Acta Univ. Agric. Silvic. Mendelianae Brun. 2020, 68(2), 451-457 | DOI: 10.11118/actaun202068020451

Haptics and its Effect on Consumers' Intentions Using Neuroscientific Methods: Literature Review

Jan Vrána, Stanislav Mokrý
Department of Marketing and Trade, Faculty of Business and Economics, Mendel University in Brno, Zemědělská 1, 613 00 Brno, Czech Republic

The haptic properties of a product have mostly been underestimated with most studies focusing on visual aspects of objects. Nonetheless, in the last years, it has been found that tactile stimuli are in some cases even more important than the visual ones. However, the traditional paper-based surveys cannot fully and objectively examine their effects on consumers. Therefore, neuroscientific methods, which overcome these obstacles, are becoming more used but there is still only a small number of studies focusing on the effect of haptics in marketing. Using the keywords haptics, tactile input, EEG, fMRI and tactile, seven relevant studies have been found and used in this literature review, out of which four have used EEG and three fMRI. Thus, the main objective of this paper is to review the research that has been already conducted and to identify the areas in which further research should be made and the neuroscientific methods which could be used.

Keywords: haptics, tactile, tactile input, electroencephalography (EEG), fMRI
Grants and funding:

This paper is the result of a research project supported by the Faculty of Business and Economics, MENDELU, No. PEF_TP_2019007 "Sensory Marketing: Haptics and its Importance in Consumer Decision Making". This paper was supported by the project CZ.02.1.01/0.0/0.0/16_017/0002334 Research Infrastructure for Young Scientists, co-financed by Operational Programme Research, Development and Education.

Received: January 9, 2020; Accepted: April 8, 2020; Published: April 29, 2020  Show citation

ACS AIP APA ASA Harvard Chicago IEEE ISO690 MLA NLM Turabian Vancouver
Vrána, J., & Mokrý, S. (2020). Haptics and its Effect on Consumers' Intentions Using Neuroscientific Methods: Literature Review. Acta Universitatis Agriculturae et Silviculturae Mendelianae Brunensis, 68(2), 451-457. doi: 10.11118/actaun202068020451
Share...
Download citation
  • BibTeX (.bib)
  • Bookends (.ris)
  • EasyBib (.ris)
  • EndNote (.enw)
  • EndNote 8 (.xml)
  • ISI WoS (.isi)
  • Medlars (.medlars)
  • Mendeley (.ris)
  • MODS (.xml)
  • Papers (.ris)
  • RefWorks (.txt)
  • RefManager (.ris)
  • RIS (.ris)
  • MS Word (.xml)
  • Zotero (.ris)
    • Open full article

