Skip to main content
Log in

Touch vs. click: how computer interfaces polarize consumers’ evaluations

  • Published:
Marketing Letters Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

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

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1

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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fredrickson, B. L., & Branigan, C. (2005). Positive emotions broaden the scope of attention and thought-action repertoires. Cognition and Emotion, 19, 313–332.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    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, 237–245.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Higgins, E. T. (1997). Beyond pleasure and pain. American Psychologist, 52, 1280–1300.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peck, J., & Childers, T. L. (2003b). Individual differences in haptic information processing: the “need for touch” scale. Journal of Consumer Research, 30, 430–442.

    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, 765–769.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    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, 56–69.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shen, H., Jiang, Y., & Adaval, R. (2010). Contrast and assimilation effects of processing fluency. Journal of Consumer Research, 36, 876–889.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

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

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hean Tat Keh.

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

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

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

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11002-020-09516-w

Keywords

Navigation