The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

www.emeraldinsight.com/0972-7981.htm

Consumer’s
Online shopping environments Need for
and consumer’s Need for Touch Touch
Rupa Rathee and Pallavi Rajain
Department of Management Studies,
Deenbandhu Chhotu Ram University of Science and Technology, Sonipat, India
Received 29 December 2018
Abstract Revised 28 March 2019
24 April 2019
Purpose – Online shopping has become a commonplace thing nowadays as people can buy products from Accepted 27 April 2019
the comfort of their home. But such environments do not offer a complete sensory interaction as consumers
are unable to touch products which is quite important for certain categories of products such as apparels.
Therefore, in order to find whether every individual seeks touch equally, the purpose of this paper is to deal
with the differences in an individual’s preferences for touch. The study also evaluates customer responses
towards the introduction of touch-enabling technology which can, to some extent, compensate for the lack of
touch. Lastly, the study includes customers’ views regarding showrooming and webrooming.
Design/methodology/approach – A total of 203 responses were received through online and offline
questionnaires. The data were analysed using ANOVA, correlation and regression analysis through SPSS
version 23.
Findings – The results revealed that gender influenced the Need for Touch (NFT) with women having higher
NFT. The people who were high in NFT preferred to buy in-store, whereas their low NFT counterparts were
comfortable with both online and in-store options. Lastly, it was found that there was a significant impact of
NFT on online buying behaviour. The new technology when used by online retailers would break the barriers
that exist between real touch and virtual touch.
Originality/value – Although previous authors have given several options like mental representations,
verbal details and brand image as alternatives to touch but the use of touch-enabling technology can
revolutionise the way online products are perceived. The study adds value by relating NFT with online
preferences, showrooming and webrooming.
Keywords Online shopping, Need for Touch, Showrooming, Webrooming, Touch marketing
Paper type Research paper

Introduction

The iPod touch feels incredible, because the product is lighter and thinner than ever, consists of a
smooth finish and designed in a way that allows one hand to rule the screen. (Apple, 2014)
It is impossible to ignore the importance of the sense of touch when judging a product being
purchased. An important role has been played by the human senses in forming the perception
of products and brands with each sense playing a different part. All this comes under the area
of sensory marketing. The definition of sensory marketing states it as an “an application of the
understanding of sensation and perception to the field of marketing- to consumer perception,
cognition, emotion, learning, preference, choice, or evaluation”. The sensation is “when the
stimulus impinges upon the receptor cells of a sensory organ – it is neurological in nature”.
Perception is “the awareness or understanding of sensory information”. There are explicitly
recognisable differences between perception and sensation, not just for the sense of vision but
others as well (Krishna, 2012). Another vital sense among these is the sense of touch. In many
studies the importance of touch for humans has been highlighted. It is the first sense to develop
in humans and stays with them for the longest time. Some authors have created scales, for
example, the scale that perceives individual differences in their Need for Touch (NFT).
The scale comprises of two sub-scales: instrumental NFT and autotelic NFT. The instrumental
NFT is for functionality on the other hand autotelic NFT captures the emotional component of Journal of Advances in
Management Research
touch or compulsive touch (Peck and Childers, 2003). Touch, whether between a product and a © Emerald Publishing Limited
0972-7981
human, or two products, or two humans, impacts consumer behaviour. DOI 10.1108/JAMR-12-2018-0116
JAMR The present world has moved to new avenues of shopping which include purchasing
online. The role of touch is diminished in an online retail environment which causes
uncertainties in the minds of consumers. According to Retail Dive Consumer Survey by
Skrovan (2017), a survey of 1,248 consumers regarding how often they use brick and mortar
stores to examine products before ordering them online suggested the notion “see in store,
buy online”. The survey suggested that 56 per cent of shoppers visited shops before buying
the same products online, which indicates their NFT which is lacking in online buying
scenarios (Skrovan, 2017). Research in retail environments revealed a lack of focus on the
sense of touch, especially in present times when businesses are shifting to online retailing.
The change in the channel of shopping poses a great challenge due to the complete lack of
touch during purchase. Therefore, there was a need to study the online buying preferences
of customers and whether the need to touch affects their online buying behaviour. This is
needed so that the retailers are prepared to compensate for the lack of touch with new
technologies and to find whether consumers are willing to adapt to these technologies.
The results of the study would add to the literature of touch marketing as they would help to
establish relationships between NFT and online buying behaviour (online preference,
showrooming and webrooming) which has not been explored before. Furthermore,
customer’s views related to touch-enabling technology would provide insight regarding
their perception of such technologies and their feasibility.
The next section of this paper discusses previous literature on differences in consumer’s
NFT, the importance of touch in a retailing environment and touch marketing in online
shopping environments. The subsequent section discusses the methodology used for this
study and how the data were collected using a survey questionnaire. Further, analysis and
discussion of the findings are presented. Lastly, the managerial implications and future
scope of the study are discussed.