    References

    1. ARIELY, D. and BERNS, G. S. 2010. Neuromarketing: The hope and hype of neuroimaging in business. Nature Rev. Neurosci., 11(4): 284-292. DOI: 10.1038/nrn2795 Go to original source...
    2. ATKINSON, J. and BRADDICK, O. 1982. Sensory and perceptual capacities of the neonate. In: STRATTON, P. (Ed.). Psychobiology of the human newborn. London: John Wiley, pp. 191-220.
    3. BUSHNELL, E. W. and BOUDREAU, J. P. 1991. The development of haptic perception during infancy. In: HELLER, M. A. and SCHRIFF, W. (Eds.). The psychology of touch. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp. 139-161.
    4. CITRIN, A. V., STERN, D. E., SPANGENBERG, E. R. and CLARK, M. J. 2003. Consumer need for tactile input: An Internet retailing challenge. Journal of Business Research, 56(11): 915-922. DOI: 10.1016/S0148-2963(01)00278-8 Go to original source...
    5. DESHPANDE, G., HU, X., STILLA, R. and SATHIAN, K. 2008. Effective connectivity during haptic perception: A study using Granger causality analysis of functional magnetic resonance imaging data. NeuroImage, 40(4): 1807-1814. DOI: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2008.01.044 Go to original source...
    6. ERNST, M. O. and BANKS, M. S. 2002. Humans integrate visual and haptic information in a statistically optimal fashion. Nature, 415: 429-433. DOI: 10.1038/415429a Go to original source...
    7. FRANCIS, S., ROLLS, E. T., BOWTELL, R., MCGLONE, F., O'DOHERTY, J., BROWNING, A., CLARE, S. and SMITH, E. 1999. The representation of pleasant touch in the brain and its relationship with taste and olfactory areas. Neuroreport, 10(3): 453-459. DOI: 10.1097/00001756-199902250-00003 Go to original source...
    8. GALLACE, A., ZEEDEN, S., RÖDER, B. and SPENCE, C. 2010. Lost in the move? Secondary task performance impairs tactile change detection on the body. Consciousness and Cognition, 19(1): 215-229. DOI: 10.1016/j.concog.2009.07.003 Go to original source...
    9. GIBSON, J. J. 1966. The senses considered as perceptual systems. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
    10. GROHMANN, B., SPANGENBERG, E. R. and SPROTT, D. E. 2007. The influence of tactile input on the evaluation of retail product offerings. Journal of Retailing, 83(2): 237-246. DOI: 10.1016/j.jretai.2006.09.001 Go to original source...
    11. HOLBROOK, M. B. 1982. Some future dimensions of psycholinguistics, imagery, and consumer response. In: MITCHELL, A. A. (Ed.). Advances in consumer research. Vol. 9. Ann Arbor, MI: Association for Consumer Research, pp. 112-117.
    12. HOLBROOK, M. B. 1983. Product imagery and the illusion of reality: some insights from consumer esthetics. In: TYBOUT, A. and BAGOZZI, R. (Ed.). Advances in consumer research. Vol. 10. Ann Arbor, MI: Association for Consumer Research, pp. 65-71.
    13. HIRSCHMAN, E. and HOLBROOK, M. B. 1982. Hedonic consumption: emerging concepts, methods and propositions. J. Mark., 46(3): 92-101. DOI: 10.1177/002224298204600314 Go to original source...
    14. HYMAN, I. E., JR. and PENTLAND, J. 1996. The role of mental imagery in the creation of false childhood memories. J. Memory Lang., 35(2): 101-117. DOI: 10.1006/jmla.1996.0006 Go to original source...
    15. JANSSON-BOYD, C. V. 2011. Touch matters: exploring the relationship between consumption and tactile interaction. Social Semiotics, 21(4): 531-546. DOI: 10.1080/10350330.2011.591996 Go to original source...
    16. JANSSON-BOYD, C. V. and MARLOW, N. 2007. Not only in the eye of the beholder: Tactile information can affect aesthetic evaluation. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity and the Arts, 1(3): 170-173. DOI: 10.1037/1931-3896.1.3.170 Go to original source...
    17. KAMPFER, K., LEISCHNIG, A., IVENS, B. S., SPENCE, C. and BRUCE, A. 2017. Touch-flavor transference: Assessing the effect of packaging weight on gustatory evaluations, desire for food and beverages, and willingness to pay. Plos One, 12(10): e0186121. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0186121 Go to original source...
    18. KLATZKY, R. L. and LEDERMAN, S. J. 1992. Stages of manual exploration in haptic object identification. Perception and Psychophysics, 52(6): 661-670. DOI: 10.3758/BF03211702 Go to original source...
    19. KLATZKY, R. L. and LEDERMAN, S. J. 1993. Toward a computational model of constraint driven exploration and haptic object identification. Perception, 22(5): 597-621. DOI: 10.1068/p220597 Go to original source...
    20. KLATZKY, R. L., LEDERMAN, S. J. and MATULA, D. E. 1993. Haptic exploration in the presence of vision. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 19(4): 726-743. Go to original source...
    21. KRISHNA, A. and MORRIN, M. 2008. Does touch affect taste? The Perceptual transfer of product container haptic cues. Journal of Consumer Research, 34(6): 807-818. DOI: 10.1086/523286 Go to original source...
    22. LOFTUS, E. F. and PICKRELL, J. E. 1995. The formation of false memories. Psychiatric Ann., 25(12): 720-725. DOI: 10.3928/0048-5713-19951201-07 Go to original source...
    23. MANDLER, J. M. 1992. How to build a baby. II. Conceptual primitives. Psychological Review, 99(4): 587-604. DOI: 10.1037/0033-295X.99.4.587 Go to original source...
    24. MCCABE, D. and NOWLIS, S. 2003. The effect of examining actual products or product descriptions on consumer preference. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 13(4): 431-439. DOI: 10.1207/S15327663JCP1304_10 Go to original source...
    25. MIODOWNIK, M. 2005. A touchy subject. Materials today, 8(6): 6-6. Go to original source...
    26. MODICA, E., CARTOCCI, G., ROSSI, D. et al. 2018. Neurophysiological Responses to Different Product Experiences. Computational Intelligence and Neuroscience, Special Issue: 9616301. Go to original source...
