Effects of haptic imagery on purchase intention

Abstract

The COVID‑19 pandemic has increased the popularity of online shopping, and companies are looking for ways to provide consumers with experiences that online shopping cannot provide, such as touching products and imagining them in use. In this context, the importance of haptic imagery of products showcased online is increasing. This study replicated and extended Peck et al.’s (2013, Journal of Consumer Psychology, 23, 189–196) finding that physical control and psychological ownership mediate the influence of haptic imagery on purchase intention. This study showed that imagining touching a product increased purchase intention through the mediation of physical control and psychological ownership compared with not imagining, conceptually replicating Peck et al.’s study. This study also examined the moderating effect of product involvement and showed that there was no moderator role of product involvement. The findings would have a practical application in marketing, such as encouraging consumers to imagine touching the product.

Introduction

The ongoing COVID‑19 pandemic has altered consumers’ purchasing behavior, driving the transition from shopping in physical stores to online shopping (e.g., Guthrie et al., 2021; Kim, 2020). While browsing in a physical store allows the customer to hold and touch the product, buying online does not, which is a concern raised by consumers when shopping online (Rathee & Rajain, 2019). Companies have responded to these concerns by offering various methods for consumers to learn about their products without having to actually visit a store. For example, Macy’s, a department store chain in the U.S., offers a virtual reality (VR) experience in which customers can use a headset to clearly understand the size and color of the actual purchase and easily find the product they want (Macy’s, 2021). HaptX, a U.S.-based haptics company, has developed tactile gloves and suits that simulate touch (HaptX, 2021). Such tactile experiences in VR influence consumers’ product evaluation (e.g., vicarious haptic effect: Luangrath et al., 2021); however, even without special machines such as VR, merely imagining the use of a product might increase purchase motivation. In fact, Peck et al. (2013) found that by simply closing one’s eyes, touching a product imaginarily, and thinking about how it would feel increased physical control and psychological ownership of that product. Focusing on Peck et al. (2013), this study examined how haptic imagery by a simple method of imagining touching a product influenced consumers’ purchase intentions.

This study conceptually replicated and developed Peck et al.’s (2013) study in three ways. First, this study examined whether physical control and psychological ownership mediated the effect of haptic imagery on increasing purchase intention. Peck et al. (2013, study 3) showed that vivid haptic imagery increased physical control and psychological ownership, and this study examined the influence of this process on purchase intention. Since psychological ownership is associated with greater willingness to pay (Brasel & Gips, 2014) as well as purchase intention (Spears & Yazdanparast, 2014), it would be reasonable that haptic imagery could influence purchase intention through physical control and psychological ownership. In fact, Iseki and Kitagami (2016) showed that haptic imagery increased purchase intention by increasing physical control and psychological ownership. This study also examined whether the results could be replicated.

Second, this study examined the effects of closing one’s eyes and imagining touching (vs. not imagining). Peck et al. (2013) examined the effect of imagining with one’s eyes closed (vs. eyes open) through a laboratory experiment; however, in real-life online shopping situations, it is unlikely that people close their eyes when selecting a product. Based on its applicability in marketing, this study examined whether imagining touching, even without one’s eyes closed, increases purchase motivation via a physical control and psychological ownership compared to not imagining.

Third, this study examined the moderating effect of product involvement. According to previous studies (for a review, Jussila et al., 2015; Peck & Luangrath, 2022; Pierce et al., 2003), the degree that psychological ownership occurs depends on the target attributes. Jussila et al. (2015) stated, “Quite obviously, if the target is not attractive or does not capture the individual’s attention, psychological ownership for that target cannot develop” (p. 127). Similarly, Pierce et al. (2003) stated that an association with the object is important for psychological ownership to occur. According to Peck and Luangrath (2022), one of the antecedents to psychological ownership is to have more information and knowledge about a target. These findings suggest that the degree of involvement with a product moderates the effect of haptic imagery on psychological ownership; however, this has not been empirically examined. Therefore, this study examined whether product involvement moderates the effect of haptic imagery on purchase intention through physical control and psychological ownership. Therefore, by conceptually replicating Peck et al. (2013) considering these three points, this study examined the psychological process by which haptic imagery influenced consumers in more detail.

Materials and methods

Participants

Overall, 303 Japanese undergraduates (186 men, 113 women, and 4 who did not specify their sex; M _age = 20.40 years) participated. Subsequently, 300 participants were included in the analysis, excluding three international students.

Preliminary survey

Prior to the experiment, a preliminary survey was conducted with 16 Japanese undergraduates (10 males, 6 females; M _age = 20.31 years) to select products with high and low involvement for Japanese university students. For the six products with relatively high tactile importance (ballpoint pen, sweatshirt, aroma hand cream, stick scissors, freestanding pen case, and tumbler) used in Iseki and Kitagami’s (2017) study among Japanese university students, participants were asked to respond to five items about product involvement (e.g., “This is a product about which I would like to collect information”; α = .90) using a seven-point scale. Based on these results, the aroma hand cream, which had a relatively high-involvement score (M = 5.13, SD = 1.46), was selected as the high-involvement product; and the freestanding pen case, which had a relatively low-involvement score (M = 3.08, SD = 1.06), was chosen as the low-involvement product.