Review of literature
Differences in consumers’ NFT
Initially, Peck and Childers (2003) came forth with the “Need for Touch” scale designed to
measure the preference of touch information based on individual differences. Seven studies
were conducted to develop this scale. In their study, they administered the NFT scale to a
sample of staff members selected randomly from a university and used confirmatory factor
analysis leading to a 12-item scale. Another research was conducted to determine the
validity of this scale with a sample of students. The validity of the construct was judged on
the basis of tests of response bias, convergent validity, discriminant validity and
nomological validity. To assess the individual differences in processing haptic information,
the NFT scale was used which comprises of 12 items. In comparison to lower NFT
individuals, individuals with higher NFT experienced a product directly with touch at the
time of assessment and showed confidence in their judgment of the product. Media
congruence relationship was found to be moderated by the NFT. Further, Peck and Wiggins
(2006) explored the viability of various kinds of touch in producing an emotional reaction
and repeated the consequences for behaviour and attitudes in a certifiable setting. They
recognised individual contrasts in the extraction and usage of data that is acquired through
touch. The NFT was deliberated as having two measurements: autotelic NFT and
instrumental NFT. Autotelic NFT suggests that individuals who are high in it take part in
contact since it is intriguing, pleasant, fun, an ordeal that is more hedonic than instrumental.
For members who were high in autotelic NFT, fusing a touch component that passes on no
item trait data into a message expanded influence. Only the members who were high in
autotelic NFT demonstrated an altogether more grounded affective reaction to the message
that had a touch component than to the message with no-touch component. In the various
examinations, it was discovered that the consolidation of touch into advertising messages
can positively influence people who are high in autotelic NFT. Similarly, Peck and Childers Consumer’s
(2006) examined whether impulse-purchasing behaviour was influenced by touch. The Need for
authors investigated the link between both an individual preference for autotelic touch and Touch
an environmental encouragement to touch, and impulse purchasing. Results were consistent
with expectations as a Fisher’s z-transformation showed that the difference was significant
between the two correlations. Next, as regards the relationship between environmental
encouragement and touch and impulse purchasing, it was found that in both, the “no-sign”
and the “feel the freshness” conditions, impulsive purchase behaviour was higher in
individuals with higher autotelic NFT in comparison to individuals lower in autotelic NFT.
The overall analysis revealed that, in comparison to their lower autotelic NFT counterparts,
impulsive purchase behaviour was higher in individuals with higher autotelic NFT.
Additionally, for both lower and higher autotelic individuals, the touch information which
produced environmental salience by the “feel-the-freshness” point of purchase (POP) sign
increased behaviour of impulsive purchasing.
Later on, Peck and Shu (2009) analysed that just by the touch of an object, there was a
rise in valuation and perceived ownership of that object. The outcomes suggested that the
relationship was significant between ownership imagery and touch for both valuation and
perceived ownership of the products. The researchers also examined the effect touch had on
perceived ownership and valuation by the use of a sample of only sellers or owners. It was
found that owners who were able to touch felt significantly greater perceived ownership, in
comparison to those who were not able to touch, which showed that touch had a significant
main effect. Thus, it was revealed that in comparison to those who were not able to touch,
subjects who could touch felt higher perceived ownership. The studies supported the theory
that endowment effect experiments traditionally provide positive sensory feedback due to
the ability to directly touch an object which results in increased valuation, affective reaction
and perceived ownership of the object. It is not only the touch of a product but interpersonal
touch which influences the consumers. For this purpose, Webb and Peck (2015) invented the
“comfort with interpersonal” (CIT) scale designed for measuring differences in interpersonal
touch for individuals. A series of studies were conducted for the development, validation
and use of this scale. Based on the statistical and theoretical insight, the two-factor model
provided the following factors which were “comfort with initiating touch” and “comfort with
receiving touch”. The CIT scale was related to personality traits of extraversion,
agreeableness, openness to experience and assertiveness. It was found that females were
more comfortable in the initiation of touch in comparison to males and regarding age it was
found that old age group tended to be more agreeable with interpersonal touch in
comparison to young individuals. It was found that identifying the reception of touch with
individuals who are comfortable and uncomfortable with it was possible through the CIT
receiving scale. Cho and Workman (2011), in their study on gender, fashion innovativeness
and opinion leadership, tried to find whether gender had an influence on these aspects. The
authors collected data using a convenience sample of college students. Results of their study
suggested that gender was an important differentiating factor for individual differences
regarding opinion leadership and fashion innovativeness while shopping for clothes,
although the gender did not have a significant influence on multi-channel choice. Similarly,
Krishna et al. (2010), in their research, studied the influence of the presence of smell on haptic
(touch) perceptions resulting in sensory experience and aesthetic pleasure. It was proposed
that “multisensory semantic congruence will moderate the impact of smell on haptic
perceptions, with congruence leading to more positive evaluations than incongruence”.
The particular inquiry to be tended to was whether a smell apparently ensued as more
feminine or masculine can affect the haptic quality impression of paper being more feminine
or masculine. On breaking down the outcomes, it was discovered that in the condition using
smooth paper, the feminine smell prompted fundamentally higher positive haptic
JAMR recognitions than the masculine smell. Correspondingly, inside the condition involving
rough paper, the masculine smell prompted fundamentally higher positive haptic
observations than the feminine smell. In this manner, results from the examination
demonstrated that multi-sensory semantic consistency among smell and touch can prompt
uplifted item assessments when the item is assessed on viability through sensation.
The discoveries of the examination propose that customers’ haptic recognitions are affected
by the nearness of item injected aromas, especially when these fragrances are semantically
compatible with haptic discernments. Earlier, Citrin et al. (2003) examined the need for
tactile input by consumers. The main focus of this research was to find whether there was a
need for tactile input to make evaluations regarding products. The study sample comprised
of undergraduate students at a state university. The results revealed that, for products
requiring sensory inputs (whether in the form of touch or any other sense), it is of great
importance for evaluations. It can therefore be hypothesised that:
H1. Gender has a significant influence on consumers’ NFT.