    27. MORIN, C. 2011. Neuromarketing: the new science of consumer behavior. Society, 48: 131-135. DOI: 10.1007/s12115-010-9408-1 Go to original source...
    28. NEISSER, U. 1976. Cognition and reality: principles and implications of cognitive psychology. San Francisco: Freeman.
    29. OLIVER, R. L. and LINDA, G. 1981. Effect of satisfaction and its antecedents on consumer preference and intention. Adv. Consum. Res., 8: 88-93.
    30. PARK, W., KI, D., KIM, D.-H., KWON, G. H., KIM, S.-P. and KIM, L. 2015. EEG correlates of user satisfaction of haptic sensation. In: 2015 IEEE International Conference on Consumer Electronics (ICCE). IEEE, pp. 569-570. Go to original source...
    31. PARK, W., KIM, D.-H. KIM, S.-P., LEE, J.-H. and KIM, L. 2018. Gamma EEG Correlates of Haptic Preferences for a Dial Interface. IEEE Access, 6: 22324-22331. DOI: 10.1109/ACCESS.2018.2827023 Go to original source...
    32. PECK, J. 1999. Extraction of Haptic Properties: Individual Characteristics and Stimulus Characteristics. Doctoral Dissertation. Department of Marketing, University of Minnesota.
    33. PECK, J. and CHILDERS, T. L. 2003a. Individual differences in haptic information processing: The "need for touch" scale. The Journal of Consumer Research, 30(3): 430-442. DOI: 10.1086/378619 Go to original source...
    34. PECK, J. and CHILDERS, T. L. 2003b. To have and to hold: The influence of haptic information on product judgments. Journal of Marketing, 67(2): 35-48. DOI: 10.1509/jmkg.67.2.35.18612 Go to original source...
    35. PECK, J. and 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. DOI: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2006.01.014 Go to original source...
    36. PECK, J. and WIGGINS, J. 2006. It just feels good: Customers' affective response to touch and its influence on persuasion. Journal of Marketing, 70(4): 56-69. Go to original source...
    37. PECK, J. 2009. Does touch matter? Insights from haptic research in marketing. In: KRISHNA, A. (Ed.). Sensory marketing: A confluence of psychology, neuroscience and consumer behavior research. New York: Psychology Press/Routledge.
    38. PECK, J. and SHU, S. B. 2009. The Effect of Mere Touch on Perceived Ownership. Journal of Consumer Research, 36(3): 434-447. DOI: 10.1086/598614 Go to original source...
    39. PECK, J., BARGER, V. A. and 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. DOI: 10.1016/j.jcps.2012.09.001 Go to original source...
    40. PIAGET, J. 1952. The origins of intelligence in children. New York: International University Press. Go to original source...
    41. ROLLS, E. T., O'DOHERTY, J., KRINGELBACH, M. I., FRANCIS, S., BOWTELL, R. and MCGLONE, F. 2003. Representations of pleasant and painful touch in the human orbitofrontal cingulated cortices. Cerebral Cortex, 13(3): 308-317. DOI: 10.1093/cercor/13.3.308 Go to original source...
    42. ROOPCHUND, R., KHIRODHUR, L., PANYANDEE, T. and BAPPOO, M. 2016. Analyzing the Impact of Sensory Marketing on Consumers: A Case Study of KFC. Journal of US-China Public Administration, 13(4): 278-292. Go to original source...
    43. SCHIFFERSTEIN, H. N. J. 2006. The perceived importance of sensory modalities in product usage: A study of self-reports. Acta Psychologica, 121(1): 41-64. DOI: 10.1016/j.actpsy.2005.06.004 Go to original source...
    44. SCHIFFERSTEIN, H. N. J. and SPENCE, C. 2008. Multisensory product experience. In: SCHIFFERSTEIN, H. N. J. and HEKKERT, P. (Eds.). Product experience. Amsterdam: Elsevier, pp. 133-161. Go to original source...
    45. SPENCE, C., NICHOLLS, M. E. R. and DRIVER, J. 2001. The cost of expecting events in the wrong sensory modality. Perception and Psychophysics, 63(2): 330-333. DOI: 10.3758/BF03194473 Go to original source...
    46. SPENCE, C., SHORE, D. I. and KLEIN, R. M. 2001. Multimodal prior entry. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 130: 799-832. DOI: 10.1037/0096-3445.130.4.799 Go to original source...
    47. TURATTO, M., GALFANO, G., BRIDGEMAN, B. and UMILTA, C. 2004. Space-independent modality driven attentional capture in auditory, tactile and visual systems. Experimental Brain Research, 155(3): 301-310. DOI: 10.1007/s00221-003-1724-x Go to original source...
    48. VALENZA, G., GRECO, A., BIANCHI, M., NARDELLI, M., ROSSI, S. and SCILINGO, E. P. 2018. EEG oscillations during caress-like affective haptic elicitation. Psychophysiology, 55(10): e13199. DOI: 10.1111/psyp.13199 Go to original source...
    49. VECCHIATO, G., ASTOLFI, L., DE VICO FALLANI, F. et al. 2011. On the Use of EEG or MEG Brain Imaging Tools in Neuromarketing Research. Computational Intelligence and Neuroscience, 2011(1687-5265): 643489. DOI: 10.1155/2011/643489 Go to original source...
    50. WANG, Y. J. and MINOR, M. S. 2008. Validity, reliability, and applicability of psychophysiological techniques in marketing research. Psychology & Marketing, 25(2): 197-232. DOI: 10.1002/mar.20206 Go to original source...
    51. WARREN, D. H. and ROSSAN, M. J. 1991. Intermodality relations vision and touch. In: HELLER, M. A. and SCHIFF, W. (Eds.). The psychology of touch. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, pp. 119-137.
    52. WILLIAMS, L. E. and BARGH, J. A. 2008. Experiencing physical warmth promotes interpersonal warmth. Science, 322(5901): 606-607. DOI: 10.1126/science.1162548 Go to original source...
    53. WORKMAN, J. E. 2009. Fashion Consumer Groups, Gender, and Need for Touch. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 28(2): 126-139. DOI: 10.1177/0887302X09356323 Go to original source...

    This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License (CC BY NC ND 4.0), which permits non-comercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original publication is properly cited. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.


    Return to the content