Browse > Article
http://dx.doi.org/10.5850/JKSCT.2021.45.2.376

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)
Publication Information
Journal of the Korean Society of Clothing and Textiles / v.45, no.2, 2021 , pp. 376-389 More about this Journal
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
Touch effect; Mental simulation; Need for touch; Product attitudes; Fashion online retailer;
Citations & Related Records
연도 인용수 순위
  • Reference
1 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   DOI
2 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   DOI
3 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   DOI
4 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   DOI
5 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   DOI
6 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   DOI
7 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   DOI
8 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   DOI
9 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   DOI
10 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   DOI
11 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   DOI
12 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   DOI
13 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   DOI
14 Joreskog, K. G. (1971). Simultaneous factor analysis in several populations. Psychometrika, 36(4), 409-426. doi:10.1007/BF02291366   DOI
15 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   DOI
16 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   DOI
17 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   DOI
18 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   DOI
19 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   DOI
20 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   DOI
21 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.
22 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   DOI
23 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   DOI
24 Markman, K. D., Klein, W. M. P., & Suhr, J. A. (Eds.). (2009). Handbook of imagination and mental simulation. New York, NY: Psychology Press.
25 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.
26 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   DOI
27 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   DOI
28 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   DOI
29 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   DOI
30 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   DOI
31 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   DOI
32 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   DOI
33 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   DOI
34 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   DOI
35 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   DOI
36 Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
37 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   DOI
38 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   DOI
39 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   DOI
40 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   DOI
41 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   DOI
42 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   DOI
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   DOI
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 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   DOI
46 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   DOI
47 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   DOI
48 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   DOI
49 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   DOI
50 Davis, M. L. (1996). Visual design in dress (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
51 Barsalou, L. W. (2008). Grounded cognition. Annual Review of Psychology, 59, 617-645. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.59.103006.093639   DOI
52 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   DOI