DOI: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2018.00782

Acta Psychologica Sinica (心理学报) 2018/50:7 PP.782-792

Touch or not touch? Prior touch facilitates consumers' adoption of new products

Previous touch literature cannot answer whether prior touching of a new product (i.e. a new watch) can facilitate consumers' evaluation of another extremely incongruent product (i.e. a new camera). The present research posits that asking consumers to previously touch (versus not touch) an extremely new product (i.e. a new computer mouse) can offer them an opportunity to transfer their learning of the touched new product to understanding another target product's extremely incongruity, which consequently leads to incongruity resolution and increased evaluation of the target product (H1-H2). This research further posits that the prior-touch strategy will be ineffective when the prior-touched product is conceptually different from the target product (i.e., it is common) (H3), as conceptual disparity inhibits the occurrence of near transfer of learning. We conduct four lab experiments to test these hypotheses.
Experiment 1 examined H1-H2 and further tested other alternative explanations including arousal and moods which might affect consumers' new product evaluation. College students completed a randomly-assigned 3 (form incongruity:congruent vs. moderate vs. extreme)×2 (prior-touch:touch vs. no touch) two-way between-subjects design, with product evaluation as the DV. This experiment found that prior-touch (versus no such touch) only increased evaluations of the extremely incongruent camera, supporting H1. A bootstrap analysis showed that incongruity resolution rather than arousal or positive mood mediated the effect demonstrated in H1, supporting H2. Experiment 2 examined consumers' real choices, finding that compared to no prior touching, prior touching an extremely incongruent mug can increase consumers' subsequent choices of an extremely incongruent computer mouse. Experiment 3 adopted a 2 (prior-evaluated product's form incongruity:extremely common vs. extremely new)×2 (prior-touch)×2 (target product's form incongruity:congruent vs. extremely incongruent) three-way between-subjects design, using similar procedures of previous experiments. As expected, prior touching an extremely common computer mouse did not change participants' ability in resolving the extreme incongruity of and did not increase evaluations of the subsequent target watch, supporting H3. In Experiment 4, participants were randomly assigned to one of four type of senses (both touch and see vs. just touch with eyes closed vs. just see without touch vs. no-see, no-touch) conditions to evaluate the target soft drink. This experiment found that it was prior-touching the mouse rather than prior-seeing the mouse that drove the effect observed across Experiments 1-3.
Theoretically, this research observes for the first time the carry-over effect of product touch, thus extending existing research on product touch. This research further enriches existing new product research, showing that prior touching an extremely incongruent product can enhance consumers' evaluations of the subsequent extremely incongruent target product. Managerially, this research has rich implications to new product's launch and promotion.

Key words:visually new products,prior touch,transfer of learning,incongruity resolution

ReleaseDate:2018-08-06 13:39:02

Abrams, R. A., Davoli, C. C., Du, F., Knapp, W. J., & Paull, D. (2008). Altered vision near the hands. Cognition, 107(3), 1035-1047.

Ackerman, J. M., Nocera, C. C., & Bargh, J. A. (2010). Incidental haptic sensations influence social judgments and decisions. Science, 328 (5986), 1712-1715.

Bloch, P. H. (1995). Seeking the ideal form:Product design and consumer response. Journal of Marketing, 59(3), 16-29.

Campbell, M. C., & Goodstein, R. C. (2001). The moderating effect of perceived risk on consumers' evaluations of product incongruity:Preference for the norm. Journal of Consumer Research, 28, 439-449.

Du, F., Wang, X. T., Abrams, R. A., & Zhang, K. (2017). Emotional processing is enhanced in peri-hand space. Cognition, 165, 39-44.

Gick, M. L., & Holyoak, K. J. (1987). The cognitive basis of knowledge transfer. In Transfer of learning:Contemporary research and applications (pp. 9-46). New York:Academic Press.

Gourville, J. T. (2006). Eager sellers and stony buyers:Understanding the psychology of new-product adoption. Harvard Business Review, 84, 98-106.

Haskell, R. E. (2001). Transfer of learning:Cognition, instruction, and reasoning. San Diego:Academic Press.

Hayes, A. F (2012). PROCESS:A versatile computational tool for observed variable mediation, moderation, and conditional process modeling[White paper].

Herzenstein, M., Posavac, S. S., & Brakus, J. J. (2007). New and really new products:The effects of self-regulation systems and risk salience. Journal of Marketing Research, 44(2), 251-260.

