Submitted:
24 November 2023
Posted:
27 November 2023
You are already at the latest version
Abstract
Keywords:
1. Introduction
2. Literature Review and Hypotheses Development
2.1. Visual-Tactile Compensation and Perceived Diagnosticity
2.2. Mental Imagery
2.3. Sensory Similarity
2.4. Solution Innovativeness
2.5. The Moderating Role of Personal Goals
3. Methodology
3.1. Measurement
3.2. Pretest
3.3. Materials and Procedures
4. Model Analysis and Results
4.1. Reliability and Validity Tests
4.2. Model Hypothesis Testing
4.3. Moderating Effects
5. Discussion
5.1. Conclusions
5.2. Theoretical Implications
5.3. Management Insights
6. Research Limitations and Recommendations
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Van Kerrebroeck H, Willems K, Brengman M. Touching the void: Exploring consumer perspectives on touch-enabling technologies in online retailing Van Kerrebroeck, Helena; Willems, Kim; Brengman, Malaika. International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management 2017, 45, 892–909. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pantoja F, Borges A, Rossi P, Yamim AP. If I touch it, I will like it! The role of tactile inputs on gustatory perceptions of food items. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 2020, 53, 101958. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Streicher MC, Estes Z. Multisensory interaction in product choice: Grasping a product affects choice of other seen products. Journal of Consumer Psychology 2016, 26, 558–565. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Grohmann B, Spangenberg ER, Sprott DE. The influence of tactile input on the evaluation of retail product offerings. Journal of Retailing 2007, 83, 237–245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Krishna, A. An integrative review of sensory marketing: Engaging the senses to affect perception, judgment and behavior. Journal of Consumer Psychology 2012, 22, 332–351. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Peck J, Childers TL. To Have and To Hold:The Influence of Haptic Information on Product Judgments. Journal of Marketing 2003, 67, 35–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rathee R, Rajain P. Online shopping environments and consumer’s Need for Touch. Journal of Advances in Management Research 2019, 16, 814–826. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alzayat A, Lee SHM. Virtual products as an extension of my body: Exploring hedonic and utilitarian shopping value in a virtual reality retail environment. Journal of Business Research 2021, 130, 348–363. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sun C, Fang Y, Kong M, Chen X, Liu Y. Influence of augmented reality product display on consumers’ product attitudes: A product uncertainty reduction perspective. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 2022, 64, 102828. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Luangrath AW, Peck J, Hedgcock W, Xu Y. Observing Product Touch: The Vicarious Haptic Effect in Digital Marketing and Virtual Reality. Journal of Marketing Research 2022, 59, 306–326. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pino G, Amatulli C, Nataraajan R, De Angelis M, Peluso AM, Guido G. Product touch in the real and digital world: How do consumers react? Journal of Business Research 2020, 112, 492–501. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Herz M, Diamantopoulos A. I Use it but Will Tell You that I Don ’ t: Consumers ’ Country-of-Origin Cue Usage Denial. Journal of International Marketing 2017, 25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yoo J, Kim M. The effects of online product presentation on consumer responses: A mental imagery perspective. Journal of business research 2014, 67, 2464–2472. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Blazquez Cano M, Perry P, Ashman R, Waite K. The influence of image interactivity upon user engagement when using mobile touch screens. Computers in Human Behavior 2017, 77, 406–412. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Silva SC, Rocha TV, De Cicco R, Galhanone RF, Manzini Ferreira Mattos LT. Need for touch and haptic imagery: An investigation in online fashion shopping. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 2021, 59, 102378. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Helmefalk M, Hultén B. Multi-sensory congruent cues in designing retail store atmosphere: Effects on shoppers’ emotions and purchase behavior. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 2017, 38, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Orús C, Gurrea R, Flavián C. Facilitating imaginations through online product presentation videos: effects on imagery fluency, product attitude and purchase intention. Electronic Commerce Research 2017, 17, 661–700. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kempf D, Smith R. Consumer processing of product trial and the influence of prior advertising: A structural modeling approach. Journal of Marketing Research 1998, 35, 325–338. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Løkke Andersen CB, Wang QJ, Giacalone D. User experience design approaches for accommodating high “need for touch” consumers in ecommerce. Journal of Sensory Studies 2022, 37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kosslyn SM, Ganis G, Thompson WL. Neural foundations of imagery. Nature Reviews Neuroscience 2001, 2, 635–642. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lee W, Gretzel U. Designing persuasive destination websites: A mental imagery processing perspective. Tourism Management 2012, 33, 1270–1280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yim MY, Baek TH, Sauer PL. I See Myself in Service and Product Consumptions: Measuring Self-transformative Consumption Vision (SCV) Evoked by Static and Rich Media. Journal of Interactive Marketing 2018, 44, 122–139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Eklund AA, Helmefalk M. Seeing through touch: a conceptual framework of visual-tactile interplay. Journal of Product & Brand Management 2018, 27, 498–513. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Racat M, Capelli S, Lichy J. New insights into ‘technologies of touch’: Information processing in product evaluation and purchase intention. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 2021, 170, 120900. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jha S, Balaji MS, Peck J, Oakley J, Deitz GD. The Effects of Environmental Haptic Cues on Consumer Perceptions of Retailer Warmth and Competence. Journal of Retailing 2020, 96, 590–605. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kim Y, Lee M, Park S. Shopping value orientation: Conceptualization and measurement. Journal of Business Research 2014, 67, 2884–2890. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Grewal D, Roggeveen AL, Nordfält J. The Future of Retailing. Journal of Retailing 2017, 93, 1–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cheng Z, Shao B, Zhang Y. Effect of Product Presentation Videos on Consumers' Purchase Intention: The Role of Perceived Diagnosticity, Mental Imagery, and Product Rating. Frontiers in Psychology 2022, 13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Elder RS, Krishna A. The “Visual Depiction Effect” in Advertising: Facilitating Embodied Mental Simulation through Product Orientation. Journal of Consumer Research 2012, 38, 988–1003. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bolos LA, Lagerkvist C, Edenbrant AK, Nayga RM. Consumer preferences for visually sub-optimal food: Role of information framing and personal goals. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 2022, 184, 106426. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lindenberg S, Steg L. Normative, Gain and Hedonic Goal Frames Guiding Environmental Behavior. Journal of Social Issues 2007, 63, 117–137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Peck J, Childers TL, David GMSA. Individual Differences in Haptic Information Processing: The “Need for Touch” Scale. The Journal of consumer research 2003, 30, 430–442. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Peck J, Barger VA, Webb A. In search of a surrogate for touch: The effect of haptic imagery on perceived ownership. Journal of Consumer Psychology 2013, 23, 189–196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Overmars S, Poels K. Online product experiences: The effect of simulating stroking gestures on product understanding and the critical role of user control. Computers in Human Behavior 2015, 51, 272–284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jiang ZH, Benbasat I. Virtual product experience: Effects of visual and functional control of products on perceived diagnosticity and flow in electronic shopping. Journal of Management Information Systems 2004, 21, 111–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Klatzky RL, Lederman SJ, Matula DE. Imagined haptic exploration in judgments of object properties. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn 1991, 17, 314–322. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Marks, DF. Consciousness, mental imagery and action. British Journal of Psychology 1999, 90, 567–585. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lee K, Li H, Edwards SM. The effect of 3-D product visualisation on the strength of brand attitude. International journal of advertising 2012, 31, 377–396. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- MacInnis DJ, Price LL. The Role of Imagery in Information Processing: Review and Extensions. Journal of Consumer Research 1987, 13, 473. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Anema HA, de Haan AM, Gebuis T, Dijkerman HC. Thinking about touch facilitates tactile but not auditory processing. Experimental Brain Research 2012, 218, 373–380. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu YA, Jiang ZJ, Chan HC. Touching Products Virtually: Facilitating Consumer Mental Imagery with Gesture Control and Visual Presentation. Journal of management information systems 2019, 36, 823–854. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Heller J, Chylinski M, de Ruyter K, Mahr D, Keeling DI. Let Me Imagine That for You: Transforming the Retail Frontline Through Augmenting Customer Mental Imagery Ability. Journal of Retailing 2019, 95, 94–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cheng P, Zhang C. Show me insides: Investigating the influences of product exploded view on consumers’ mental imagery, comprehension, attitude, and purchase intention. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 2023, 70, 103168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Maier E, Dost F. Fluent contextual image backgrounds enhance mental imagery and evaluations of experience products. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 2018, 45, 207–220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ruusunen N, Hallikainen H, Laukkanen T. Does imagination compensate for the need for touch in 360-virtual shopping? International Journal of Information Management 2023, 70, 102622. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Desmichel P, Kocher B. Luxury Single- versus Multi-Brand Stores: The Effect of Consumers’ Hedonic Goals on Brand Comparisons. Journal of Retailing 2020, 96, 203–219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Larkey LB, Markman AB. Processes of Similarity Judgment. Cognitive science 2005, 29, 1061–1076. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Klatzky RL, Lederman SJ, Matula DE. Haptic exploration in the presence of vision. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 1993, 19, 726–743. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yoon S, Bang H, Choi D, Kim K. Slow versus fast: how speed-induced construal affects perceptions of advertising messages. International journal of advertising 2021, 40, 225–245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lu B, Chen Z. Live streaming commerce and consumers’ purchase intention: An uncertainty reduction perspective. Information & Management 2021, 58, 103509. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kunz W, Schmitt B, Meyer A. How does perceived firm innovativeness affect the consumer? Journal of Business Research 2011, 64, 816–822. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pappu R, Quester PG. How does brand innovativeness affect brand loyalty? European Journal of Marketing 2016, 50, 2–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kim J, Kim KH, Garrett TC, Jung H. The Contributions of Firm Innovativeness to Customer Value in Purchasing Behavior. Journal of Product Innovation Management 2015, 32, 201–213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jiang K, Qin M, Li S. Chatbots in retail: How do they affect the continued use and purchase intentions of Chinese consumers? Journal of Consumer Behaviour 2022, 21, 756–772. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lin, C. Conceptualizing and measuring consumer perceptions of retailer innovativeness in Taiwan. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 2015, 24, 33–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stock RM, Oliveira P, von Hippel E. Impacts of Hedonic and Utilitarian User Motives on the Innovativeness of User-Developed Solutions. Journal of Product Innovation Management 2015, 32, 389–403. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stock, Maria R. How does product program innovativeness affect customer satisfaction? A comparison of goods and services. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 2011, 39, 813–827. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brasel SA, Gips J. Tablets, touchscreens, and touchpads: How varying touch interfaces trigger psychological ownership and endowment. Journal of Consumer Psychology 2014, 24, 226–233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- de Vries R, Jager G, Tijssen I, Zandstra EH. Shopping for products in a virtual world: Why haptics and visuals are equally important in shaping consumer perceptions and attitudes. Food Quality and Preference 2018, 66, 64–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Arghashi V, Yuksel CA. Interactivity, Inspiration, and Perceived Usefulness! How retailers’ AR-apps improve consumer engagement through flow. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 2022, 64, 102756. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kim E, Tang LR, Bosselman R. Customer Perceptions of Innovativeness: An Accelerator for Value Co-Creation. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research 2019, 43, 807–838. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lin, C. Perceived convenience retailer innovativeness: how does it affect consumers? Management Decision 2016, 54, 946–964. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lin, CY. How does perceived retail service innovativeness affect retail patronage intentions? Creativity and Innovation Management 2019, 28, 519–532. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Joerß T, Hoffmann S, Mai R, Akbar P. Digitalization as solution to environmental problems? When users rely on augmented reality-recommendation agents. Journal of Business Research 2021, 128, 510–523. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Barbopoulos I, Johansson L. A multi-dimensional approach to consumer motivation: exploring economic, hedonic, and normative consumption goals. Journal of Consumer Marketing 2016, 33, 75–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Songa G, Russo V. IAT, consumer behaviour and the moderating role of decision-making style: An empirical study on food products. Food Quality and Preference 2018, 64, 205–220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kim J, Kang S, Bae J. The effects of customer consumption goals on artificial intelligence driven recommendation agents: evidence from Stitch Fix. International Journal of Advertising 2022, 41, 997–1016. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fang, Y. Does online interactivity matter? Exploring the role of interactivity strategies in consumer decision making. Computers in Human Behavior 2012, 28, 1790–1804. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, Y. How and why a touchscreen interface impacts psychological ownership and its downstream consequences. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 2023, 70, 103182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Aghekyan-Simonian M, Forsythe S, Suk Kwon W, Chattaraman V. The role of product brand image and online store image on perceived risks and online purchase intentions for apparel. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 2012, 19, 325–331. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Laroche M, Li R, Richard M, Zhou M. An investigation into online atmospherics: The effect of animated images on emotions, cognition, and purchase intentions. Journal of retailing and consumer services 2022, 64, 102845. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kim E, Tang LR, Bosselman R. Measuring customer perceptions of restaurant innovativeness: Developing and validating a scale. International Journal of Hospitality Management 2018, 74, 85–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hansen T, Møller Jensen J, Stubbe Solgaard H. Predicting online grocery buying intention: a comparison of the theory of reasoned action and the theory of planned behavior. International Journal of Information Management 2004, 24, 539–550. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kuhl J, Beckmann J. From Intentions to Actions: A Theory of Planned Behavior. 1985. [CrossRef]
- Garbarini F, Adenzato M. At the root of embodied cognition: Cognitive science meets neurophysiology. Brain and Cognition 2004, 56, 100–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sirgy MJ, Grewal D, Mangleburg T. Retail Environment, Self-Congruity, and Retail Patronage: An Integrative Model and a Research Agenda. Journal of business research 2000, 49, 127–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Keehner M, Fischer MH. Unusual Bodies, Uncommon Behaviors: Individual and Group Differences in Embodied Cognition in Spatial Tasks. Spatial cognition and computation 2012, 12, 71–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Saren M, Harwood T, Ward J, Venkatesh A. Marketing beyond the frontier? Researching the new marketing landscape of virtual worlds. Journal of marketing management 2013, 29, 1435–1442. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]


| Constructs | Items | |
|---|---|---|
| Perceived diagnosticity [68] |
PD1 | The tactile demonstration video is helpful for me in evaluating the product's tactile attributes. |
| PD2 | The tactile demonstration video helped familiarize me with the product. | |
| PD3 | The tactile demonstration video is helpful for me to understand the product's tactile attributes. | |
| Mental imagery [69] |
MI1 | During the video-viewing task, I imagined what it would be like to wear these clothes. |
| MI2 | During the video-viewing task, I fantasized about wearing the clothes. | |
| MI3 | During the video-viewing task, I thought about what the feeling would be like when wearing the cloth. | |
| MI4 | During the video-viewing task, I can easily imagine that I wear the cloth. | |
| Sensory similar [24] |
SS1 | If I buy this product, I know I will have the same feeling as if I were inspecting the product directly. |
| SS2 | I feel that the product inspection in the video is similar to the direct product inspection. | |
| SS3 | The video product shows the same feel as a direct product inspection. | |
| Solutions innovativeness [56] |
SI1 | I find using Product display videos to be advantageous in performing my shopping. |
| SI2 | The retailer offers a very convenient and useful way to display the products. | |
| SI3 | The solutions offered by the retailer are novel. | |
| SI4 | The retailer provides an unconventional way of solving problems. | |
| Purchase intention [71] |
PI1 | After viewing this video, I became interested in making a purchase. |
| PI2 | After viewing this video, I’m willing to purchase the product being presented. | |
| PI3 | After viewing this video, I would consider purchasing the presented product. | |
| PI4 | After viewing this video, I will likely buy this product. | |
| Goals | Sub-goal | Potential motives |
|---|---|---|
| Gain | Value for money | To get value for money, pay a reasonable price and avoid wasting money. |
| Quality | Get a high-quality and reliable product that meets personal expectations. | |
| Function | To get a valuable and practical product that serves some purpose. | |
| Hedonic | Pleasure | To get something that satisfies an immediate need and makes one feel good and happy. |
| Stimulating | To get something exciting, stimulating, or unique, avoid being boring. | |
| Comfortable | To get something pleasant and comfortable, avoid hassle and discomfort. |
| Characteristics | Items | Frequency | Percentage (%) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gender | Female | 211 | 51.97 | |
| Male | 195 | 48.03 | ||
| Age | <20 | 5 | 1.23 | |
| 21-30 | 183 | 45.07 | ||
| 31-40 | 135 | 33.25 | ||
| 41-50 | 73 | 17.99 | ||
| >50 | 10 | 2.46 | ||
| Education | High school and below | 21 | 5.17 | |
| College students | 27 | 6.65 | ||
| Undergraduate | 319 | 78.57 | ||
| Postgraduate | 39 | 9.61 | ||
| Number of online purchases per month | Less than five times | 132 | 32.5 | |
| 5-10 times | 161 | 39.7 | ||
| More than ten times | 113 | 27.8 |
| Constructs | Items | Factor loading | Cronbach'α | CR | AVE |
| Perceived diagnosticity | PD1 | 0.714 | 0.752 | 0.754 | 0.507 |
| PD2 | 0.756 | ||||
| PD3 | 0.662 | ||||
| Mental imagery | MI1 | 0.753 | 0.835 | 0.835 | 0.558 |
| MI2 | 0.759 | ||||
| MI3 | 0.72 | ||||
| MI4 | 0.756 | ||||
| Sensory similarity | SS1 | 0.703 | 0.761 | 0.761 | 0.515 |
| SS2 | 0.72 | ||||
| SS3 | 0.729 | ||||
| Solution innovativeness | SI1 | 0.704 | 0.807 | 0.807 | 0.512 |
| SI2 | 0.762 | ||||
| SI3 | 0.719 | ||||
| SI4 | 0.674 | ||||
| Purchase intention | PI1 | 0.776 | 0.868 | 0.869 | 0.624 |
| PI2 | 0.766 | ||||
| PI3 | 0.793 | ||||
| PI4 | 0.823 |
| PD | MI | SS | SI | PI | |
| PD | 0.712 | ||||
| MI | 0.427*** | 0.747 | |||
| SS | 0.372*** | 0.385*** | 0.717 | ||
| SI | 0.192 | 0.32*** | 0.366*** | 0.715 | |
| PI | 0.178 | 0.348*** | 0.326*** | 0.427*** | 0.79 |
| Hypothetical path | Estimate | S.E. | C.R. | P | Results | |
| PD→MI | H1 | 0.554 | 0.083 | 6.645 | *** | Support |
| MI→PI | H2 | 0.214 | 0.061 | 3.492 | *** | Support |
| PD→SS | H3 | 0.406 | 0.071 | 5.737 | *** | Support |
| SS→PI | H4 | 0.182 | 0.079 | 2.287 | 0.022 | Support |
| MI→SI | H5a | 0.19 | 0.051 | 3.71 | *** | Support |
| SS→SI | H5b | 0.299 | 0.067 | 4.452 | *** | Support |
| SI→PI | H6 | 0.397 | 0.081 | 4.901 | *** | Support |
| Model 1 | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Coefficient | Standard error | t | P | |
| const | 3.214 | 0.573 | 5.609 | 0.000*** |
| Mental image | 0.049 | 0.157 | 0.31 | 0.757 |
| personal goal | -0.352 | 0.353 | -0.998 | 0.319 |
| int | 0.195 | 0.096 | 2.026 | 0.043** |
| R² | 0.184 | |||
| R² adjusted | 0.178 | |||
| F | F(3, 402)=30.267,P=0.000*** | |||
| Model 2 | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Coefficient | Standard error | t | P | |
| const | 3 | 0.537 | 5.587 | 0.000*** |
| Sensory similarity | 0.201 | 0.147 | 1.367 | 0.172 |
| Personal goals | -0.041 | 0.331 | -0.124 | 0.901 |
| Int | 0.041 | 0.09 | 0.455 | 0.65 |
| R² | 0.089 | |||
| R² adjusted | 0.082 | |||
| F | F(3, 402)=13.091, P=0.000*** | |||
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2023 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