Importance of touch in the retail environment

Williams and Ackerman (2011), in their article published in Harvard Business Review,
stressed on the importance of touch in retailing. The authors suggested that physical
warmth, weight and hardness can impact consumer decisions. Physical warmth in the form
of a handshake or a pat on the shoulder could lead people to feel safer and consequently
spend more time in the outlet. They suggested that waitresses who touched restaurant
patrons went as far as earning more tips. In an experiment it was found that customers who
evaluated cell phones, with metal casings weighing heavier than plastic casings, attached
more value to the product. Next, the authors gave an example of Bed, Bath and Beyond
which allows customers to touch their home furnishings, linens and curtains so that they
can experience the warmth and comfort of these products. Another study by Balaji et al.
(2011) found out how overall purchase intentions and attitude were influenced by
multi-sensory (visual and tactile) evaluation. Tactile information was the primary form of
evaluation for “Touch diagnostic products”, while “visual diagnostic products” were those
appraised on visual information. Based on these outcomes, tissue paper was selected as a
stimulus for the study because evaluation for it is not based on visual information but
primarily on tactile information. Tissue papers from the same brand but with three different
pieces were used for the study. The study suggested that purchase intentions and consumer
attitude were significantly impacted by tactile rather than visual information. Due to the
choice of haptic products for the study, it was found that the product was evaluated more
positively during tactile evaluations as for material products touch was a preferred sensory
modality for the acquisition of required data. Hulten (2011) studied the touch behaviour of
customers based on the impact of vision and audition cues. The researcher found a
significant behavioural impact of visual and auditory cues on touch behaviour. The analysis
revealed that consumers approached the product after introducing the visual and auditory
cues as this aroused the customer’s desire to explore the product. The interplay between
touch and sight lead to a multi-sensory brand experience of the product. Earlier, Hulten
(2012) presented exploratory research with the presentation of visual and olfactory signals
according to layout and lighting for vision and surrounding fragrance for olfaction, tried the
effect of the craving to touch wine glasses in the glass section of IKEA, the retailer based in
Sweden. The findings demonstrated that a more extended contact time may affect the
aggregate deals for offering elite glasses. The customers purchased more glasses on
the whole and more elite glasses as an offer of their buys, when olfactory and visual tactile
signs were presented. This justified that the purpose of POP is seen as more sincerely
alluring, through the presentation of visual and olfactory tactile signs. Another recent study
by Streicher and Estes (2016) suggested that the visual processing of one product can be Consumer’s
influenced by holding another product. The study demonstrated the compensatory Need for
relationship between touch and vision for product evaluation. The study results also Touch
showed that people having high instrumental NFT are more used to their touch for
compensating the lack of visual information. Earlier, Grohmann et al. (2007) conducted
experiments to study the diagnostic tactile input which relied on product quality for
categories of product which needed tactile input. In the first experiment, the researchers
examined the influence of tactile input on evaluations by exploring dual contexts where
tactile input was not available: the first context in which the product was physically
available but customers were not allowed to touch it during evaluation, and the second
context where the product was not available but was seen online. It was found that products
were evaluated more favourably by consumers during evaluation that involved the use of
touch sense (in comparison to those that did not involve touch). In the second experiment,
for products with high quality that required tactile input, the presence of tactile input
produced more favourable evaluations. However, lower quality products did not receive less
favourable evaluations due to tactile input. More favourable evaluations were found for
consumers having high NFT who could better discern the difference between high-quality
levels due to tactile input being present. However, low-quality products did not receive
negative evaluation due to tactile input, thus leading to the hypothesis:
H2. There is a significant relationship between NFT and purchase channel preference.