Measures

Participants were asked to respond to a two-item physical control (Peck et al., 2013; r = .82, p < .001; M = 3.46, SD = 1.69), three-item psychological ownership question (Pierce et al., 2001; α = .95, M = 2.35, SD = 1.46), and a two-item purchase intention question (r = .90, p < .001; M = 2.54, SD = 1.43; “I want to purchase the product” and “I want the product”) using a seven-point scale.

Procedure

The experiment was developed for this study and conducted online (see Supplementary Material for the questionnaire). Participants were randomly assigned to one of four conditions: involvement (low vs. high) × imagery (no imagery vs. haptic imagery). In the haptic imagery condition, participants were asked to imagine how they would feel if they touched or held the product. Conversely, in the no-imagery condition, participants were asked to consider whether they would purchase the product. They were then instructed to look at a product image that matched the condition. Participants were then shown product images for 30 s and asked to respond to items on psychological ownership and purchase intention. Subsequently, a debriefing session was conducted.

Results

Mediation analysis

First, serial multiple mediation analysis (Hayes, 2022, PROCESS v4, Model 6) was conducted to examine whether haptic imagery influences purchase intention through the mediation of physical control and psychological ownership. The analysis was conducted with the haptic imagery condition (0 = no imagery, 1 = haptic imagery) as the independent variable, purchase intention as the dependent variable, and physical control and psychological ownership as the mediator variables. As shown in Figure 1, the indirect effect of haptic condition on purchase intention, mediated by physical control and psychological ownership, was significant (β = .14, SE = .05, 95% CI [.06, .24]). Therefore, the results of Peck et al.’s (2013) study were replicated and developed; similar results were presented by Iseki and Kitagami (2016). Neither the indirect effect, in which the haptic condition affects purchase intention via physical control (β = .07, SE = .09, 95% CI [−.11, .26]), nor the indirect effect in which the haptic condition affects purchase intention via psychological ownership (β = − .04, SE = .06, 95% CI [−.15, .08]), were significant.

Figure 1. Results of the serial multiple mediation analysis. Values are standardized coefficients and 95% confidence intervals are provided in parentheses.

Moderated mediation analysis

Next, to examine whether product involvement moderates the effect of haptic imagery on purchase intention via physical control and psychological ownership, a moderated serial multiple mediation analysis (Hayes, 2022, PROCESS v4, Model 85) was conducted, in which the haptic imagery condition (0 = no imagery, 1 = haptic imagery) was the independent variable, purchase intention was the dependent variable, physical control and psychological ownership were the mediator variables, and the involvement condition (0 = low condition, 1 = high condition) was the moderator variable. The results showed no significant difference in the conditional indirect effects between the low (β = .15, SE = .05, 95% CI [.07, .26]) and high product involvement conditions (β = .13, SE = .05, 95% CI [.06, .23]; index = −.019, SE = .03, 95% CI [−.09, .04]), which means there was no moderating effect of product involvement (Figure 2). Thus, regardless of the degree of product involvement, haptic imagery mediated physical control and psychological ownership and influenced purchase intention.

Figure 2. Results of the moderated serial multiple mediation analysis. Values are standardized coefficients and 95% confidence intervals are provided in parentheses. Upper row: low-involvement condition; lower row: high-involvement condition.

Discussion

This study conceptually replicated the findings of Peck et al. (2013, study 3). Table 1 summarizes the differences between this study and that of Peck et al. (2013). The results showed that haptic imagery mediated physical control and psychological ownership, and increased purchase intention, replicating and extending the study by Peck et al. (2013). This result is consistent with that reported by Iseki and Kitagami (2016).

Table 1. Summary of Peck et al. (2013) and the current study

This study showed that imagining touching a product without closing one’s eyes increased purchase intention through physical control and psychological ownership compared to not imagining it. Academically, this finding further extends previous research on haptic imagery (e.g., Brasel & Gips, 2014; Iseki & Kitagami, 2016; 2017; Krishna & Schwarz, 2014; Peck et al., 2013) or psychological ownership (e.g., Peck & Shu, 2009; Pierce et al., 2003; Reb & Connolly, 2007; Shu & Peck, 2011; Wolf et al., 2008). From a practical perspective, this result might be useful for marketing strategies. While previous studies have suggested the importance of advertising messages and images in enhancing consumer’s mental simulation (e.g., Gavilan et al., 2014; Lee & Choi, 2022; Lv et al., 2020; Silva et al., 2020), the results suggest that even a simple message asking people to imagine touching or using the product might be effective for enhancing their purchase intention.

Limitations

In this study, the moderating role of the degree of product involvement was not found. However, the moderating effect of product involvement needs to be examined further. Although not significant (β = .53, SE = .32, 95% CI [−.10, 1.16], p = .10), the positive and negative coefficients of haptic imagery on psychological ownership differed between low (β = − .36, SE = .24, 95% CI [−.83, .12]) and high-involvement conditions (β = .18, SE = .24, 95% CI [−.30, .65]), suggesting the influence of product involvement on psychological ownership. One potential reason for the lack of the moderating effect could be that the selected products were not attractive to participants. In fact, in the experiment, participants’ purchase intention was low (M = 2.54 using a seven-point scale), which may have made it difficult to see the moderating effect of product involvement. In addition, since this study did not control for participants’ purchasing behavior prior to participating in the psychological experiment, the possibility that participants’ preexperimental purchasing experiences might have diminished the manipulation of involvement condition could not be denied. Owing to these limitations, further studies using different products and procedures are needed.