Journal of Retailing 95 (4, 2019) 128–142

Increasing Shopper Trust in Retailer Technological Interfaces via Auditory

Confirmation
Ryann Reynolds-McIlnay a,∗ , Maureen Morrin b
a Oregon State University College of Business, 2751 SW Jefferson Way, Austin Hall, Corvallis, OR 97331, United States
b Rutgers University-Camden School of Business, 401 Penn Street, Camden, NJ 08102, United States

Available online 21 November 2019

Abstract
This research examines the effects of sounds made by retail technological interfaces – self-checkout kiosks, credit card readers, mobile apps,
websites – at point-of-sale. We propose that such sounds, retail transaction auditory confirmation (RTAC), increase trust in technological interfaces
by providing auditory confirmation that stages of the checkout process have been successfully executed. Increased trust in technological interfaces
leads to positive downstream consequences in the form of satisfaction and purchase intention. Visual and auditory distraction in the retail environment
reduces trust, even when visual confirmation is provided, but synchronously provided audio-visual confirmation attenuates the negative effects of
environment distraction.
© 2019 New York University. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

JEL classification: M310

Keywords: Retail environment; Sensory marketing; Sounds; Trust; Point-of-sale transaction; Multi-modal confirmation

In recent years, retailers have expressed increased interest in
enhancing the shopper’s experience, both in-store and online.
Several studies have looked at how various aspects of a store’s
atmosphere or a website’s sensory characteristics impact shop-
ping experiences (see Krishna 2012, and Krishna and Schwarz
2014 for reviews). Such efforts are seen as worthwhile as they
can make the shopping experience more enjoyable with soothing
music, pleasing colors, arousing odors, and reduced crowding.
At the same time, rapid technological advances have been made
in regard to shopping behavior, via the growth of online and
mobile shopping and the use of self-checkout kiosks in brick
and mortar stores. The impact of the sensory input emanating
from such technological innovations on shopper behavior has
received limited attention.
More specifically, the sounds that retailers’ devices and soft-
ware make during the shopping and checkout processes have
not been extensively explored, yet likely impact the shopping
experience in ways that have not previously been thought about
or tested. This research seeks to address this gap by examining
∗ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: ryann.r@oregonstate.edu (R. Reynolds-McIlnay).
the effects of sounds made by technological interfaces that pro-
vide confirmation about stages of the checkout process. We aim
to test whether such sounds significantly impact both shopper
satisfaction and purchase intention through their impact on trust
in the technological interfaces.
Previous research has demonstrated the critical role of shop-
per trust in the purchase process. Trust is especially important
if consumers experience vulnerability when conducting transac-
tions with retailers because they feel they are unable to control
access to their personal information (Chen and Dibb 2010).
Recent years have seen a proliferation of technological devices
used by retailers that interface with shoppers. For example, there
has been an increased use of self-checkout systems by major
retailers such as Walmart and Target. Self-checkout kiosks and
related technology have the ability to reduce retailers’ labor costs
and check-out wait times. Self-checkout systems also support
the shift to cashless payment (Global Market Insights 2018).
Yet not all shoppers may be sufficiently trusting of technological
advances in the retail space, whether in the form of self-checkout
kiosks, card readers, websites, or mobile apps. Shopper satisfac-
tion and behavior depend heavily on trust in the retailer (Rust,
Kannan, and Peng 2002), as consumers can perceive social,

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretai.2019.10.006
0022-4359/© 2019 New York University. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
 R. Reynolds-McIlnay, M. Morrin / Journal of Retailing 95 (4, 2019) 128–142
financial, performance, and physical risks when making a pur-
chase (Kaplan, Szybillo, and Jacoby 1974). Indeed, lack of trust
is a major reason why shoppers choose not to purchase goods
from both websites and brick-and-mortar stores (Ofuonye et al.
2008).
We propose that an overlooked but important antecedent
of trust in the retail domain is the auditory confirmation pro-
vided by the retailer’s technological interfaces at point-of-sale.
Transaction-related sounds emanate from various types of tech-
nological advances – such as credit card readers, self-checkout
kiosks, websites, mobile apps – that shoppers commonly
encounter during the checkout process. We refer to these sounds
as retail transaction auditory confirmation (RTAC), a phrase that
collectively refers to the sounds from retailers’ technological
interfaces, indicating that an aspect or stage of the purchase pro-
cess has been successfully executed. Just as corporate-generated
store communications have been shown to increase customer
trust in supermarket retailers, store brand products, and sales
associates (Guenzi, Johnson, and Castaldo 2009), sound-based
communication signals from RTAC may represent another way
that retailers can, through actual or simulated atmospheric qual-
ities of physical retailing, similarly increase shopper trust. As
purchase transactions are a process during which the shopper
interacts with a technological interface while potentially inter-
acting with other individuals in a visually and auditorily complex
environment, the distracting nature of the retail environment
could negatively impact shopper attention by increasing cogni-
tive load, distracting shoppers from the transaction process in
which they share their personal and financial information with
retailers, a critical moment for trust with a channel and retailer
(Chen and Dibb 2010). Utilizing a multi-modal approach of tech-
nological interfaces that provide auditory confirmation with or
without visual confirmation should restore the shopper’s trust, as
providing auditory stimuli increases the detectability of a visual
stimulus within rapidly changing visual distractors (Shimojo
et al. 2001; Vroomen and de Gelder 2000).
In the present research, we examine how confirmatory sounds
produced by retail technological interfaces at point-of-sale
impact in-store, mobile, and online shopping experiences. We
propose a conceptual framework in which, under typical shop-
ping circumstances, RTAC restores perceptions of trust in the
retailer. Trust is enhanced because the sounds associated with
purchase transactions, such as the beep or pip sound heard by
shoppers when scanning an item at checkout or swiping a credit
card at point-of-sale, provides auditory confirmation that the
technology has received their actions, reducing any ambiguity
regarding the transaction and offsetting the cognitive load asso-
ciated with distracting retail environments. RTAC thus provides
auditory information in a cause-and-effect chain that is con-
veyed to the receiver through the aural system, which results in
feelings of trust in the technological interface. Increased trust,
in turn, positively impacts satisfaction with the experience and
future purchase intention. We further propose that the pitch of
the RTAC will moderate this effect, as higher-pitch RTAC may
be more familiar to shoppers, and thus more effective at restoring
trust.
129
We next review the extant literature and describe in more
detail our conceptual model. In this model, RTAC is operational-
ized via sounds made by registers or self-checkout technological
interfaces during the in-store purchasing process, buttons on
websites used to add items to a virtual shopping cart, and by
applications (i.e., apps) on mobile devices. We show that such
sounds have positive downstream effects through increased trust
in the technological interface. Aspects of the conceptual model
are tested in four studies. The first study demonstrates the main
effect, namely, that auditory confirmation as a single-modality
output during a retail transaction can increase the trust that
shoppers have in the technological interface (e.g., a retailer’s
website). The second study, also in a simulated online retail set-
ting, shows that visual distraction in the form of pop-up windows
decreases trust in the retail website even though visual confir-
mation is provided. However, receiving RTAC in addition to
visual confirmation reverses the negative impact of the distract-
ing environment, restoring trust in the technological interface,
experience satisfaction and future purchase intention. The third
study examines the effect of RTAC in an in-store shopping sim-
ulation, via the use of a self-checkout register, manipulating
whether or not shoppers are in an auditorily distracting environ-
ment. It shows that in a typical retail checkout area, even though
visual confirmation of scanning the product is provided, ambient
sounds decrease trust in the self-checkout register and increase
shopper cognitive load. RTAC offsets the cognitive load within
the noisy retail environment, restoring trust in the self-checkout
register. The fourth study examines an important moderator,
namely, RTAC pitch, and expands the scope to mobile retailing.
Collectively, the studies show that typical retail environments
can negatively affect shoppers who are interacting with technol-
ogy at point-of-sale by increasing cognitive load. The addition
of RTAC increases trust in the technological interface, whether
shopper cognitive capacity is taxed due to distracting noise or
visual stimuli. Trust in the technological interface leads to pos-
itive outcomes such as greater satisfaction at point-of-sale and
increased future purchase intention. The research suggests that
providing auditory confirmation is an important issue for retail-
ers to consider when implementing technological innovations,
particularly as the RTAC from transactions of other shoppers
results in a more auditorily distracting environment.
Conceptual Framework
Trust, a willingness to rely on an exchange partner in whom
one has confidence (Morgan and Hunt 1994), or the mutual
confidence that no party will exploit another’s vulnerabilities
(Barney and Hansen 1994), has been shown to affect decisions
made in uncertain or risky environments. Prior research clearly
shows that trust reduces decision-making uncertainty (Morgan
and Hunt 1994) and perceptions of risk (Bakos and Brynjolfsson
1993; Bensaou 1997; Das and Teng 2001; Kim, Ferrin, and Rao
2008; Pavlou 2003).
Trust within the online context has been widely exam-
ined (Chen and Dibb 2010; Kim, Ferrin, and Rao 2008; Lee
and Turban 2001; McKnight, Choudhury, and Kacmar 2002;
Wang and Emurian 2005; Yoon 2002). McKnight, Choudhury,
130 R. Reynolds-McIlnay, M. Morrin / Journal of Retailing 95 (4, 2019) 128–142
and Kacmar (2002) define trust in online vendors as a multi-
dimensional construct with the two inter-related components
of trusting beliefs––perceptions of vendor competence, benev-
olence, and integrity––and trusting intentions, or a willingness
to make oneself vulnerable to the vendor. Online trust is built
through the consumer’s belief that the vendor or retailer would
not benefit from cheating, the belief that private information is
safe, and that the technological interface (e.g., website) is typical
and easy to use (Gefen, Karahanna, and Straub 2003).
