Browse > Article
http://dx.doi.org/10.14695/KJSOS.2018.22.2.17

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

Jung, Yujin (연세대학교 심리학과)
Kang, Hyunmin (연세대학교 심리학과)
Yun, Munseon (연세대학교 심리학과)
Han, Kwanghee (연세대학교 심리학과)
Publication Information
Science of Emotion and Sensibility / v.22, no.2, 2019 , pp. 17-28 More about this Journal
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.
Keywords
Approach-Avoidance Effect; Attitude Conditioning; E-Commerce; Embodied Cognition; Touch Screen Device;
Citations & Related Records
Times Cited By KSCI : 1  (Citation Analysis)
연도 인용수 순위
1 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   DOI
2 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   DOI
3 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   DOI
4 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   DOI
5 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   DOI
6 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.
7 Kim, Y. (2016). [Focus] The desktop is falling, the tablet is rising... ([Focus] 데스크톱 지고 태블릿 뜨고...). PC Market. Midas, 2016(1), 82-83.
8 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   DOI
9 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.
10 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   DOI
11 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   DOI
12 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   DOI
13 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   DOI
14 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.
15 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   DOI
16 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   DOI
17 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   DOI
18 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   DOI
19 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   DOI
20 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   DOI
21 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
22 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   DOI
23 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   DOI
24 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   DOI
25 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   DOI
26 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   DOI
27 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   DOI
28 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   DOI
29 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   DOI
30 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   DOI