Homa, D., Kahol, K., Tripathis, P., Bratton, L., & Panchanathan, S. (2009). Haptic concepts in the blind. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 71(4), 690-698.

Huang, M. X., Li, P., & Wang, Y. T. (2016). Is high variance of reviews necessarily a bad thing for a new product?-The role of perceived social value. Journal of Marketing Science, 12(3), 36-50.[黄敏学, 李萍, 王艺婷. (2016). 新产品评论不一致一定是坏事吗?-基于社会价值视角. 营销科学学报, 12(3), 36-50.]

Huber, B., Joanne, T., Mariana N. A., Chelsee, G., Steven, J., Jordy, K., & Swinburne Babylab Team. (2016). Young children's transfer of learning from a touchscreen device. Computers in Human Behavior, 56, 56-64.

Jhang, J. H., Grant, S. J., & Campbell, M. C. (2012). Get it? Got it. Good! Enhancing new product acceptance by facilitating resolution of extreme incongruity. Journal of Marketing Research, 49, 247-259.

Klatzky, R. L., Lederman, S. J., & Metzger, V. A. (1985). Identifying objects by touch:An "expert" system. Perception & Psychophysics, 37(4), 299-302.

Liu, W. M., & Liang, J. P. (2015). To choose red or blue? Investigating whether, when and why background colors will (will Not) affect visually new product evaluations. Nankai Business Review, 18(5), 97-109.[柳武妹, 梁剑平. (2015). 选择红色还是蓝色?背景色彩影响视觉新产品评估的现象、中介及边界体制研究. 南开管理评论, 18(5), 97-109.]

Mandler, G. (1982). The structure of value:Accounting for taste" in affect and cognition. In The 17th annual carnegie symposium on cognition. Hillsdale, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

McCabe, D. B., & Nowlis, S. N. (2003). The effect of examining actual products or product descriptions on consumer preference. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 13(4), 431-439.

Meyers-Levy, J., & Tybout, A. M. (1989). Schema congruity as a basis for product evaluation. Journal of Consumer Research, 16, 39-54.

Muller, D., Judd, C. M., & Yzerbyt, V. Y. (2005). When moderation is mediated and mediation is moderated. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89, 852-863.

Noseworthy, T. J., Di Muro, F., & Murray, K. B. (2014). The role of arousal in congruity-based product evaluation. Journal of Consumer Research, 41(4), 1108-1026.

Noseworthy, T. J., & Trudel, R. (2011). Looks interesting, but what does it do? Evaluation of incongruent product form depends on positioning. Journal of Marketing Research, 48, 1008-1019.

Noseworthy, T. J., Cotte, J., & Lee, S. H. (2011). The effects of ad context and gender on the identification of visually incongruent products. Journal of Consumer Research, 38, 358-375.

Nuszbaum, M., Voss, A., Christoph, K. K., & Betsch, T. (2010). Assessing individual differences in the use of haptic information using a German translation of the need for touch scale. Social Psychology, 41(4), 263-274.

Peck, J., & Childers, T. L. (2003b). Individual differences in haptic information processing:The "need for touch" scale. Journal of Consumer Research, 30, 430-442.

Peck, J., & Childers, T. L. (2003a). To have and to hold:The influence of haptic information on product judgments. Journal of Marketing, 67, 35-48.

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.

Peck, J., & Shu, S. B. (2009). The effect of mere touch on perceived ownership. Journal of Consumer Research, 36, 434-447.

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.

Perkins, D. N., & Salomon, G. (1992). Transfer of learning. In International encyclopedia of education (2nd ed.). Oxford, England:Pergamon Press.

Romero, M., & Craig, A. W. (2017). Costly curves:How human-like shapes can increase spending. Journal of Consumer Research, 44(1), 88-98.

Russell, J. A., Weiss, A., & Mendelsohn, G. A. (1989). Affect grid:A single-item scale of pleasure and arousal. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57(3), 493-502.

Wang, X. T., Du, F., He, X. S., & Zhang, K. (2014). Enhanced spatial stimulus-response mapping near the hands:The Simon effect is modulated by hand-stimulus proximity. Journal of Experimental Psychology:Human Perception and Performance, 40(6), 2252-2265.

Zhang, M., & Li, X. P. (2012). From physical weight to psychological significance:The contribution of semantic activations. Journal of Consumer Research, 38(6), 1063-1075.