Tactile marketing in online shopping environments

The online shopping environments pose a major shortcoming due to the consumer’s inability
to touch products while making purchases, although some authors have conducted research
in order to facilitate touch in such environments. For example, Peck et al. (2013) showed that
haptic symbolism, or envisioning contacting an object, can have an indistinguishable impact
on apparent possession from physical touch. The authors led three investigations to assess the
impacts of haptic symbolism on perceived ownership. Using perceived ownership in the form
of the dependent variable, analysis of variance was applied and a fundamental impact of the
touch/symbolism condition was established. Haptic symbolism with eyes closed brought
about essentially more prominent sentiments of perceived possession than both haptic
symbolism with eyes open and no symbolism. The dependent variable was taken as physical
control, and there was a major impact of touch/symbolism condition. Strikingly, an arranged
complexity uncovered that, within the eyes closed condition, the no-touch haptic symbolism
came about consequential and a more noteworthy physical control than the no-touch haptic
symbolism with the eyes open condition. An immediate impact from haptic vividness to
perceived possession was evaluated and observed to be not factually critical. It was in this
way inferred that keeping one’s eyes closed influences haptic clarity, which influences
apparent possession through physical control. Yazdanparast and Spears (2013) studied
whether the consumers NFT can be replaced with other situational variables in an electronic
shopping environment. The authors evaluated three factors including product expertise
specific to the level of the situation, price promotions and positive mood, which influenced
customers’ purchase intentions and product confidence. Later in a study, Citrin et al. (2003)
tried to understand the influence of requirement of touch on the likelihood to purchase
products online. This characteristic of consumers was shown to have a negative impact on the
purchase of products over the internet particularly for those products that needed tactile
evaluation. Further, it was found that in comparison to males, females displayed a higher NFT
for evaluating products. The researchers suggested that retailers who might be thinking of
shifting from brick and mortar to completely online businesses should think well because they
may lose customers due to the lack of multi-sensory experiences. González-Benito et al. (2015),
JAMR in an experimental study, tried to find the importance of brand as substitutes for touch in case
of online shopping. The authors found that for products that needed physical touch there was
greater importance of brand when touch was not available. They found that the importance of
brand was not equal for all product categories where touch was not available. Earlier, Cho and
Workman (2011) examined whether opinion leadership, fashion innovativeness and gender, as
well as NFT, influence the customer’s choice of multi-channel and touch/non-touch purchase
channel preference. First, it was found that innovativeness in fashion and opinion leadership
influenced the customer’s multi-channel choice. Second, touch preference was influenced by
NFT such that people who had higher NFT preferred local and non-local stores. Lastly, more
than one channel was used by those who were high in fashion innovativeness and opinion
leadership. Manzano et al. (2016) analysed the relationship between channels used during the
search as well as purchase and the NFT. The results showed that instrumental NFT defines
both online purchases as well as the use of physical channels. Regarding multi-channel
shopping, customers those who searched and bought online exhibit a lower NFT, in
comparison to consumers who chose physical channels. Overmars and Poels (2015) identified
the design elements of the product presentation that appealed to the sense of touch and
therefore had an effect on the emotional experience due to the displayed product. The results
showed that an interface that used image interactivity provided greater positive emotional
responses. The results also showed that individuals who were high in autotelic NFT were
more responsive to an interface that was interactive. San-Martín et al. (2017) addressed
whether the perceived quality was impacted by NFT. The relation between NFT and
perceived quality was found to be negative, particularly in case of purchases over the internet.
This study addressed the factors that might affect customer’s NFT like e-commerce
orientation, subjective norms and impulsiveness. Orientation towards e-commerce was found
to have an impact on NFT but impulsiveness and subjective norms showed no impact. The
authors also suggested future research into webrooming (search online and buy offline) and
showrooming (search offline and buy online) which would provide more insights regarding
multi-channel shopping. Van Kerrebroeck et al. (2017), in their study, analysed how touch-
related properties enabled online retailing. They also elaborated on the drivers and barriers of
technologies that enabled touch during online shopping. Consumer focus groups were used to
address the questions. The study suggested that value could be provided to customers
through touch-enabling technologies particularly in the pre-purchase phase. One of the major
barriers in this process is the availability of the output device, for example, a haptic glove.
Liu et al. (2017) found that in order to increase customer’s purchase intentions and willingness
to pay, there is a need to focus on concrete mental representations rather than abstract
representations. When the mental representations of the product are concrete, there is a higher
willingness to pay among customers. This relationship is mediated by perceived risk and
perceived ownership as found by authors across three experiments. Hence, the following
hypotheses are proposed:
H3a. There is a significant relationship between NFT and customer’s online buying
preferences.
H3b. There is a significant relationship between NFT and customer’s showrooming
behaviour.
H3c. There is a significant relationship between NFT and customer’s webrooming behaviour.

