Abstract
Increasingly powerful computer technologies have enabled the development and widespread growth of touchscreen devices such as computers, tablets, and smartphones in consumers’ daily lives, including online shopping. Nonetheless, it is not clear to what extent and how direct-touch (i.e., finger) vs. indirect-touch (e.g., mouse click or stylus) interfaces have differential effects on consumers’ evaluations toward the object on the screen. Results from a lab experiment and a field study indicate that a direct-touch (vs. indirect-touch) interface has a polarizing effect on consumer evaluations. For an object about which consumers have a prior positive attitude, a direct-touch interface enhances consumer evaluations; for an object about which consumers have a prior negative attitude, a direct-touch interface lowers consumer evaluations. We find that consumers’ visual information processing style can moderate the polarizing effect. In addition, the polarizing effect can be explained by consumers’ vividness perception. These findings make useful contributions to the literature on haptic effects and human-computer interactions, as well as have significant managerial implications.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Brasel, S. A., & Gips, J. (2014). Tablets, touchscreens, and touchpads: how varying touch interfaces trigger psychological ownership and endowment. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 24, 226–233.
Brasel, S. A., & Gips, J. (2015). Interface psychology: touchscreens change attribute importance, decision criteria, and behavior in online choice. Cyberpsychology, Behavior and Social Networking, 18, 534–538.
Chae, B., & Hoegg, J. (2013). The future looks “right”: effects of the horizontal location of advertising images on product attitude. Journal of Consumer Research, 40, 223–238.
Childers, T. L., Houston, M. J., & Heckler, S. E. (1985). Measurement of individual differences in visual versus verbal information processing. Journal of Consumer Research, 12, 125–134.
Childers, T. L., & Jass, J. (2002). All dressed up with something to say: effects of typeface semantic associations on brand perceptions and consumer memory. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 12, 93–106.
Chung, S., Kramer, T., & Wong, E. M. (2018). Do touch interface users feel more engaged? The impact of input device type on online shoppers’ engagement, affect, and purchase decisions. Psychology & Marketing, 35, 795–806.
Deloitte. (2016). China e-retail market report 2016. https://www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/Deloitte/cn/Documents/cip/deloitte-cn-cip-china-online-retail-market-report-en-170123.pdf.
Elder, R. S., & Krishna, A. (2012). The “visual depiction effect” in advertising: facilitating embodied mental simulation through product orientation. Journal of Consumer Research, 38, 989–1003.
Fredrickson, B. L. (2001). The role of positive emotions in positive psychology: the broaden-and-build theory of positive emotions. American Psychologist, 56, 218–226.
Fredrickson, B. L., & Branigan, C. (2005). Positive emotions broaden the scope of attention and thought-action repertoires. Cognition and Emotion, 19, 313–332.
Gorn, G., Pham, M. T., & Sin, L. Y. (2001). When arousal influences ad evaluation and valence does not (and vice versa). Journal of Consumer Psychology, 11, 43–55.
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, 237–245.
Haselmayr, M. (2014). Here’s why your business needs its own mobile app, Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/allbusiness/2014/11/17/heres-why-your-business-needs-its-own-mobile-app/.
Hayes, A. F. (2013). An introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: a regression-based approach. New York: Guilford Press.
Higgins, E. T. (1997). Beyond pleasure and pain. American Psychologist, 52, 1280–1300.
Jiang, Y., Gorn, G. J., Galli, M., & Chattopadhyay, A. (2016). Does your company have the right logo? How and why circular- and angular-logo shapes influence brand attribute judgments. Journal of Consumer Research, 42, 709–726.
Lella, A., & Lipsman, A. (2014). The US mobile app report. www.comscore.com/Insights/Presentations-and-Whitepapers/2014/The-US-Mobile-App-Report.
Lemon, K. N., & Verhoef, P. C. (2016). Understanding customer experience throughout the customer journey. Journal of Marketing, 80, 69–96.
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, 189–196.
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. (2003b). Individual differences in haptic information processing: the “need for touch” scale. Journal of Consumer Research, 30, 430–442.
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, 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., & Wiggins, J. (2006). It just feels good: Customers’ affective response to touch and its influence on persuasion. Journal of Marketing, 70, 56–69.
Schlosser, A. E. (2003). Experiencing products in the virtual world: the role of goal and imagery in influencing attitudes versus purchase intention. Journal of Consumer Research, 30, 184–198.
Shen, H., Jiang, Y., & Adaval, R. (2010). Contrast and assimilation effects of processing fluency. Journal of Consumer Research, 36, 876–889.
Shen, H., Zhang, M., & Krishna, A. (2016). Computer interfaces and the “direct-touch” effect: can iPad increase the choice of hedonic food? Journal of Marketing Research, 53, 745–758.
Sun, J., Keh, H. T., & Lee, A. Y. (2019). Shaping consumer preference using alignable attributes: the roles of regulatory orientation and construal level. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 36, 151–168.
Zhao, M., Hoeffler, S., & Zauberman, G. (2011). Mental simulation and product evaluation: the affective and cognitive dimensions of process versus outcome simulation. Journal of Marketing Research, 48, 827–839.
Zhu, Y., & Meyer, J. (2017). Getting in touch with your thinking style: how touchscreens influence purchase. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 38, 51–58.
Funding
Xiaoyu Wang gratefully acknowledges financial support from the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant Number: 71272014) and Shanghai University of Finance and Economics.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher’s note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Electronic supplementary material
ESM 1
(DOCX 4188 kb)
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Wang, X., Keh, H.T., Zhao, H. et al. Touch vs. click: how computer interfaces polarize consumers’ evaluations. Mark Lett 31, 265–277 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11002-020-09516-w
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11002-020-09516-w