avello, M., & Abril, C. (2016). Autotelic and instrumental need for touch: Searching for and purchasing apparel online. International Journal of Economics & Management Sciences, 5(2):322. doi:10.4172/2162-6359.1000322
  27. Markman, K. D., Klein, W. M. P., & Suhr, J. A. (Eds.). (2009). Handbook of imagination and mental simulation. New York, NY: Psychology Press.
  28. 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. doi:10.1207/S15327663JCP1304_10
  29. Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
  30. 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. doi:10.1016/j.jcps.2012.09.001
  31. Peck, J., & Childers, T. L. (2003). Individual differences in haptic information processing: The "Need for Touch" scale. Journal of Consumer Research, 30(3), 430-442. doi:10.1086/378619
  32. Peck, J., & Childers, T. L. (2006). If I touch it I have to have it: Individual and environmental influences on impulse purchasing. Journal of Business Research, 59(6), 765-769. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2006.01.014
  33. Peck, J., & Shu, S. B. (2009). The effect of mere touch on perceived ownership. Journal of Consumer Research, 36(3), 434-447. doi:10.1086/598614
  34. 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. doi:10.1509/jmkg.70.4.056
  35. Pino, G., Amatulli, C., Nataraajan, R., De Angelis, M., Peluso, A. M., & Guido, G. (2020). Product touch in the real and digital world: How do consumers react? Journal of Business Research, 112, 492-501. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.10.002
  36. Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40(3), 879-891. doi:10.3758/BRM.40.3.879
  37. Ranaweera, A. T., Martin, B. A. S., & Jin, H. S. (2021). What you touch, touches you: The influence of haptic attributes on consumer product impressions. Psychology & Marketing, 38(1), 183-195. doi:10.1002/mar.21433
  38. Rathee, R., & Rajain, P. (2019). Online shopping environments and consumer's Need for Touch. Journal of Advances in Management Research, 16(5), 814-826. doi:10.1108/JAMR-12-2018-0116
  39. Schifferstein, H. N. J. (2006). The perceived importance of sensory modalities in product usage: A study of self-reports. Acta Psychologica, 121(1), 41-64. doi:10.1016/j.actpsy.2005.06.004
  40. Shen, H., & Sengupta, J. (2012). If you can't grab it, it won't grab you: The effect of restricting the dominant hand on target evaluations. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48(2), 525-529. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2011.11.003
  41. 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
  42. Silva, S. C., Rocha, T. V., De Cicco, R., Galhanone, R. F., & Manzini Ferreira Mattos, L. T. (2021). Need for touch and haptic imagery: An investigation in online fashion shopping. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 59:102378. doi: 10.1016/j.jretconser.2020.102378
  43. Spence, C., & Gallace, A. (2011). Multisensory design: Reaching out to touch the consumer. Psychology & Marketing, 28(3), 267-308. doi:10.1002/mar.20392
  44. Underhill, P. (2009). Why we buy: The science of shopping--Updated and revised for the Internet, the global consumer and beyond. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster Paperbacks.
  45. Voorhees, C. M., Brady, M. K., Calantone, R., & Ramirez, E. (2016). Discriminant validity testing in marketing: an analysis, causes for concern, and proposed remedies. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 44(1), 119-134. doi:10.1007/s11747-015-0455-4
  46. Wang, X., Keh, H. T., Zhao, H., & Ai, Y. (2020). Touch vs. click: how computer interfaces polarize consumers' evaluations. Marketing Letters, 31(2-3), 265-277. doi:10.1007/s11002-020-09516-w
  47. Workman, J. E. (2010). Fashion consumer groups, gender, and need for touch. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 28 (2), 126-139. doi:10.1177/0887302X09356323
  48. Workman, J. E., & Caldwell, L. F. (2007). Centrality of visual product aesthetics, tactile and uniqueness needs of fashion consumers. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 31 (6), 589-596. doi:10.1111/j.1470-6431.2007.00613.x
  49. Workman, J. E., & Cho, S. (2013). Gender, fashion consumer group, need for touch and Korean apparel consumers' shopping channel preference. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 37(5), 522-529. doi:10.1111/ijcs.12017
  50. 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. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.06.005
  51. Youn, S.-y., Lee, J. E., & Ha-Brookshire, J. (2021). Fashion consumers' channel switching behavior during the COVID-19: Protection motivation theory in the extended planned behavior framework. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 39 (2), 139-156. doi:10.1177/0887302X20986521
  52. Zhu, Y., & Meyer, J. (2017). Getting in touch with your thinking style: How touchscreens influence purchase. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 38, 51-58. doi:10.1016/j.jretconser.2017.05.006