Auditory Confirmation Increases Trust in Technological
Interfaces
Prior research shows that sounds have important market-
ing implications (Fraedrich and King 1998). Some types of
sounds can have positive effects on shoppers. Sounds can com-
municate hedonic attributes of products, such as the soft close
of a luxury vehicle door (Lageat, Czellar, and Laurent 2003),
for example. Ambient noise and musical sounds can lead to
healthier food choices from increased relaxation in retail envi-
ronments (Biswas, Lund, and Szocs 2018). Mehta, Zhu, and
Cheema (2012) found low to medium background noises lead
to more abstract and creative thought processes. Shen and
Sengupta (2013) showed that auditory input such as irrelevant
store announcements can impact product choice by altering the
focus of shopper attention.
Sounds can also be utilized to provide feedback that actions
have been received and processed (Ice et al. 2007). In a retail con-
text, auditory confirmation or an operation confirmation signal
is often provided at point-of-sale when an item is successfully
scanned at checkout, when a credit card has been successfully
read, or when financial information from a mobile payment ser-
vice like Apple Pay has been transferred from a mobile device
to the near field communication (NFC)-enabled payment ter-
minal. However, compared to the effects of music (Milliman
1982, Hynes and Manson 2016; review articles by Bruner and
Gordon 1990, Garlin and Owen 2006, Jain and Bagdare 2010),
less is known about the effects of nonmusical sounds encoun-
tered in retail settings, especially the sounds made by retailers’
technological interfaces.
In verbal communication, a listener regulates the speaker’s
message encoding during the communication process by pro-
viding feedback to the speaker. Although concurrent feedback
occurs during the speaker’s message, confirmation is derived
when the listener’s behavior changes in consequence to a
speaker’s message (Krauss and Weinheimer 1966). Feedback
may occur in forms other than person-to-person verbal commu-
nication, such as humans receiving feedback from technological
interfaces through nonmusical sounds. For example, ATMs pro-
vide feedback to users by producing a sound when a button
is pressed. Extending these findings to retail environments, we
propose that technological interfaces that are utilized at point-
of-sale can provide feedback and confirmation that tasks such as
scanning merchandise, swiping a credit card to provide payment
information, or confirming the correct transaction total has been
successfully executed.
Trust in machines is driven by subjective perceptions of com-
petence (Muir and Moray 1996). As such, a machine or other
type of technological interface providing RTAC during a pur-
chase transaction should signal competence. The presence of
RTAC communicates to the customer’s that the actions with
a technological interface were properly executed, a form of
communication that should generate trust (Morgan and Hunt
1994). The presence of RTAC should increase trust associated
with making a purchase, with feedback from the technological
interface providing confirmation that the customer’s actions of
scanning products, pressing buttons, and swiping credit cards
during a purchase have been received by the machine interface
and interpreted correctly. We thus hypothesize:
H1. The presence (vs. absence) of retail transaction audi-
tory confirmation (i.e., RTAC) from technological interfaces
increases trust in the technological interface.
Trust has been shown to increase intentions to approach a
retailer website, specifically spending more time on, explor-
ing, revisiting, and doing business with the site (Chen and
Dibb 2010). Prior research also shows that increasing shopper
trust in the retailer (White and Yuan 2012) and retail website
(Kim, Ferrin, and Rao 2008; Pavlou 2003; Schlosser, Barnett
White, and Lloyd 2006; Yoon 2002) enhances purchase inten-
tions through decreased perceived risk (Kim, Ferrin, and Rao
2008; Pavlou 2003) and increased intentions to conduct a trans-
action (Pavlou 2003). We therefore hypothesize that shopper
trust in the retail technological interface from the presence of
RTAC will result in a more positive experience at point-of-sale
and an increased willingness to make a purchase in the future.
H2. Increased trust in the technological interface from RTAC
will increase (a) satisfaction with the checkout experience and
(b) future purchase intention.
Additionally, experiencing increased cognitive load
decreases the propensity to trust (Haselhuhn, Schweitzer, and
Wood 2010). Retail environments are typically complex and
full of visual, auditory, and olfactory sensory stimuli that could
distract customer attention at point-of-sale. We now discuss
how increased cognitive load experienced by shoppers in
complex retail environments may negatively impact trust in
the point-of-sale technological interfaces with which shoppers
interact.
Environmental Distractors Decrease Trust
Information overload is a common problem in retail envi-
ronments, leading shoppers to experience increased arousal
(Ketron, Spears, and Dai 2016), narrow their attention to a lim-
ited amount of available information (Kahneman 1973) and
utilize heuristics. The ability to focus attention deteriorates
under high cognitive load, negatively impacting working mem-
ory processes (Lavie 2010). Cognitive load theory describes a
model of cognitive architecture based on temporary processing
of information in working memory and a permanent knowledge
base in long-term memory (Kalyuga 2011). Working memory
is the system that provides temporary storage and manipulation
 R. Reynolds-McIlnay, M. Morrin / Journal of Retailing 95 (4, 2019) 128–142
of the information necessary for complex cognitive tasks such
as language comprehension, learning, and reasoning (Baddeley
1992). When the essential characteristics of working memory –
capacity and duration (Kalyuga 2011) – are exceeded, working
memory becomes overloaded and processing is inhibited.
Distractors, which can result in failures to inhibit unnecessary
information, slow processing and cause people to make mistakes
(Kim, Kim, and Chun 2005). For example, unexpected or novel
sounds can capture attention involuntarily and distract from
the task at hand (Escera and Corral 2007). Distraction occurs
with both more demanding high-load tasks and less demanding
low-load tasks (Berti and Schröger 2003). The potential for dis-
traction increases when making a purchase in a noisy or busy
retail environment (compared to quieter environments). We pro-
pose that a distracting environment at point-of-sale will decrease
shopper trust in the technological interface when it provides only
single-modality (e.g., visual) confirmation. Although RTAC can
be muted, such as reducing volume or muting the verbal direc-
tions of a self-checkout register or mobile device while using
an app, visual confirmation typically cannot be removed from
and is generally provided as a single-modality source of confir-
mation by retail technological interfaces. However, multi-modal
confirmation, the technological interface providing synchronous
RTAC with visual confirmation, could reverse the distracting
environment’s negative effect and restore trust. We now discuss
the multi-modality literature.
Multi-modality Confirmation Enhances Visual Attention
While vision is often considered the dominant sensory modal-
ity, a growing literature in recent years has suggested that other
sensory modalities can alter visual processing (see Shams and
Kim 2010 review article) with sound and touch impacting the pri-
mary visual cortex. Multi-modality matching of environmental
stimuli tends to be a compromise between absolute and relative
equivalence based on the auditory and visual stimuli context
(Marks, Szczesiul, and Ohlott 1986). Concurrent sensory stim-
uli, such as the various background noises of a retail store while
completing a transaction at point-of-sale, may be perceptually
grouped together, resulting in a unique noise auditorily ‘pop-
ping out’ and affecting visual processing (Driver and Spence
2000). Other environmental sounds such as ambient music, con-
versations, and irrelevant RTAC from nearby transactions will
likely act as distractors in the environment and be perceptually
grouped together, as saliency decreases for sounds that are pre-
sented asynchronously with the visual stimuli (Shimojo et al.,
2001). As a sound that is synchronized with the appearance of
a visual stimulus increases the saliency of the sound (Shimojo
et al. 2001) and increases the detectability of a visual stimu-
lus within rapidly changing visual distractors (Vroomen and
de Gelder 2000), RTAC that is temporally synchronized and
originates from the technological interface being utilized should
increase attention to the visual confirmation.
H3. The presence of RTAC in a context where visual confir-
mation is provided increases trust in the technological interface
in distracting (vs. nondistracting) retail environments.
131
Fig. 1. Conceptual model with hypotheses.
To summarize, we hypothesize that single-modal RTAC can
increase trust in technological interfaces that shoppers utilize to
conduct transaction with retailers. This increase in trust has pos-
itive downstream impacts, increasing shopper satisfaction with
the experience and increasing the propensity to return to the
channel to make a purchase in the future. However, technological
interfaces at point-of-sale typically provide visual confirmation.
When retail environments reflect distractors from multiple sen-
sory inputs, the provided single-modality visual confirmation
typically provided by retail technological interfaces may not
be adequate in the presence of retail environmental distractors
that negatively impact shoppers’ trust in the technological inter-
face being utilized at point-of-sale. However, the addition (vs.
absence) of RTAC to a context that ordinarily provides visual
confirmation will increase customer trust in the technological
interface, attenuating the negative effects of the distracting envi-
ronment. The reversal of the negative impact of the distracting
environment from RTAC added to visual transaction confirma-
tion is expected to impact downstream consequences such as
satisfaction with the point-of-sale experience and future pur-
chase intentions (Fig. 1). We now discuss a boundary condition
to this phenomenon, the pitch of the RTAC, based on its funda-
mental frequency.
Pitch and Fundamental Frequency
Fundamental frequency refers to the physical properties of a
sound wave, measured in hertz (Hz), whereas pitch is the percep-
tion of the fundamental frequency. Humans are generally able
to hear sounds with a fundamental frequency between about
20 Hz and 20,000 Hz (Rosen 2011). Medium fundamental fre-
quencies fall in the 500 and 2,000 Hz range, with fundamental
frequencies greater than 2,000 Hz considered high and funda-
mental frequencies lower than 500 Hz considered low (National
Research Council 2004). Importantly, ISO 24501 (International
Organization for Standardization 2010) states that the funda-
mental frequencies of auditory signals for consumer products
should not be higher than 2,500 Hz; thus, RTAC in retail envi-
ronments could have a low or medium fundamental frequency.
However, the extant literature examining pitch and trust tends
to focus on verbal speech (Montano et al. 2017; O’Connor et al.
2014; O’Connor and Barclay 2017; Oleszkiewicz et al. 2017).
Speech tends to fall within a lower range, between 98 and 225 Hz
(Martín-Santana et al. 2015).
132 R. Reynolds-McIlnay, M. Morrin / Journal of Retailing 95 (4, 2019) 128–142
Table 1
Overview of studies.
Study Retail channel Technological interface and
moderator
1 Online Retailer website
2 Online Retailer website
Visual distraction
3 In-store Self-checkout register
Auditory distraction
4 Mobile Retailer mobile app
RTAC pitch
Importantly, voice pitch affects the transfer of technical infor-
mation and trust (Waber et al. 2012), with lower-pitch voices
(98–151 Hz) trusted more and higher-pitch voices (152–225 Hz)
trusted less (Martín-Santana et al. 2015). However, as noted
before, voices typically fall within a very low frequency range.
Computer generated auditory signals such as RTAC generally
have a frequency higher than the human vocal range (e.g.,
399.7 Hz for typical register barcode scanner beep). Moreover,
shoppers are quite likely much more familiar with RTAC sounds
that are higher pitched. As a result, we propose that the per-
ceived pitch of the RTAC fundamental frequency will moderate
the impact of RTAC on trust as follows:
H4. RTAC with a lower fundamental frequency (152–225 Hz)
will result in lower trust in the technological interface than RTAC
with a higher fundamental frequency (226–2,000 Hz).
Overview of Studies
Four studies were conducted to test these hypotheses
(Table 1). Study 1 examines the effect of RTAC in a simulated
online transaction, more specifically, when adding products to
a virtual shopping cart. RTAC is not commonly provided when
adding items to a virtual shopping cart, so this study explores
the potential for enhanced shopper response if such auditory
confirmation is provided as a single modality confirmation in a
nondistracting environment, to test H1 and H2. The other studies
consistently provide the visual confirmation (e.g., website but-
ton highlighted in blue in Study 2, green light blinking on the
top of an in-store barcode scanner in Study 3, and checkmark
appearing within the processing circle within a mobile app in
Study 4) that is often provided within many typically distract-
ing retail contexts in order to examine the impact of RTAC in
Study design and confirmation modality Item collection order
2-level (1,499.22 Hz RTAC beep added to Technological Interface and Retailer
website “Add to Cart” and “Submit Order” Trust, Downstream DVs
buttons vs. no RTAC)
No other confirmation modality provided
(single-modal context)
3-level (Control, Visual distraction: popup Downstream DVs, Technological
windows, Visual distraction with Interface Trust and Retailer Trust
1,499.22 Hz RTAC beep added to website
button click)
Visual confirmation always provided
(multi-modal context)
2 (399.7 Hz RTAC vs. RTAC beep removed Downstream DVs, Technological
from self-checkout register scanner) × 2 Interface Trust and Retailer Trust
(Auditorily distracting: quiet vs. noisy retail
environment);
Visual confirmation always provided
(multi-modal context)
3-level (Control, Lower-pitch 172.8 Hz Error Perceptions, Information
RTAC, Higher-pitch 345.8 Hz RTAC) with Safety, Downstream DVs,
environment ambient sound; Technological Interface Trust and
Visual confirmation always provided Retailer Trust
(multi-modal context)
contexts where visual confirmation is provided in retail trans-
actions. Study 2 further examines the online shopping context
while testing the impact of environmental distraction, focusing
on visual distraction from pop-up windows. Study 3 examines
the presence (vs. absence) of RTAC in a simulated in-store con-
text that is (vs. is not) auditorily distracting in a context in which
RTAC is ordinarily provided (i.e., while scanning products at a
self-checkout register) to test H3. Finally, Study 4 replicates the
findings within an additional retail channel and context, a trans-
action within a coffee shop retailer’s mobile app. RTAC is added
to the visual confirmation that monetary value has been added
to an app from a credit card. Study 4 also tests H4, examining
RTAC pitch on shoppers incorrectly perceiving RTAC as a cau-
tion signal that communicates an error has occurred during the
transaction rather than a confirmation signal that actions have
been processed correctly by the technological interface.
Study 1: RTAC in an Online Shopping Context Increases
Trust
In this study we examine the effect of adding RTAC to a
context in which it does not normally occur, namely, while shop-
ping online. We vary whether or not a relatively high pitched
(1,499.22 Hz) confirmatory beep sound is heard when clicking
on the “Add to Cart” and “Submit Order” buttons on a simu-
lated retailer website during a simulated shopping session. We
expect that providing RTAC will increase trust in the technolog-
ical interface (the retailer’s website) when no other confirmation
(e.g., no visual confirmation) is provided, leading to the positive
downstream consequence of higher satisfaction with the online
shopping experience and increased future purchase intentions.
 R. Reynolds-McIlnay, M. Morrin / Journal of Retailing 95 (4, 2019) 128–142 133

Design

One hundred and three undergraduate students at a Mid-

Atlantic university (28% female, Mage = 20 years, 3% reported
having a hearing impairment) took part in a two-level, single-
factor experiment that manipulated the presence or absence of
RTAC while adding products to a shopping cart at a hypothetical
online retailer website. Participants read a cover story regard-
ing the task at hand, which involved shopping for a living room
floor lamp. They watched a short instructional video regard-
ing living room lighting design from a light bulb manufacturer,
which provided justification for wearing headphones during the
study. Participants completed three measures (The video is help- Fig. 2. Study 1: RTAC (single-modal) increases trust in the technological inter-
face (retail website), online shopping satisfaction, and future purchase intention.
ful; The video is useful; I would be likely to purchase products
Note. Error bars indicate standard error.
from a retail website that includes instructional videos like this
one) to support the cover story.
Participants then took part in the online shopping scenario in
which they were asked to imagine they needed to shop for a new
floor lamp for their apartment or dorm, saw six lamp options
presented in random order, with “Add to Cart” buttons under
each item on the screen, along with a “Submit Order” button
that was to be pressed when finished shopping (Web Appendix).
Participants were asked to add option(s) to the shopping cart as
they might if they were actually shopping for such a product.
Those in the control condition heard no sound(s) when click-
ing on the buttons, whereas participants in the RTAC condition
heard a beep whenever they clicked on a button. When par-
ticipants clicked on an “Add to Cart” button, the button itself
provided no visual feedback and the participant saw no visual
confirmation that their click had been registered by the web-
site. Participants completed a five-item scale to measure trust in
the technological interface (i.e., retailer’s website: very unde-
pendable/very dependable, very incompetent/very competent,
very low integrity/very high integrity, very unresponsive/very
responsive, very unsecure/very secure; ten-point scales, α = .95;
Sirdeshmukh, Singh, and Sabol 2002), satisfaction with the
online shopping experience (I am satisfied with my shopping Fig. 3. Study 1: Trust in the technological interface (retail website) Mediates
experience in the online store. I enjoyed shopping in the online single-modal RTAC positive effects on shopping experience satisfaction and
store. Overall, I am satisfied with the online store experience. future purchase intention.
1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree, α = .91; van Ittersum
et al. 2013), and future purchase intentions (How likely are you SE = .11 vs. MNoRTAC = 3.43 SE = .11). A similar ANOVA on
to do the following? Purchase a product from the retailer, Visit future purchase intention (F(1, 101) = 14.77, p < .0001) sug-
the retailer later, Search the retailer for other products, Pur- gests purchase intention was higher when RTAC was provided
chase other products from the retailer, 1 = very unlikely, 7 = very (MRTAC = 4.58 SE = .20; MNoRTAC = 3.52 SE = .20; Fig. 2).
likely; α = .90). Please see the Web Appendix for measures for Mediation analyses were conducted (Hayes 2018 PRO-
all the studies. CESS 3.3, Model 4, 10,000 bootstrap samples; Fig. 3), which
supported our core conceptual framework (H1 and H2). The
Results results show that RTAC increased trust in the technologi-
cal interface (a = 1.01 SE = .37, t = 2.72, p = .0077), which in
An ANOVA on trust in the technological interface (i.e., turn increased satisfaction in the online shopping experience
retailer’s website) was conducted (F(1, 101) = 7.38, p = .008) (b = .15 SE = .04, t = 4.07, p = .0001). The significant indirect
as a function of RTAC presence. The results suggest partici- effect (RTAC → Trust in Website → Shopping Experience Sat-
pants trusted the technological interface more when RTAC was isfaction indirect effect = .15 boot SE = .07, 95% CI: [.0362,
provided (MRTAC = 6.65 SE = .26; MNoRTAC = 5.64 SE = .26), as .3019]) suggests RTAC increases online shopping satisfaction by
proposed in H1. The ANOVA on satisfaction with the online increasing trust in the website, supporting the mediation model
shopping experience (F(1, 101) = 6.00, p = .016) suggests sat- (c = .21 SE = .14, t = 1.48, p = .1430). Trust in the technologi-
isfaction was higher when RTAC was provided (MRTAC = 3.79 cal interface also increased future purchase intention (b = .21
134 R. Reynolds-McIlnay, M. Morrin / Journal of Retailing 95 (4, 2019) 128–142
SE = .07, t = 2.95, p = .0040) through increased trust in the web-
site (RTAC → Trust in Website → Future Purchase Intention
indirect effect = .21 boot SE = .11, 95% CI: [.0309, .4424]). Par-
tial mediation was achieved, as the direct effect of RTAC on
purchase intention was significant (c = .85 SE = .28, t = 3.08,
p = .0027).
Discussion
The study results suggest that adding RTAC to confirm that
products have been added to an online shopping cart increases
trust in the website, leading to increased online shopping expe-
rience satisfaction and future purchase intentions, in support of
H1 and H2. A limitation of this study is that we did not manipu-
late the visual modality, thus its interaction with auditory input
cannot be directly assessed. Whereas this study context did not
provide visual transaction confirmation, which many retail tech-
nological interfaces normally provide, in the next study visual
confirmation occurs in the form of the web browser highlighting
the “Add to Cart” and “Submit Order” button whenever clicked
with the mouse. We also test H3 by manipulating the presence
or absence of visual distraction in the form of popup windows,
in addition to manipulating the presence of RTAC.
Study 2: RTAC In the Context of Visual Confirmation
Attenuates Negative Effect of a Visually Distracting
(Online) Environment on Trust
The purpose of this study was to expand upon the findings
of study 1, which showed that the presence of RTAC positively
impacts shopper trust in technological interfaces during transac-
tions. Here, we examine the effect of adding RTAC to a context
in which visual confirmation from the technological interface
is provided. We also examine the moderating effect of a dis-
tracting environment on trust in technological interfaces. We
test a form of visual environmental distraction, in the form of
pop-up window offers, since consumers generally perceive web-
site pop-up ads as annoying (Gao, Koufaris, and Ducoffe 2004)
interruptions that negatively impact decision making (Xia and
Sudharshan 2002) while shopping online.
Design and Procedure
Two hundred and forty-seven undergraduates (n = 247,
50% female, Mage = 22 years, 3% reported having a hearing
impairment; 22% non-native speakers) at a Pacific Northwest
university took part in a 3-level study (control: nondistracting
environment (no pop-ups), distracting environment (pop-ups),
distracting environment (pop-ups) with RTAC) for partial course
credit. Visual confirmation was provided in all conditions, to
mimic conditions in the real world. Specifically, visual confir-
mation was provided whenever participants clicked on the “Add
to Cart” or “Submit Order” buttons, as the buttons briefly turned
blue. The study was conducted in a lab to ensure the Google
Chrome popup blocker was turned off and the computer volume
was consistent across participants. Participants were instructed
to put on headphones at the beginning of the study and were
Fig. 4. Study 2: RTAC added to visual (multi-modal) confirmation reverses
negative effect of visual distraction on trust in the technological interface (retail
website).
Note. Error bars indicate standard error.
instructed not to remove them until directed to do so, which
occurred after completing the shopping task but before com-
pleting the survey. Excluding the lighting design video task,
participants read the same instructions and completed the same
task as in Study 1. Participants who were randomly assigned
to the control condition heard no sound when clicking on the
buttons. Participants randomly assigned to distracting environ-
ment conditions saw two pop-up windows open – a window with
the “Congratulations! Google User! You’ve been selected as a
winner for the free $1000 Walmart Giftcard, iPhone X 265G or
Samsung Galaxy S8!” popup unrelated to the shopping task that
opened 5 s after the page loaded and a popup with a shopping
task-related free shipping offer code that opened 15 s after the
page loaded. Whereas participants in the distracting environ-
ment (but no RTAC) condition did not receive any RTAC, those
randomly assigned to the distracting environment with RTAC
condition heard a high-pitch beep (1,499.22 Hz) when clicking
on any of the “Add to Cart” or “Submit Order” buttons. Thus, we
manipulated the presence of visual distractors with and without
RTAC to test if visual distraction had a negative effect on trust
in the website but the presence of RTAC reversed the negative
effect, restoring trust to levels experienced in the nondistracting
environment.
Participants completed the same items as in Study 1: shop-
ping experience satisfaction (van Ittersum et al. 2013; α = .92),
future purchase intention (α = .93), and trust in the technological
interface (α = .95; Sirdeshmukh, Singh, and Sabol 2002). A 7-
item measure captured the extent to which the shopping task was
distracting (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree; α = .90), as
a manipulation check. Participants completed sound and pop-up
window manipulation checks, demographics, and a hypothesis
probe. Please see the Web Appendix for all measures.
Results
The one-way ANOVA examining perceptions of the shop-
ping experience as distracting (F(2, 244) = 31.86, p < .0001,
Fig. 4) suggests the online shopping task was less distract-
ing in the control condition (MControl = 2.47 SE = .14). As
 R. Reynolds-McIlnay, M. Morrin / Journal of Retailing 95 (4, 2019) 128–142
intended, the presence of popup ads resulted in greater distrac-
tion in both of the visually distracting environment conditions
(MDistractingEnvironment = 3.85 SE = .14, vs. control p < .0001;
MDistractingEnviroment+RTAC = 3.88 SE = .15, vs. control p < .0001;
distracting environment with vs. without RTAC p = .897).
The one-way ANOVA examining shopper trust in the web-
site (F(2, 244) = 5.74, p = .004, Fig. 4) suggests trust decreased
in the visually distracting environment (MControl = 6.04 SE = .22
vs. MDistractingEnvironment = 4.99 SE = .22, p = .001). Impor-
tantly, the addition of RTAC increased trust in the website
(MDistractingEnvironment+RTAC = 5.70 SE = .23 vs. distracting envi-
ronment p = .026), restoring trust to the higher level experienced
when only visual confirmation was provided in the nondistract-
ing environment (p = .291).
Mediation analyses were conducted with a bootstrapping
technique (Hayes 2018 PROCESS for SPSS 3.3, Model 4,
10,000 bootstrap samples; Fig. 5) to examine the downstream
effects of RTAC restoring trust on shopping experience satis-
faction and future purchase intentions. The control condition
is the baseline for comparison. The distracting environment
decreased trust in the website (a1 = −1.05 SE = .32, t = −3.32,
p = .001). Trust in the website increased satisfaction with
the online shopping experience (b = .28 SE = .01, t = 12.80,
p < .0001). The indirect effect of the distracting environment
was significant (Distracting Environment → Trust in the Web-
site → Shopping Experience Satisfaction indirect effect = −.29
boot SE = .09) as zero was not in the 95% confidence interval
[−.4783, −.1272], suggesting the distracting online shopping
environment was less satisfying due to lower trust in the
website. However, the addition of RTAC in the distracting
environment restored trust in the website (a2 = −.34 SE = .32,
t = −1.06, p = .291) and shopping experience satisfaction (RTAC
in Distracting Environment → Trust in the Website → Shopping
Experience Satisfaction indirect effect = −.09 boot SE = .09,
95% CI: [−.2757, .0872]) to the equivalent level experienced
in the control condition when only visual confirmation was
provided in a nondistracting environment.
Increased trust in the website also increased future pur-
chase intention (b = .39 SE = .04, t = 9.75, p < .0001). The
visually distracting popups decreased future purchase intention
by decreasing trust in the website (Distracting Environ-
ment → Trust in the Website → Future Purchase Intention
indirect effect = −.41 boot SE = .12, 95% CI: [−.6579,
−.1786]); however, hearing RTAC in the form of a beep when
clicking on the website buttons attenuated the negative effect
of the distracting environment, restoring trust in the website
(a2 = −.34 SE = .32, t = −1.06, p = .291) and future purchase
intention (RTAC in Distracting Environment → Trust in the
Website → Future Purchase Intention indirect effect = −.13 boot
SE = .13, 95% CI: [−.3988, .1176]) to the higher levels expe-
rienced in the nondistracting environment when only visual
confirmation was provided.
Discussion
This study suggests that a distracting environment decreases
trust in the machine interface that shoppers interact with at
135
point-of-sale, even though visual confirmation is provided. How-
ever, the technological interface that provides RTAC in addition
to visual confirmation increases trust in the interface (H3) to
the level shoppers would have experienced if the retail environ-
ment was not distracting. Additionally, the restored trust in the
technological interface increased satisfaction with the checkout
experience and future purchase intention (H2). A limitation of
this study is that, although pop-ups are distracting, they may also
create inferences such as those regarding the presence of com-
puter viruses, which may have impacted trust. Thus, there may
have been potential confounds in this study. Whereas this study
examined visual distractions in the form of popup ads while
shopping online, in Study 3 we expand the scope by examining
an additional retail channel (in-store) with ambient sounds as
the source of environmental distraction.
Study 3: RTAC in the Context of Visual Confirmation
Attenuates Negative Effect of Audtiorially Distracting
(In-store) Environment on Trust
This study examines the impact of the addition (vs. absence)
of RTAC to a shopping context that provides visual confirmation
in a simulated but realistic brick-and-mortar retail environment
on trust in the technological interface, using self-checkout regis-
ter, to test H2 and H3. The study was completed in a laboratory
designed to simulate an actual shopping environment, complete
with a self-checkout register. In this study, participants are (or
are not) exposed to distracting background noises in the form of
sounds typically heard at checkouts in grocery stores and mass
merchandizers (e.g., customers and employees speaking, sounds
from other register transactions, background music) while mak-
ing their purchases. The amount of such distracting noise varies
both across store format and by time of day within stores in the
real world, a dimension of the brick and mortar shopping envi-
ronment we seek to mimic in this study. We expect that in a more
auditorily distracting (i.e., noisier) retail environment, shoppers
will experience increase cognitive load at point-of-sale which
reduces trust in the self-checkout process. However, RTAC pro-
vided in the form of scanner beeps at a self-checkout kiosk,
rather than only visual confirmation provided via the small light
on the scanner blinking and the product SKU and description
appearing on screen, will attenuate the negative effects of the
distracting environment and restore trust in the technological
interface.
Design and Procedure
One hundred and ninety-eight undergraduates from a
Pacific Northwest university (54% female, Mage = 22 years,
2% self-reported hearing impaired; 45% non-native speakers)
participated in a 2 (Distracting environment: no retail environ-
ment noise vs. retail environment noise) × 2 (RTAC: absent vs.
399.7 Hz beep present) experiment. Participants read a prompt
which stated “We would like you to imagine that you need to
shop for some snacks. You go to the local convenience store,
walk through the door, grab a shopping basket, and select five
snack items to buy. After selecting the five snack items, you will
136 R. Reynolds-McIlnay, M. Morrin / Journal of Retailing 95 (4, 2019) 128–142
Fig. 5. Study 2: RTAC added to visual (multi-modal) confirmation reverses negative effect of visual distraction on trust in the technological interface (retail website),
online shopping experience satisfaction, and future purchase intention.
use the self-checkout.” Participants then completed the scenario
by entering a room in the lab that was set up as a convenience
store, retrieved a plastic shopping basket, and selected five snack
items from two table displays with an assortment of 36 product
SKUs with multiples available of each (product SKU list and
display images are available in the Web Appendix). Participants
then used a self-checkout register terminal of a 15-inch Mac-
Book Pro with Checkout 1.1.2 software and a Zebra LS2208
barcode scanner with cradle. Participants scanned each prod-
uct’s barcode, placed the product into a shopping bag, clicked
the checkout button, confirmed the transaction total, and clicked
the pay button. Participants in the RTAC present condition heard
the default beep when the scanner successfully scanned each
product’s barcode, whereas the scanner did not beep when partic-
ipants in the RTAC absent condition scanned product barcodes.
Visual confirmation that the barcode was successfully scanned
was indicated in all conditions by an oval 1 cm × 2 cm green light
on the top of the scanner and the product information appearing
on the transaction screen. We manipulated the ambient sound
participants heard during the shopping and self-checkout activ-
ity. Participants in the no distraction condition heard white noise
that constantly played in the lab at 57 dBA. Those in the distrac-
tion condition also heard a looped audio recording of a grocery
store register area played on the self-checkout at 69 dBA. After
completing the shopping task, participants completed the trust in
the technological interface (i.e., self-checkout register, α = .85;
Sirdeshmukh, Singh, and Sabol 2002) items used in the prior
studies. A researcher also recorded whether or not scanning
errors were made during the checkout process as a performance-
based measure of cognitive load (Paas et al. 2003; Sweller and
Chandler 1991; Sweller, Ayres, and Kalyuga 2011).
Results
Seven percent of all participants (7.1%) made errors while
scanning the products (e.g., scanned the same product more
than once, scanner failed to read a product barcode, prod-
uct was deleted from the transaction, the original transaction
was deleted before completion and a new transaction com-
pleted). The proportion of participants who made scanning
errors as a function of RTAC did not differ when there was
no ambient noise (PNoRTAC = 8.3% vs. PRTAC = 1.9%, Fisher’s
two-sided p = .192), suggesting cognitive load did not signifi-
cantly differ within the nondistracting environment. However,
in the noisy store environment, more participants made scan-
ning errors when RTAC was not provided (15.7%) compared to
when RTAC was provided (2.1%, Fisher’s two-sided p = .032),
suggesting shoppers experienced increased cognitive load in the
typically noisy retailer environment but RTAC reduced its neg-
ative effects. Additionally, the presence of RTAC reduced the
cognitive load to the lower levels experienced in the quiet envi-
ronment (RTAC Present: Pquiet = 1.9% vs. Pnoisy = 2.1%, Fisher’s
Two-Sided p = 1).
A two-way ANOVA was conducted to examine shop-
per trust in the technological interface (F(3, 194) = 7.86,
p < .0001). The main effect of the environment was signifi-
 R. Reynolds-McIlnay, M. Morrin / Journal of Retailing 95 (4, 2019) 128–142
Fig. 6. Study 3: RTAC added to visual (multi-modal) confirmation reverses neg-
ative effect of auditory distraction on trust in technological interface (in-store
self-checkout register).
Notes. Error bars indicate standard error. Significant interaction (F(1,
194) = 4.30, p = .039) suggests trust in the retail technological interface decreases
in a distracting environment (p = .001). The presence of RTAC restores shopper
trust in the technological interface within the distracting environment (p < .001).
cant, suggesting shopper trust in the self-checkout decreased
when the store was noisier (MNoisyStore = 7.09 SE = .16 vs.
MQuietStore = 7.75 SE = .16, F(1, 194) = 8.56, p = .004). The sig-
nificant main effect of RTAC suggests the presence of RTAC
when scanning products increased trust in the self-checkout
register (MRTAC = 7.78 SE = .16 vs. MNoRTAC = 7.07 SE = .16,
F(1, 194) = 10.07, p = .002). The interaction between the dis-
tracting environment and the presence of RTAC was also
significant (F(1, 194) = 4.30, p = .039; Fig. 6). Trust in the self-
checkout was high in the quiet, nondistracting environment
(MNoRTACinQuietStore = 7.63 SE = .23 vs. MRTACinQuietStore = 7.88
SE = .22, p = .436) regardless of whether RTAC was provided
along with visual confirmation during the purchase transac-
tion. However, the distracting environment decreased shopper
trust in the self-checkout (MNoRTACinQuietStore = 7.63 SE = .23 vs.
MNoRTACinNoisyStore = 6.50 SE = .22, p = .001), suggesting visual
confirmation alone may not be adequate in an auditorily dis-
tracting store. Hearing the self-checkout beep when scanning
products in the distracting environment increased trust in the
technological interface (MRTAC,inNoisyStore = 7.69 SE = .23 vs.
MNoRTAC,inNoisyStore = 6.50 SE = .22, p < .001), restoring trust to
the levels experienced in the nondistracting store environment
(MRTAC,inNoisyStore vs. MRTACinQuietStore p = .548).
Discussion
The results suggest that consumers trust the self-checkout less
and experience increased cognitive load at point-of-sale, as indi-
cated by an increase in transaction scanning errors, when noises
that normally occur at grocery store checkouts are heard. These
sounds include the unrelated RTAC from surrounding transac-
tions, conversations between customers and store employees,
background music, and the sound of shopping carts on tile
flooring. The results are consistent with prior research that
finds irrelevant sounds and background music increase cogni-
tive load and overload working memory (Moreno and Mayer
2000). However, the addition of RTAC to the provision of visual
137
confirmation, in the form of a light on the scanner blinking
when successfully scanning a barcode, restored shopper trust in
the self-checkout technological interface and decreased cogni-
tive load, as indicated by fewer scanning errors at point-of-sale.
Thus, H3 is supported in both an auditorily distracting context
in the present study and in a visually distracting environment,
as in Study 2. Study 4 examines the effect of the pitch of RTAC
as a key moderating variable.
Study 4: Pitch Moderates Effect of RTAC Within
Auditorily Distracting (Mobile App) Environment on Trust
In Study 4, we examine the impact of adding RTAC to mobile
app transactions and manipulate the fundamental frequency of
RTAC to test H4 (the moderating effect of pitch). We see whether
shoppers perceive errors with the technological interface when
hearing lower-pitched RTAC, thereby interpreting RTAC as a
caution signal (ISO 2010) rather than correctly perceiving RTAC
as an operation confirmation signal.
Design and Procedure
One hundred and seventy-four (n = 174, Mage = 22 years, 47%
female, 3% reported a hearing impairment; 32% non-native
speakers) undergraduates at a Pacific northwest university par-
ticipated in 3-level (no RTAC, lower-pitch RTAC, higher-pitch
RTAC) study for partial course credit. Participants read an intro-
duction that defined mobile apps as applications that many
people may put on their mobile phones and gave the exam-
ple of an app for a coffee shop that some may upload money
to so they can order and pay for coffee in advance from the
app on their phone. Participants were then instructed that they
were to view a video for an app of a coffee chain that operates
in the U.S. and to “imagine holding your phone, opening the
app, and uploading money with your own credit card” as they
watched the 28-s video. The video was a screen recording of
the process of an actual transaction of adding $10 with a saved
credit card within an actual coffee retailer’s iPhone app. The
video included selecting the card icon from the menu at the bot-
tom of the screen, touching the “Add Value” button, selecting
the “Other” option before selecting $10, confirming the value,
watching a spinning circle while the transaction was processing,
with visual confirmation provided by the amount changing from
$0 to $10 on the screen and a checkmark appearing within the
circle. Participants were randomly assigned to view one of three
versions of the video that varied only the presence of RTAC when
a checkmark appeared within a circle as visual confirmation
that the transaction was successfully completed. Thus, visual
confirmation was always provided. The sound selected for the
higher-pitch RTAC was a “pip-pip” (345.8 Hz) that fell within
the higher end of the low-frequency range above the high-pitch
voice range (152–225 Hz). The “pip-pip” sound was selected to
increase the generalizability of the RTAC from the prior stud-
ies’ “beep.” The lower-pitch RTAC (172.8 Hz) was developed by
lowering the pitch of the higher-pitch RTAC by one full octave.
Thus, participants in the lower- and higher-pitch RTAC condi-
tions heard the same sound that differed only in fundamental
138 R. Reynolds-McIlnay, M. Morrin / Journal of Retailing 95 (4, 2019) 128–142
frequency and, thus, perceived pitch. Importantly, the higher-
pitch RTAC has a frequency higher than the typical range for
voices, whereas the lower-pitch stimulus fell within the high-
pitch male voice range that has been associated with lower trust
associations (Martín-Santana et al. 2015). The control condi-
tion did not include RTAC. The videos for all three conditions
included ambient sound for the video duration. The ambient
sound consisted of murmuring and nondistinguishable speaking
from an online ambient noise creator, similar to what an individ-
ual may hear while in public and did not include any retail-related
sounds. Participants completed measures regarding their percep-
tions that an error occurred (5-item α = .80), annoyance (2-item
α = .76), information security perception (4-item α = .91), shop-
ping experience satisfaction (3-item α = .92), future purchase
intention (4-item α = .91), likelihood of using the mobile app
(6-item α = .92), the amount of money in dollars participants
were willing to add to the mobile app with their credit card,
willingness to pay, mobile app trustworthiness (5-item α = .94),
familiarity with the mobile app ordering and pickup, familiarity
with the retailer, demographics, and a hypothesis probe. See the
Web Appendix for all measures.
Results
One-way ANOVAs examining the impact of RTAC on trust in
the mobile app (F(2, 171) = 9.09, p < .001), satisfaction with the
mobile app transaction experience (F(2, 171) = 3.35, p = .037),
future purchase intention (F(2, 171) = 4.74, p = .010), error per-
ceptions (F(2, 171) = 6.93, p = .001), and likelihood of using
the mobile app (F(2, 171) = 3.39, p = .036) were significant
(Fig. 7). As expected, the addition of lower-pitch RTAC to the
visual confirmation did not improve trust in the mobile app
(MLowerPitchRTAC = 5.70 SE = .24 vs. MControl = 5.61 SE = .24,
p = .81). However, hearing the higher-pitch RTAC with the
visual confirmation during the transaction increased trust in
the mobile app (MHigherPitchRTAC = 6.91 SE = .24, ps < .001).
Greater satisfaction with the mobile app transaction also
occurred when the higher-pitch RTAC (MHigherPitchRTAC = 3.46
SE = .11, ps < .05) was added to the visual confirmation
(MLowerPitchRTAC = 3.12 SE = .11 vs. MControl = 3.09 SE = .11,
p = .836). Future purchase intention also increased when
the higher-pitch RTAC was provided (MHigherPitchRTAC = 5.14
SE = .16 vs. MLowerPitchRTAC = 4.63 SE = .17, p = .032; vs.
MControl = 4.44 SE = .17, p = .003; MLowerPitchRTAC vs. MControl
p = .419).
Perceptions that an error occurred during the mobile
app transaction were greater when the lower-pitch RTAC
was provided (MLowerPitchRTAC = 3.89 SE = .14) than when the
higher-pitch RTAC was provided (vs. MHigherPitchRTAC = 3.17
SE = .14, p < .001) or when no RTAC was provided (vs.
MControl = 3.46 SE = .14, p = .032). The higher-pitch RTAC pres-
ence directionally reduced the belief that an error occurred
compared to when no RTAC was provided, but the difference
was not statistically significant (p = .132). Moreover, hearing the
higher-pitch RTAC with the visual confirmation increased the
likelihood of using the app (MHigherPitchRTAC = 6.33 SE = .29)
compared to when no RTAC was provided (MControl = 5.30
SE = .30, p = .014) and directionally more than when the lower-
pitch RTAC was provided (MLowerPitchRTAC = 5.53 SE = .30,
p = .055; MControl vs. MLowerPitchRTAC p = .583). An ANOVA
examining information security perceptions was not significant
(F(2, 171) = 1.11, p = .333).
An ANOVA on amount of money in US dollars participants
were willing to add to the mobile app if they actually down-
loaded it approached significance (F(2, 171) = 2.86, p = .060).
On average, participants were willing to add $12.79 (SE = 1.60)
in the control condition versus $16.07 (SE = 1.58, p = .147) in the
lower-pitch condition. Participants were willing to add $18.10
(SE = 1.57) when the higher-pitch RTAC was provided, signif-
icantly more than when no RTAC was provided (p = .019) but
not significantly more than when the lower-pitch RTAC was
provided (p = .363).
Discussion
The results of this study support H4 and the conceptual
model. Shoppers experienced greater satisfaction, higher future
purchase intentions, were more likely to utilize the app (e.g.,
download the app, use the app on their mobile phone, add their
credit card information to the app, add their bank account infor-
mation to the app) and were willing to add more money within
the app when higher-pitch RTAC was provided along with visual
confirmation during an in-app transaction rather than only visual
confirmation. RTAC that was lower in pitch did not have the
same positive effect on trust. Further, shoppers were more likely
to misinterpret lower-pitch RTAC as indicating that an error
occurred rather than correctly perceiving that the transaction
was successfully completed within the mobile app. Thus, lower-
pitched RTAC may be misinterpreted as a caution signal by some
shoppers. Further, the perception of information security pro-
vided by the app did not statistically differ when RTAC was
provided along with visual confirmation, which may explain
why shoppers were willing to directionally (although not statis-
tically) add more money to the app when lower-pitch RTAC was
provided versus not and directionally less money compared to
when the higher-pitched RTAC was provided.
General Discussion
Shopper trust is critical during the purchase process, particu-
larly as retailers adopt more and more technological advances to
interface with shoppers rather than employees. With customer
data breaches increasingly common (more than 16 major retail-
ers hacked in 2018, Green and Hanbury 2018), trust is critical for
customers who wish to control access to their personal informa-
tion (Chen and Dibb 2010). Shopper satisfaction and behavior
depend heavily on trust in the retailer (Rust, Kannan, and Peng
2002). In this research, we examined a sound-based source of
trust in the retail domain, RTAC, provided by transaction tech-
nological interfaces to indicate to the customer that an aspect
of the purchase process has been successfully executed. We
build upon the extant computer science, marketing, and cogni-
tive psychology literatures to propose a framework that examines
the sounds that retailers’ devices and software make during the
 R. Reynolds-McIlnay, M. Morrin / Journal of Retailing 95 (4, 2019) 128–142
Fig. 7. Study 4: Pitch moderates effect of RTAC added to mobile app transaction visual (multi-modal) confirmation within auditorily distracting environment.
Notes. Error bars indicate standard error. Visual confirmation and ambient noise were provided in all conditions.
shopping and checkout processes. We examined how nonmusi-
cal confirmatory sounds in the in-store, online, and mobile retail
channels impact customer behaviors by increasing trust in the
machine interfaces with which shoppers interact. We find that
distractors in the environment reduce trust in the technological
interfaces used in point of sale transactions, even when visual
confirmation of shoppers’ actions is provided, by increasing
shoppers’ cognitive load. RTAC restores the lost trust in the tech-
nological interface, increasing satisfaction and future purchase
intentions, as the sounds associated with purchase transactions
provide auditory confirmation that the technological interface
has properly received the customers interactions.
Aspects of the conceptual model were tested in four stud-
ies. We examined RTAC across three technological interfaces –
retail website, self-checkout register, and mobile app. Study 1
examined the effect of the single-modal auditory confirmation
and suggests auditory confirmation increases trust in techno-
logical interfaces in nondistracting retail environments. Study 2
showed how RTAC is particularly helpful in visually distract-
ing contexts, such as when faced with distracting pop-up ads.
Studies 3 and 4 examined auditorily distracting environments,
replicating the findings when visual distraction occurs in the
online context (Study 2). Further, the Study 3 results suggest
shoppers experience increased cognitive load, as indicated by an
increase in the number of participants making an error during
the transaction, when exposed to complex and distracting retail
environments and trust the self-checkout technological interface
less. High cognitive load and busy retail environment distractors
can result in both shoppers and frontline store employees mak-
ing more scanning errors. Thus, RTAC may also benefit retailers
by reducing inventory inaccuracies at point-of-sale that could
result in unknown stockouts and shrinkage, a critical problem in
retail operations (Heese 2007), and by reducing customer ser-
vice failures from errors during purchase transactions that need
later correction.
Single-modality confirmation, such as RTAC in Study 1 or
visual confirmation in Studies 2–4, increases trust in the tech-
nological interfaces utilized during point-of-sale transaction in
a nondistracting environment. Multi-modal confirmation, pro-
139
viding both visual and auditory confirmation, does not result
in an additive effect on trust. Rather, the same high level of
trust stimulated by single-modality confirmation is experienced
within nondistracting retail environments (Study 3), possibly
demonstrating a ceiling effect. However, single-modality con-
firmation is not adequate within typical retail environments that
are visually (Study 2) or auditorily (Studies 3) distracting, result-
ing in a loss of trust in the technological interfaces utilized in
point-of-sale transactions. Providing both auditory and visual
confirmation restores the lost trust in the technological interface
to levels experienced in the nondistracting retail environments.
Thus, utilizing multi-modal confirmation, specifically auditory
and visual confirmation together, during transactions may ben-
efit retailers as (1) trust and downstream behaviors are restored
when utilizing multi-modality (vs. single-modality) confirma-
tion in distracting environments and (2) no harm occurs when
utilizing multi-modality within nondistracting environments.
However, the benefit may be limited or nonexistent for shop-
pers with a disability that impact one of the modalities. The
present research utilizes visual as primary modality with the
multi-modal approach examining the addition of auditory con-
firmation to visual confirmation. However, it is unknown if the
results would be consistent if varying the presence of visual
confirmation while maintaining the presence of auditory confir-
mation.
Much of the prior research examining pitch has found con-
flicting results, which may be due to researchers identifying
sound pitch relative to the other stimuli used (e.g., low-pitch
voice vs. high-pitch voice) rather than based on the fundamen-
tal frequency (e.g., both voices falling within low fundamental
frequency range). In contrast, the multi-modality literature is
generally based on high fundamental frequency range sounds
(e.g., 3,340 Hz, Keetels et al., 2007; 3,000 Hz, Noesselt et al.
2010; 3,500 Hz, Shams et al., 2002) that are above the ISO
24501 standard that states the fundamental frequencies of audi-
tory signals for consumer products not be higher than 2,500 Hz
(International Organization for Standardization 2010). Building
on these two literatures, our findings that RTAC with a fre-
quency higher than the typical speaking voice range increases
140 R. Reynolds-McIlnay, M. Morrin / Journal of Retailing 95 (4, 2019) 128–142
trust, while RTAC with a fundamental frequency within the
range of high-pitch voices does not, are consistent with Martín-
Santana et al. (2015). We suspect that the higher-pitched RTAC
elicited more trust because shoppers are more familiar with these
frequencies in shopping environments. However, significantly
more work needs to be conducted to confirm the RTAC funda-
mental frequency tipping points for increasing trust, especially
if apps on smartphones adopt different notification sound fre-
quencies. Our results are also relevant to devices associated with
the Internet of Things. Thus, devices such as Amazon Echo,
Apple Siri, and so forth. that interact with their users in shop-
ping contexts could incorporate RTAC to increase trust in such
devices.
An auditory signal is a sound acknowledging the response
of a product immediately after a user’s action to operate
it (International Organization for Standardization 2010; ISO
245011). This research focuses on RTAC, a retail-transaction
specific operation confirmation signal sound emitted from a
product for the purpose of conveying information to help the
user to use the product correctly. Caution signals are a type of
auditory signal that announcing that the product cannot function
independently in normal operation (or state). While this research
suggests that lower-in-pitch RTAC, specifically within the high-
pitch voice frequency range, may be incorrectly interpreted as a
caution signal rather than an operation confirmation signal and,
thus, decreases trust relative to the same RTAC an octave higher
in pitch (with a fundamental frequency above the human voice
range), future research could examine if a positive or negative
relationship exists between trust in transaction interfaces and
caution signals.
While internet retailers are utilizing videos of product tuto-
rials and shoppable social media posts to increasingly build
brand identity and drive sales (Young 2018), doing so may also
increase the cognitive load of shoppers by increasing the com-
plexity of the online or mobile shopping environment. Future
research could examine if a similar negative affect is experi-
enced when viewing videos and social media feeds before online
and mobile purchase transaction as when making a purchase in
the distracting retail environments and if the addition of RTAC
to visual confirmation provides similar results. As we find pro-
viding RTAC increased satisfaction in the checkout experience
and increased the likelihood that shoppers would return to the
channel to make a purchase in the future, the addition of RTAC
could possibly increase conversion rate and reduce shopping cart
abandonment, with future research examining the extent of this
effect. Shoppers may be more easily distracted if shopping on
their smartphones while walking or otherwise engaged in mul-
tiple activities. As such, providing RTAC to enhance trust may
become an even more important aspect of generating sales on
mobile devices.
While retailers have control over the volume that RTAC is
presented at within the store channel, consumers have ultimate
control of the volume of their own devices. Thus, consumers
could have sounds muted on their mobile device or laptop or have
lowered the volume in loud environments, resulting RTAC not
being heard and, thus, being ineffective. Additionally, individ-
ual differences among shoppers, such as age, may influence the
effectiveness of RTAC. Older consumers who are less tech savvy
and may suffer from age-related hearing loss may not find RTAC
as beneficial as younger shoppers. Or, because they are less
familiar with technological interfaces, older consumers may find
RTAC more beneficial due of the multimodal delivery of audi-
tory confirmation increasing attention to visual confirmations
during point-of-sale transactions. While no negative effect was
observed from the multi-modal confirmation in nondistracting
retail environments among normal-hearing participants, indi-
viduals with Cochlear hearing loss are less able to differentiate
small differences between high frequency sounds (Rossi-Katz
and Arehart 2005), possibly affecting older consumers’ ability
to perceptual group ambient sounds and perceive auditory and
visual confirmation as synchronous.
The potential for RTAC to enhance the shopper’s experience
through trust in technological devices is considerable. Future
research to expand upon the current set of findings would be a
worthwhile endeavor.
Executive Summary
Retailers have expressed increased interest in enhancing
shopping experiences. While prior research has examined how
various aspects of a store’s atmosphere or a website’s sensory
characteristics impact shopping experiences (see Krishna 2012,
Krishna and Schwarz 2014 review articles), the impact of the
sensory input emanating from technological innovations used
at point-of-sale on shopper behavior has received limited atten-
tion. This research examines the sounds that retailers’ devices
and software make during the shopping and checkout processes.
In the present research, we examine how confirmatory sounds
produced by retail technological interfaces at point-of-sale
impact in-store, mobile, and online shopping experiences. We
propose a conceptual framework in which, under typical shop-
ping circumstances, retail transaction auditory confirmation
(RTAC) restores perceptions of trust in the retailer. Trust is
enhanced because the sounds associated with purchase trans-
actions on technological devices, such as the beep or pip sound
heard by shoppers when scanning an item at checkout or swiping
a credit card at point-of-sale, provides auditory confirmation that
the technology has received their actions, reducing any ambi-
guity regarding the transaction, especially in distracting retail
environments. RTAC thus provides auditory information in a
cause-and-effect chain that is conveyed to the receiver through
the aural system, which results in feelings of trust in the tech-
nological interface. Increased trust, in turn, positively impacts
satisfaction with the experience and future purchase intention.
We find that the pitch of the RTAC moderates this effect, as
lower-pitch RTAC may be incorrectly interpreted by shoppers
as a caution signal communicating an error rather than a confir-
mation signal.
As purchase transactions are a process during which the shop-
per interacts with a technological interface while potentially
interacting with other individuals in a visually and auditorily
complex environment, the distracting nature of the retail envi-
ronment may negatively impact shopper attention by increasing
cognitive load, distracting shoppers from the transaction process
 R. Reynolds-McIlnay, M. Morrin / Journal of Retailing 95 (4, 2019) 128–142
in which they share their personal and financial information with
retailers, a critical moment for trust with a channel and retailer
(Chen and Dibb 2010). Utilizing a multi-modal approach of the
technological interfaces that provide auditory confirmation in
contexts that offer visual confirmation restores shopper trust
in the point-of-sale technological interface, as providing syn-
chronous visual and auditory stimuli increases the detectability
of a visual stimulus within rapidly changing visual distractors
(Shimojo et al. 2001; Vroomen and de Gelder 2000).
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data associated with this article can be
found, in the online version, at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretai.
2019.10.006.
References
Baddeley, Alan (1992), “Working Memory,” Science, New Series, 255 (5044),
556–9.
Bakos, J. Yannis and Erik Brynjolfsson (1993), “Information Technology, Incen-
tives, and the Optimal Number of Suppliers,” Journal of Management
Information Systems, 10 (2), 37–53.
Barney, Jay B. and Mark H. Hansen (1994), “Trustworthiness as a Source of
Competitive Advantage,” Strategic Management Journal, 15 (S1), 175–90.
Bensaou, Michael (1997), “Interorganizational Cooperation: The Role of Infor-
mation Technology an Empirical Comparison of US and Japanese Supplier
Relations,” Information Systems Research, 8 (2), 107–24.
Berti, Stefan and Erich Schröger (2003), “Working Memory Controls Involun-
tary Attention Switching: Evidence from an Auditory Distraction Paradigm,”
European Journal of Neuroscience, 17, 1119–22.
Biswas, Dipayan, Kaisa Lund and Courtney Szocs (2018), “Sounds Like a
Healthy Retail Atmospheric Strategy: Effects of Ambient Music and Back-
ground Noise on Food Sales,” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science,,
1–19.
Bruner, I.I. and C. Gordon (1990), “Music, Mood, and Marketing,” Journal of
Marketing, 54 (4), 94–104.
Chen, Jun and Sally Dibb (2010), “Consumer Trust in the Online Retail Context:
Exploring the Antecedents and Consequences,” Psychology & Marketing,
27 (4), 323–46.
Das, Tushar Kanti and Bing-Sheng Teng (2001), “Trust, Control, and Risk in
Strategic Alliances: An Integrated Framework,” Organization Studies, 22
(2), 251–83.
Driver, Jon and Charles Spence (2000), “Multisensory Perception: Beyond Mod-
ularity and Convergence,” Current Biology, 10 (20), R731–5.
Escera, Carles and M.J. Corral (2007), “Role of Mismatch Negativity and
Novelty-P3 in Involuntary Auditory Attention,” Journal of Psychophysiol-
ogy, 21 (3–4), 251–64.
Fraedrich, John P. and Maryon F. King (1998), “Marketing Implications of
Nonmusical Sounds,” Journal of Business and Psychology, 13 (1), 127–39.
Gao, Yuan, Marios Koufaris and Robert H. Ducoffe (2004), “An Experimental
Study of the Effects of Promotional Techniques in Web-Based Commerce,”
Journal of Electronic Commerce in Organizations, 2 (3), 1–20.
Garlin, Francine V. and Katherine Owen (2006), “Setting the Tone with the
Tune: A Meta-Analytic Review of the Effects of Background Music in Retail
Settings,” Journal of Business Research, 59, 755–64.
Gefen, David, Elena Karahanna and Detmar W. Straub (2003), “Trust and TAM
in Online Shopping: An Integrated Model,” MIS Quarterly, 27 (1), 51–90.
Global Market Insights (2018), Self-Checkout System Market to hit
$4bn by 2024, Global Market Insights Inc (March 13), (accessed
January 3, 2019), [available at https://www.globenewswire.com/news-
release/2018/03/13/1421027/0/en/Self-Checkout-System-Market-to-hit-
4bn-by-2024-Global-Market-Insights-Inc.html]
141
Green, Dennis and Mary Hanbury (2018), If You Shopped at These 16
Stores in the Last Year, Your Data Might Have Been Stolen, Busi-
ness Insider (August 22), (accessed January 5, 2019), [available at
https://www.businessinsider.com/data-breaches-2018-4]
Guenzi, Paolo, Michael D. Johnson and Sandro Castaldo (2009), “A Compre-
hensive Model of Customer Trust in Two Retail Stores,” Journal of Service
Management, 20 (3), 290–316.
Haselhuhn, Michael P., Maurice E. Schweitzer and Alison M. Wood (2010),
“How Implicit Beliefs Influence Trust Recovery,” Psychological Science,
21 (5), 645–8.
Hayes, Andrew F. (2018), Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Condi-
tional Process Analysis: A Regression-Based Approach, 2nd ed. Guilford
Press.
Heese, H. Sebastian (2007), “Inventory Record Inaccuracy, Double Marginal-
ization, and RFID Adoption,” Production and Operations Management, 16
(5), 542–53.
Hynes, Niki and Struan Manson (2016), “The Sound of Silence: Why Music
in Supermarkets is Just a Distraction,” Journal of Retailing and Consumer
Services, 28, 171–8.
Ice, Philip, Reagan Curtis, Perry Phillips and John Wells (2007), “Using Asyn-
chronous Audio Feedback to Enhance Teaching Presence and Students’
Sense of Community,” Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 11 (2),
3–25.
International Organization for Standardization (2010), ISO 24501:2010
Ergonomics – Accessible design – Sound pressure levels of auditory
signals for consumer products, (accessed June 16, 2019), [available at
https://www.iso.org/standard/46171.html]
Jain, Rajnish and Shilpa Bagdare (2010), “Music and Consumption Experience:
A Review,” International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, 39
(4), 289–302.
Kalyuga, Slava (2011), “Cognitive Load Theory: How Many Types of Load
Does It Really Need?,” Educational Psychology Review, 32 (1), 1–19.
Kahneman, Daniel (1973), Attention and Effort, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-
Hall.
Kaplan, Leon B., George J. Szybillo and Jacob Jacoby (1974), “Components of
Perceived Risk in Product Purchase: A Cross-Validation,” Journal of Applied
Psychology, 59 (3), 287–91.
Ketron, Seth, Nancy Spears and Bo Dai (2016), “Overcoming Information Over-
load in Retail Environments: Imagination and Sales Promotion in a Wine
Context,” Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 33, 23–32.