Objectives
(1) to analyse consumers “Need for Touch” based on their gender;
(2) to evaluate the relationship between “Need for Touch” and purchase channel preference;
 (3) to assess whether the “Need for Touch” of customers has an impact on their online Consumer’s
buying preferences; Need for
(4) to assess whether the “Need for Touch” of customers has an impact on Touch
showrooming; and
(5) to assess whether the “Need for Touch” of customers has an impact on webrooming.

Methodology
Sample and procedure
The data for the research were collected via a survey which was conducted both online as
well as offline. Respondents filled questionnaires either through Google docs (online mode)
or through printed copies distributed to them. The questionnaire was floated among 300
individuals with 150 offline and 150 online. The sample was selected using purposive
sampling. The online survey forms were circulated among students, who then further
forwarded it among their peers. The offline forms were circulated among people belonging
to the working class (servicemen). Such a mixed sample was used because the majority of
customers who shop online are either millennial (between ages of 18 and 34) or Generation X
(between ages of 35 and 50) according to Nielsen’s Global Survey of e-commerce. A total of
203 responses were received (with a response rate of 67.66 per cent) out of which two were
found to be incomplete. Ultimately, 201 responses were found completely fit for analysis.
Both male and female participants from different age groups were included in the study.
Most of the respondents were female (63.7 per cent) with the mean age of 29.9 years.
A five-point Likert scale (1 ¼ “strongly disagree” and 5 ¼ “strongly agree”) was used
for coding all responses. For measuring NFT, participants indicated their choice based on a
12-item scale (Peck and Childers, 2006; Childers and Peck, 2010). For online buying
preferences, showrooming, webrooming, liking for touch-enabled technology items were
picked from Manzano et al. (2016), San-Martín et al. (2017) and Van Kerrebroeck et al. (2017).

Independent variable
The 12-item NFT scale (Peck and Childers, 2003) was adapted for the product category of
apparels. The scale was used to assess autotelic and instrumental touch for individuals
based on their haptic information processing. Apparels were selected as the product
category because of the intensive requirement of touch in this category. Exploratory factor
analysis was conducted using varimax rotation on a 12-item NFT scale which leads to two
factors explaining 60.6 per cent of the total variance. On assessing the rotated component
matrix, it was found that all the factor loadings were greater than 0.5, as established by
Nunnally (1978). The overall reliability of the NFT scale is α ¼ 0.84, instrumental α ¼ 0.82
and autotelic α ¼ 0.76.

Dependent variable
The online buying preferences were measured using eight items which included statements
like preference to purchase over the internet and liking for touch-enabled technology with
the overall reliability of α ¼ 0.69. The concepts of webrooming and showrooming were
measured with a single item each. Initial exploratory factor analysis revealed the presence of
two factors that highlight the online buying behaviour, which included a perception
regarding touch-enabling technology and online buying preferences with the reliability of
α ¼ 0.68 for both constructs. One item was deleted as it had low factor loading and failed to
relate to any of the factors. Factor loadings of all items were as shown in Table I.
The reliability and validity of the constructs were established as shown in Table II.
According to Fornell and Larcker (1981), the general rule for estimating the reliability of the
JAMR Factor
Statements Mean SD loading

Need for touch

A1: when walking through stores, I cannot help touching all kinds of apparels 2.83 1.120 0.826
A2: touching apparels can be fun 2.88 1.173 0.719
A3: I place more trust in apparels that can be touched before purchase 3.76 1.163 0.733
A4: I feel more comfortable purchasing an apparel after physically examining it 3.96 1.104 0.792
A5: When browsing in stores, it is important for me to touch all kinds of apparels 3.10 1.138 0.729
A6: if I cannot touch an apparel in the store, I am reluctant to purchase the apparel 3.21 1.179 0.638
A7: I like to touch apparels even if I have no intention of buying them 2.75 1.182 0.566
A8: I feel more confident making a purchase after touching an apparel 3.87 1.041 0.776
A9: when browsing in stores, I like to touch lots of apparels 3.03 1.142 0.758
A10: the only way to make sure an apparel is worth buying is to actually touch it 3.45 1.166 0.593
A11: there are many apparels that I would only buy if I could handle them
before purchase 3.50 1.020 0.672
A12: I find myself touching all kinds of apparels in stores 2.79 1.165 0.836
Online buying preferences
B1: I research and buy apparels online using smartphone or laptop 3.35 1.187 0.725
B2: I buy apparels online but only when I have no other option 3.08 1.067 0.853
B3: I do not buy apparels online because I find it too difficult 2.58 1.210 0.607
B4: I prefer to touch apparels and buy inside the store 3.58 1.047 0.773
B5: I purchase over the internet because my peers also do so 2.47 1.039 0.552
B6: touch-enabling technology would make it easier to choose apparels online 3.57 1.018 0.734
B7: I am ready to use touch-enabling technology when available online 3.65 1.038 0.822
Table I. B8: lack of touch hampers me from buying apparels online 3.34 1.112 0.723
Measurement items,
Webrooming and showrooming
descriptive statistics
of mean, standard C1: I browse apparels online and then buy it from the store 3.03 1.102 0.687
deviation and factor C2: I look for apparels inside the store and then buy online 2.83 1.079 0.816
loadings Source: Survey by authors

Construct AVE Composite reliability Cronbach α

Autotelic NFT 0.55 0.88 0.76

Instrumental NFT 0.50 0.85 0.82
Table II. Online pref 0.55 0.83 0.68
Validity and reliability Touch-enabling tech 0.58 0.81 0.68
of constructs Source: Survey by authors

construct is 0.70 or higher. In the present study, it was above 0.80 for all the constructs,
which thus indicated the internal consistency of the data. The average variance extracted as
examined for the constructs provided support for convergent validity as the values were
closer to 0.50.

