Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Need for Touch: A Barrier in Online Shopping—Identifying Compensatory Factors in an Online Context

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Book cover Creating Marketing Magic and Innovative Future Marketing Trends

  • 579 Accesses

Abstract

Touch is one of the five senses, which plays an important role in the evaluation of product and purchase decision. This chapter tries to see how need for touch is a barrier in an online shopping context, where it is not feasible to touch a product. This study tried to identify two factors, return policy and e-tailer’s image which may act as a compensatory mechanism for inability to touch a product during online shopping. Through this study, we proposed that need for touch moderates the relationship between these factors and consumer response. The study tries to propose the role of return policy and e-tailer’s image as a compensatory mechanism for inability to touch a product while shopping online. Potential contributions and directions for future research have been discussed in detail.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 259.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 329.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 329.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Agarwal, S., & Teas, R. K. (2001). Perceived value: Mediating role of perceived risk. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 9(4), 1–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ai, X. Z., Chen, J., Zhao, H. X., & Tang, X. W. (2012). Competition among supply chains: Implications of full return policy. International Journal of Production Economics, 139(1), 257–265.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bahn, K. D., & Boyd, E. (2014). Information and its impact on consumers’ reactions to restrictive return policies. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 21(4), 415–423.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Balaji, M. S., Raghavan, S., & Jha, S. (2011). Role of tactile and visual inputs in product evaluation: A multisensory perspective. Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, 23(4), 513–530.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bechwati, N. N., & Siegal, W. S. (2005). The impact of the prechoice process on product returns. Journal of Marketing Research, 42(3), 358–367.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bell, S. J. (1999). Image and consumer attraction to intra urban retail areas: An environmental psychology approach. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 6(2), 67–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bloemer, J., & De Ruyter, K. (1998). On the relationship between store image, store satisfaction and store loyalty. European Journal of Marketing, 32(5/6), 499–513.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bonifield, C., Cole, C., & Schultz, R. L. (2010). Product returns on the Internet: A case of mixed signals? Journal of Business Research, 63(9), 1058–1065.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buckley, P. G. (1991). An SOR model of the purchase of an item in a store. Advances in Consumer Research, 18(1), 491–500.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chaiken, S. (1980). Heuristic versus systematic information processing and the use of source versus message cues in persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39(5), 752.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, S., & Chaiken, S. (1999). The heuristic-systematic model in its broader context. In S. Chaiken & Y. Trope (Eds.), Dual-process theories in social psychology (pp. 73–96). New York: Guilford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chen, M. Y., & Teng, C. I. (2013). A comprehensive model of the effects of online store image on purchase intention in an e-commerce environment. Electronic Commerce Research, 13(1), 1–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Choi, T. M., Li, D., & Yan, H. M. (2004). Optimal return policy for supply chain with e-market place. International Journal of Production Economics, 88(2), 205–227.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chu, W., Gerstner, E., & Hess, J. D. (1998). Managing dissatisfaction how to decrease customer opportunism by partial refunds. Journal of Service Research, 1(2), 140–155.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Citrin, A. V., Stem, J. D. E., Spanenberg, E. R., & Clark, M. J. (2003). Consumer need for tactile input: An internet retailing challenge. Journal of Business Research, 56, 915–922.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davis, S., Hagerty, M., & Gerstner, E. (1998). Return policies and the optimal level of “hassle”. Journal of Economics and Business, 50(5), 445–460.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Donovan, R., & Rossiter, J. (1982). Store atmosphere: An environmental psychology approach. Journal of Retailing, 58, 34–57.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elder, R. S., Aydinoglu, N. Z., Barger, V. A., Caldara, C., Chun, H., Lee, C. J., et al. (2010). A sense of things to come: Future research directions in sensory marketing. In A. Krishna (Ed.), Sensory marketing: Research on the sensuality of products. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gepshtein, S., & Banks, M. S. (2003). Viewing geometry determines how vision and haptics combine in size perception. Current Biology, 13, 483–488.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grewal, D., Krishnan, R., Baker, J., & Borin, N. (1998). The effect of store name, brand name and price discounts on consumers’ evaluations and purchase intentions. Journal of Retailing, 74(3), 331–352.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grohmann, B., Spangenberg, E. R., & Sprott, D. E. (2007). The influence of tactile input on the evaluation of retail product offerings. Journal of Retailing, 83(2), 237–245.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hess, J. D., & Mayhew, G. E. (1997). Modeling merchandise returns in direct marketing. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 11(2), 20–35.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hornik, J. (1992a). Effects of physical contact on customers’ shopping time and behavior. Marketing Letters, 3(1), 49–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hornik, J. (1992b). Tactile stimulation and consumer response. Journal of Consumer Research, 19, 449–458.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • James, T. W., Kim, S., & Fisher, J. S. (2007). The neural basis of haptic object processing. Canadian Journal of Experimental Physiology, 61, 219–229.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jansson-Boyd, C. V. (2011). The role of touch in marketing: An introduction to the special issue. Psychology & Marketing, 28(3), 219–221.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jin, S. (2011). The impact of 3D virtual haptics in marketing. Psychology & Marketing, 28(3), 240–255.