Keetels, M., J. Stekelenburg and J. Vroomen (2007), “Auditory Grouping Occurs
Prior to Intersensory Pairing: Evidence from Temporal Ventriloquism,”
Experimental Brain Research, 180 (3), 449–56.
Kim, Dan J., Donald L. Ferrin and H. Raghav Rao (2008), “A Trust-Based
Consumer Decision-Making Model in Electronic Commerce: The Role of
Trust, Perceived Risk, and Their Antecedents,” Decision Support Systems,
44 (2), 544–64.
Kim, So-Yeon, Min-Shik Kim and Marvin M. Chun (2005), “Concurrent Work-
ing Memory Load Can Reduce Distraction,” Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 102 (45), 16524–9.
Krauss, Robert M. and Sidney Weinheimer (1966), “Concurrent Feedback, Con-
firmation, and the Encoding of Referents in Verbal Communication,” Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 4 (3), 343–6.
Krishna, Aradhna (2012), “An Integrative Review of Sensory Marketing: Engag-
ing the Senses to Affect Perception, Judgment and Behavior,” Journal of
Consumer Psychology, 22 (3), 332–51.
Krishna, Aradhna and Norbert Schwarz (2014), “Sensory Marketing, Embod-
iment, and Grounded Cognition: A Review and Introduction,” Journal of
Consumer Psychology, 24 (2), 159–68.
Lavie, Nilli (2010), “Attention, Distraction, and Cognitive Control Under Load,”
Current Directions in Psychological Science, 19 (3), 143–8.
Marks, Lawrence E., Rosemary Szczesiul and Patricia Ohlott (1986), “On the
Cross-Modal Perception of Intensity,” Journal of Experimental Psychology:
Human Perception and Performance, 12 (4), 517–34.
Martín-Santana, Josefa D., Clara Muela-Molina, Eva Reinares-Lara and Miriam
Rodríguez-Guerra (2015), “Effectiveness of Radio Spokesperson’s Gender,
Vocal Pitch and Accent and the Use of Music in Radio Advertising,” BRQ
Business Research Quarterly, 18 (3), 143–60.
142 R. Reynolds-McIlnay, M. Morrin / Journal of Retailing 95 (4, 2019) 128–142
Mehta, Ravi, Rui (Julie) Zhu and Amar Cheema (2012), “Is Noise Always Bad?
Exploring the Effects of Ambient Noise on Creative Cognition,” Journal of
Consumer Research, 39 (4), 784–99.
Montano, Kelyn J., Cara C. Tigue, Sari G.E. Isenstein, Pat Barclay and David R.
Feinberg (2017), “Men’s Voice Pitch Influences Women’s Trusting Behav-
ior,” Evolution and Human Behavior, 38 (3), 293–7.
Moreno, Roxana and Richard E. Mayer (2000), “A Coherence Effect in Multi-
media Learning: The Case for Minimizing Irrelevant Sounds in the Design
of Multimedia Instructional Messages,” Journal of Educational Psychology,
92 (1), 117–25.
Noesselt, T., S. Tyll, C.N. Boehler, E. Budinger, H.-J. Heinze and J. Driver
(2010), “Sound-Induced Enhancement of Low-Intensity Vision: Multisen-
sory Influences on Human Sensory-Specific Cortices and Thalamic Bodies
Relate to Perceptual Enhancement of Visual Detection Sensitivity,” Journal
of Neuroscience, 30 (41), 13609–23.
Lageat, Thierry, Sandor Czellar and Gilles Laurent (2003), “Engineering Hedo-
nic Attributes to Generate Perceptions of Luxury: Consumer Perception of
an Everyday Sound,” Marketing Letters, 14 (2), 97–109.
Lee, Matthew K.O. and Efraim Turban (2001), “A Trust Model for Consumer
Internet Shopping,” International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 6 (1),
75–91.
McKnight, D. Harrison, Vivek Choudhury and Charles Kacmar (2002), “The
Impact of Initial Consumer Trust on Intentions to Transact with a Web Site:
A Trust Building Model,” Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 11,
297–323.
Milliman, Ronald E. (1982), “Using Background Music to Affect the Behavior
of Supermarket Shoppers,” Journal of Marketing, 46 (3), 86–91.
Morgan, Robert M. and Shelby D. Hunt (1994), “The Commitment-Trust Theory
of Relationship Marketing,” Journal of Marketing, 58 (3), 20–38.
Muir, Bonnie M. and Neville Moray (1996), “Trust in Automation. Part II.
Experimental Studies of Trust and Human Intervention in a Process Control
Simulation,” Ergonomics, 39 (3), 429–60.
National Research Council (2004), Hearing Loss: Determining Eligibility for
Social Security Benefits, National Academies Press.
Ofuonye, Ejike, Patricia Beatty, Ian Reay, Scott Dick and James Miller (2008),
“How Do We Build Trust into E-commerce Web Sites?,” Voice of Evidence,
IEEE Software, 25 (5), 7–9.
O’Connor, Jillian J.M. and Pat Barclay (2017), “The Influence of Voice Pitch
on Perceptions of Trustworthiness Across Social Contexts,” Evolution and
Human Behavior, 38 (4), 506–12.
O’Connor, Jillian J.M., Katarzyna Pisanski, Cara C. Tigue, Paul J. Fraccaro and
David R. Feinberg (2014), “Perceptions of Infidelity Risk Predict Women’s
Preferences for Low Male Voice Pitch in Short-term Over Long-term Rela-
tionship Contexts,” Personality and Individual Differences, 56, 73–7.
Oleszkiewicz, Anna, Katarzyna Pisanski, Kinga Lachowicz-Tabaczek and
Agnieszka Sorokowska (2017), “Voice-based Assessments of Trustworthi-
ness, Competence, and Warmth in Blind and Sighted Adults,” Psychonomic
Bulletin & Review, 24 (3), 856–62.
Paas, Fred, Juhani E. Tuovinen, Huib Tabbers and Pascal W.M. Van Gerven
(2003), “Cognitive Load Measurement as a Means to Advance Cognitive
Load Theory,” Educational Psychologist, 38 (1), 63–71.
Pavlou, Paul A. (2003), “Consumer Acceptance of Electronic Commerce:
Integrating Trust and Risk with the Technology Acceptance Model,” Inter-
national Journal of Electronic Commerce, 7 (3), 101–34.
Rosen, Stuart (2011), Signals and Systems for Speech and Hearing, 2nd ed.
BRILL.
Rossi-Katz, Jessica A. and Kathryn Hoberg Arehart (2005), “Effects of Cochlear
Hearing Loss on Perceptual Grouping Cues in Competing-Vowel Percep-
tion,” The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 118 (4), 2588–98.
Rust, Roland T., P.K. Kannan and Na Peng (2002), “The Customer Economics
of Internet Privacy,” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 30 (4),
455–64.
Shams, L. and R. Kim (2010), “Crossmodal Influences on Visual Perception,”
Physics of Life Reviews, 7 (3), 269–84.
Shimojo, S., C. Scheier, R. Nijhawan, L. Shams, Y. Kamitani and K. Watanabe
(2001), “Beyond Perceptual Modality: Auditory Effects on Visual Percep-
tion,” Acoustical Science and Technology, 22 (2), 61–7.
Schlosser, Ann E., Tiffany Barnett White and Susan M. Lloyd (2006), “Con-
verting Web Site Visitors into Buyers: How Web Site Investment Increases
Consumer Trusting Beliefs and Online Purchase Intentions,” Journal of
Marketing, 70 (2), 133–48.
Sirdeshmukh, Deepak, Jagdip Singh and Barry Sabol (2002), “Customer Trust,
Value, and Loyalty in Relational Exchanges,” Journal of Marketing, 66 (1),
15–37.
Shen, Hao and Jaideep Sengupta (2013), “The Crossmodal Effect of Atten-
tion on Preferences: Facilitation versus Impairment,” Journal of Consumer
Research, 40 (Feb), 885–903.
Sweller, John and Paul Chandler (1991), “Evidence for Cognitive Load Theory,”
Cognition and Instruction, 8 (4), 351–62.
Sweller, John, Paul Ayres and Slava Kalyuga (2011), “Measuring Cognitive
Load,” in Cognitive Load Theory New York, NY: Springer 71-85.
van Ittersum, Koert, Brian Wansink, Joost M.E. Pennings and Daniel Shee-
han (2013), “Smart Shopping Carts: How Real-Time Feedback Influences
Spending,” Journal of Marketing, 77 (November), 21–36.
Vroomen, Jean and Beatrice de Gelder (2000), “Sound Enhances Visual Per-
ception: Cross-Modal Effects of Auditory Organization on Vision,” Journal
of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 26 (5),
1583–90.
Waber, Benjamin, Michele Williams, J.S. Carroll and Alex Pentland (2012), A
Voice Is Worth a Thousand Words: The Implications of the Micro-coding
of Social Signals in Speech for Trust Research, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar
Publishing Limited.
Wang, Ye Diana and Henry H. Emurian (2005), “An Overview of Online Trust:
Concepts, Elements, and Implications,” Computers in Human Behavior, 21
(1), 105–25.
White, Tiffany Barnett and Hong Yuan (2012), “Building Trust to Increase Pur-
chase Intentions: The Signaling Impact of Low Pricing Policies,” Journal of
Consumer Psychology, 22 (3), 384–94.
Xia, Lan and Devanathan Sudharshan (2002), “Effects of Interruptions on Con-
sumer Online Decision Processes,” Journal of Consumer Psychology, 12 (3),
265–80.
Yoon, Sung-Joon (2002), “The Antecedents and Consequences of Trust in
Online-Purchase Decisions,” Journal of Interactive Marketing, 16 (2),
47–63.
Young, Jessica (2018), Hot 100 Retailers Embrace Video to Con-
nect with Shoppers, (Digital Commerce 360, February 1), (accessed
June 16, 2019), [available at https://www.digitalcommerce360.com/
2018/02/01/hot-100-retailers-embrace-video-connect-shoppers]
Reproduced with permission of copyright owner. Further reproduction
prohibited without permission.