Analysis and findings

ANOVA was conducted with gender as an independent variable and NFT as the
dependent variable. For clarity, overall NFT as well as autotelic and instrumental NFT
were considered. ANOVA revealed a significant effect only on the instrumental NFT as
seen in the table (Mmales ¼ 20.57, Mfemales ¼ 22.42, p o 0.01). In the case of overall NFT and
instrumental NFTm women scored higher, whereas men scored higher in the case of
autotelic NFT, although the difference was not significant as seen in Table III. Thus, H1 Consumer’s
was partially accepted. Need for
H2 establishes a relationship between NFT and purchase channel. The independent Touch
variable, purchase channel, included three categories which encompass internet, in-store
and either of both channels. There was a significant difference among the choice of
purchase channel based on the NFT (F ¼ 6.998, p o 0.001). Further post hoc analysis, as
shown in Table IV, revealed that the difference was significant among internet and in-
store as well as in-store and either, although it was not significant among internet and
either (as seen in Figure 1).
In order to find the impact of NFT on online buying behaviour, first, a correlation
between the two dimensions was established as shown in Table V. As the correlation was
significant further linear regression analysis was conducted. A regression of NFT with
online buying behaviour revealed that all three dimensions of online buying behaviour were
significantly influenced by the NFT. The influence of NFT on buying preferences (β ¼ 0.438,
t ¼ 6.873, p o0.001), webrooming (β ¼ 0.307, t ¼ 4.548, p o0.001) and showrooming
(β ¼ 0.214, t ¼ 3.087, p o0.01) was established.
On further analysis, when looking at autotelic and instrumental NFT, it was found that
instrumental NFT did not have a significant influence on showrooming and webrooming,
whereas autotelic NFT significantly influenced both (webrooming: β ¼ 0.272, t ¼ 3.504,
p o0.001; showrooming: β ¼ 0.288, t ¼ 3.795, p o0.001). This may be due to the fact that
instrumental touch is more functional, whereas autotelic touch is mainly related to fun or
enjoyment. People with fun touch have a greater tendency to touch products and ensure
whether the purchase is satisfactory or not. Thus, H3 was accepted.

Scale Mean df Mean2 F p

Need for Touch

Males 38.17 200 107.014 1.599 0.208
Females 39.69
Need for Touch: autotelic Table III.
Males 17.60 200 5.283 0.239 0.625 ANOVA results of
Females 17.26 gender and total
scores on need for
Need for Touch: instrumental touch, instrumental
Males 20.57 200 159.852 6.911 0.009 need for touch and
Females 22.42 autotelic need for
Source: Survey by authors touch

LSD
(I) Channel ( J ) Channel Mean difference (I−J) SE Sig.

Internet In-store −5.18754* 1.47804 0.001

Either −1.52829 1.42796 0.286
In-store Internet 5.18754* 1.47804 0.001
Either 3.65924* 1.30011 0.005 Table IV.
Either Internet 1.52829 1.42796 0.286 Multiple comparisons
In-store −3.65924* 1.30011 0.005 between NFT and
Note: *The mean difference significant at the level of 0.05 purchase channel
JAMR 4.00
NFT
Autotelic
Instrumental

3.80

3.60
Mean

3.40

3.20

3.00

2.80

Figure 1.
Channel preference
Internet In-store Either
and need for touch
Channel

NFT Online pref. Webrooming Showrooming

NFT
Pearson correlation
Significance (two-tailed)
Online pref.
Pearson correlation 0.438**
Significance (two-tailed) 0.000
Webrooming
Pearson correlation 0.307** 0.302**
Significance (two-tailed) 0.000 0.000
Showrooming
Pearson correlation 0.214** 0.176* 0.342**
Table V. Significance (two-tailed) 0.002 0.013 0.000
Correlations Notes: *,**Significant at the 0.05 and 0.01 levels, respectively (two-tailed)

Results and discussion

As the importance of online shopping continues to increase, there is a need to understand the
buying preferences of customers in an environment where touch is not available. The present
study had aimed to find the influence of NFT on online buying preferences. Several factors are
responsible in this regard including the gender of the customers and the channel preferred for
purchase. This study also extends on the works of Van Kerrebroeck et al. (2017), where they
stressed on the importance of touch-enabling technology as well as San-Martín et al. (2017)
as their study had stressed on filling the gaps regarding showrooming and webrooming.
The present research gathered views of customers regarding touch-enabling which was Consumer’s
only discussed conceptually in the previous study. For this, first, the scale adapted from Need for
earlier studies along with new items added was validated. Exploratory and confirmatory Touch
factor analysis revealed two factors in NFT which included autotelic and instrumental need.
For online buying behaviour, EFA revealed three factors which included online buying
preferences, showrooming and webrooming.
Further, the results revealed that gender influenced the NFT only in case of instrumental
NFT with women having higher NFT. These results were supported by previous work of
Cho and Workman (2011). Thus, H1 was partially accepted. Next, the relationship of NFT
on channel preference was studied which showed that NFT significantly influenced channel
preference. The people who were high in NFT preferred to buy in-store, whereas their low
NFT counterpart was comfortable with both channels (Manzano et al., 2016). Thus, H2 was
accepted. Lastly, the study aimed to find the influence of NFT on online buying preferences,
showrooming and webrooming, and it was found that there was a significant impact
of NFT on all three dimensions, especially for people with autotelic NFT, having a
significant influence. Thus, H3 was also supported.