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman, D., Knetsch, J. L., & Thaler, R. H. (1990). Experimental tests of the endowment effect and the Coase theorem. Journal of Political Economy, 98(6), 1325–1348.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Katerattanakul, P., & Siau, K. (2003). Creating a virtual store image. Communications of the ACM, 46(12), 226–232.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keng, C., Liao, T., & Yang, Y. (2012). The effects of sequential combinations of virtual experience, direct experience, and indirect experience: The moderating roles of need for touch and product involvement. Electronic Commerce Research, 12(2), 177–199. doi:10.1007/s10660-012-9093-9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klatzky, L. R., & Lederman, S. (1987). There’s more to touch than meets the Eye: The Salience of object attributes for haptics with or without vision. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 116(4), 356–369.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krishna, A. (2006). Interaction of senses: The effect of vision versus touch on the elongation bias. Journal of Consumer Research, 32, 557–566.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krishna, A., & Morrin, M. (2008). Does touch affects taste? The perceptual transfer of product container haptic cues. Journal of Consumer Research, 34(6), 807–818.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lohse, G. L., & Spiller, P. (1998). Electronic shopping. Communications of the ACM, 41(7), 81–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marlow, N., & Jansson-Boyd, C. V. (2011). To touch or not to touch; that is the question. Should consumers always be encouraged to touch products, and does it always alter product perception? Psychology & Marketing, 28(3), 256–266.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martin, B. S. (2012). A stranger’s touch: Effects of accidental interpersonal touch on consumer evaluations and shopping time. Journal of Consumer Research, 39(1), 174–184.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCabe, D., & Nowlis, S. M. (2003). The effect of examining actual products or product descriptions on consumer preference. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 4, 431.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mehrabian, A., & Russell, J. A. (1974). An approach to environmental psychology. London: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pan, Y., & Zinkhan, G. M. (2006). Determinants of retail patronage: A meta-analytical perspective. Journal of Retailing, 82(3), 229–243.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Park, M., & Lennon, S. J. (2009). Brand name and promotion in online shopping contexts. Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management: An International Journal, 13(2), 149–160.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Park, J., & Stoel, L. (2005). Effect of brand familiarity, experience and information on online apparel purchase. International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, 33(2), 148–160.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peck, J., & Childers, T. L. (2003a). Individual differences in Haptic information processing: The ‘Need for Touch’ scale. Journal of Consumer Research, 30(December), 430–442.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peck, J., & Childers, T. L. (2003b). To have and to hold: The influence of Haptic information on product judgments. Journal of Marketing, 67(April), 35–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peck, J., & Wiggins, J. (2006). It just feels good: Customers’ affective response to touch and its influence on persuasion. Journal of Marketing, 70(4), 56–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pei, Z., Paswan, A., & Yan, R. (2014). E-tailer’s return policy, consumer’s perception of return policy fairness and purchase intention. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 21(3), 249–257.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rogers, D. S., & Tibben-Lembke, R. S. (1999). Going backwards: Reverse logistics trends and practices (Vol. 2). Pittsburgh, PA: Reverse Logistics Executive Council.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shulman, J. D., Coughlan, A. T., & Savaskan, R. C. (2009). Optimal restocking fees and information provision in an integrated demand-supply model of product returns. Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, 11(4), 577–594.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stier, D. S., & Hall, J. A. (1984). Gender differences in touch: An empirical and theoretical review. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47(2), 440–459.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van der Heijden, H., & Verhagen, T. (2004). Online store image: Conceptual foundations and empirical measurement. Information & Management, 41(5), 609–617.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wood, S. L. (2001). Remote purchase environments: The influence of return policy leniency on two-stage decision processes. Journal of Marketing Research, 38(2), 157–169.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yazdanparast, A., & Spears, N. (2012). Need for touch and information processing strategies: An empirical examination. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 11(5), 415–421.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yazdanparast, A., & Spears, N. (2013). Can consumers forgo the need to touch products? An investigation of nonhaptic situational factors in an online context. Psychology & Marketing, 30(1), 46–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yun, Z. S., & Good, L. K. (2007). Developing customer loyalty from e-tail store image attributes. Managing Service Quality: An International Journal, 17(1), 4–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Indian Institute of Management Indore, Indore, Madhya Pradesh, India

    Jyoti Pandey, Ashish Sadh & Aditya Billore

Authors
  1. Jyoti Pandey
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ashish Sadh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Aditya Billore
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jyoti Pandey .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Marketing & Services, University of Bayreuth, Bayreuth, Germany

    Maximilian Stieler

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 Academy of Marketing Science

About this paper

Cite this paper

Pandey, J., Sadh, A., Billore, A. (2017). Need for Touch: A Barrier in Online Shopping—Identifying Compensatory Factors in an Online Context. In: Stieler, M. (eds) Creating Marketing Magic and Innovative Future Marketing Trends. Developments in Marketing Science: Proceedings of the Academy of Marketing Science. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-45596-9_247

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation