Does product touch affect consumer attitude toward a product? Meta‐analysis of effect sizes, moderators, and mediators

Abstract

Consumers rely on physical touch in offline shopping and vicarious touch (i.e., imagining touch) in online shopping to develop their attitudes toward a product. The subject of how touching (versus not touching) affects consumer attitudes toward a product merits studying. However, past research has drawn controversial conclusions regarding the effect of product touch on consumer attitudes. This study conducted a meta‐analysis to resolve this inconsistency and explore the reasons for this inconsistency. It quantitatively analyzed 185 effect sizes in 42 empirical studies conducted between 2003 and 2022. In general, relative to not touching, touching had a positive effect on consumers' attitudes toward a product (ρ $\rho $ = 0.242, p < 0.001), and the effect size was moderate. Furthermore, the positive touch effect was mediated by consumers' cognitive experiences relating to the product and their affective experiences relating to the product. The cognitive path (total indirect effect = 0.068, p < 0.001) being stronger than the affective path (total indirect effect = 0.067, p < 0.001). Importantly, it showed that past inconsistency regarding the touch effect could be explained by moderators including product type (utilitarian versus hedonic), participants' uncertainty avoidance, and type of touch (physical touch versus vicarious touch). This study provides new insights into the product touch literature and offers valuable implications for online and offline retailing and consumer well‐being.

The effects of types of touch and haptic cues on choice overload

“…It is common for consumers to think about how the sense of touch allows them to acquire information about a product and utilize this type of informational touch to make assessments. Thus, it is not surprising that, in touch literature (Liu, Wu, et al, 2023), explanations related to cognitive experiences are more widely spread and proved to be stronger than affective experiences in explaining the positive effect of touch on consumer attitude toward a product. Therefore, it is worth further exploring the effects of merely touching a product whereby such interaction conveys no or minimal information, and the haptic sensations typically occur subconsciously (Krishna, 2012).…”

“…Consumers increasingly rely on vicarious touch—conceptualized as observing a hand in physical contact with a product in a digital environment (Luangrath et al, 2022)—to make consumption decisions (Fenko et al, 2016). Strategies to induce consumers to vicariously touch products as a surrogate of physical touch include showing ads or photos in which a human hand is touching a product (Luangrath et al, 2022; Pino et al, 2020; Silva et al, 2021), encouraging consumers to imagine the act of touching a product (Peck et al, 2013; Pino et al, 2020), or using haptic information and haptic cues (Lv et al, 2020), to name a few (see Liu, Wu, et al, 2023).…”

Why we like to touch: Consumers' tactile esthetic appreciation explained by a balanced combination of unity and variety in product designs

“…The principle of UiV has received a significant amount of empirical support in the visual domain. The principle has been found to apply in the esthetic visual experience produced by things such as abstract patterns (Muth et al, 2021), web pages (Deng & Poole, 2012;W. Liu, Wu et al, 2022;R.…”

“…The principle of UiV has received a significant amount of empirical support in the visual domain. The principle has been found to apply in the esthetic visual experience produced by things such as abstract patterns (Muth et al, 2021), web pages (Deng & Poole, 2012; W. Liu, Wu et al, 2022; R. Post et al, 2017), atmospherics of stores (Jang et al, 2018; Logkizidou, 2021), arrangements of objects (Van Geert & Wagemans, 2021), and a variety of products, such as chairs (Loos et al, 2022), clothes (Gray et al, 2014), and motorcycles (Nasar, 1987; R. A. G. Post et al, 2016). While UiV has not been empirically tested in the tactile domain fundamental psychological and brain research provides some indication that perceptual processes related to UiV in the visual domain may be shared with the tactile domain.…”

Embodiment, immersion, and enjoyment in virtual reality marketing experiences

“…In addition, the process of acting as a protagonist in the metaverse creates an emotion‐rich experience and increases positive perception and behavioral intentions towards the promoted offer (e.g., Maille et al, 2020). According to Liu et al (2023), interact with the offer stimulates enjoyment, while the virtual experience stimulates the intention to purchase the discovered products. Finally, virtual reality experiences may generate positive emotions due to the fact that the interactive human–virtual environment relationship stimulates human senses (Flavián et al, 2020).…”