Conclusion
People nowadays are becoming dependent on online shopping sites due to the convenience
of shopping while sitting at home which saves both time and money. The online
environment lacks sensory cues, in particular, the sense of touch. The lack of touch might
pose a challenge to online shoppers as compared to in-store shopping. Thus, the present
study was conducted to find whether customers were influenced by their NFT in their online
buying behaviour. The NFT is broadly classified into two categories which include autotelic
and instrumental touch. Both these kinds of touch depict differences in an individual’s
preferences. The results also showed that women were more in NFT which can be useful for
retailers as they can be more descriptive about the products that are specifically focussed on
female customers. Since the product used in the research instrument was apparel, which is
touch-intensive, the results of the study regarding the significant difference in instrumental
touch for males and females is justified. The preference of channel based on the NFT
showed that online retailers have a wider customer base in people who are in low NFT.
Thus, they should try to make use of the best possible ways to cater to these customers.
They should also try to find new and innovative ways to satisfy customers with high NFT
as they are the difficult ones. The positive response towards touch-enabling technology
showed a bright future of such technologies.

Managerial implications
The study has several implications for retailers as well as managers. First, an important
result was the difference in NFT with females showing a higher NFT. This result can be
used by marketers as females would prefer to touch products before purchase, thus, they
can help to initiate touch in case of female customers. The importance of touch has been
established in the choice of purchase channel preference as well. The people having a higher
NFT have higher tendency to purchase products in-store than their low NFT counterparts.
Thus, retailers need to find ways where the lack of touch can be compensated. Although
previous authors have given several options like mental representations, verbal details and
brand image but a strong influence would be of touch-enabling technology. The new
technology, when used by online retailers, would break the barriers that exist between real
touch and virtual touch. Some examples of touch-enabling interfaces include actuators
like a haptic glove and mid-air tactile sensations like AirWave (Van Kerrebroeck et al., 2017).
The study further added to the previous theoretical concepts of showrooming and
webrooming (San-Martín et al., 2017). The present study found that the concept of
JAMR showrooming and webrooming is greatly influenced by the NFT. Therefore, it would be
advantageous for retailers to have a presence in both online as well as brick and mortar
stores, so that they do not lose any customer in the absence of either.

Future research
The present study was focussed on only one product category that included apparels.
Research in the future can be conducted to study the online buying preferences for other
categories of products. This study was based on the perception of the respondents, whether
the NFT actually influenced their opinion of touch-enabling technology can be tested in a
more comprehensive manner in an environment where such facilities are available. Future
studies can be conducted to test the significance of this concept in a real-world experimental
study where respondents are subjected to such instruments that enable touch.

References
Apple (2014), “iPod touch”, available at: www.apple.com/uk/ipod-touch/design/ (accessed 10 February 2018).
Balaji, M.S., Raghavan, S. and Jha, S. (2011), “Role of tactile and visual inputs in product evaluation: a
multisensory perspective”, Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, Vol. 23 No. 4, pp. 513-530.
Childers, T.L. and Peck, J. (2010), “Informational and affective influences of haptics on product
evaluation: is what I say how I feel?”, in Krishna, A. (Ed.), Sensory Marketing: Research on the
Sensuality of Products, Routledge, New York, NY, pp. 63-72.
Cho, S. and Workman, J. (2011), “Gender, fashion innovativeness and opinion leadership, and need for
touch: effects on multi-channel choice and touch/non-touch preference in clothing shopping”,
Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management: An International Journal, Vol. 15 No. 3,
pp. 363-382.
Citrin, A.V., Stem, D.E. Jr, Spangenberg, E.R. and Clark, M.J. (2003), “Consumer need for tactile input: an
internet retailing challenge”, Journal of Business research, Vol. 56 No. 11, pp. 915-922.
Fornell, C. and Larcker, D.F. (1981), “Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable
variables and measurement error”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 39-50.
González-Benito, Ó., Martos-Partal, M. and San Martín, S. (2015), “Brands as substitutes for the need for
touch in online shopping”, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Vol. 27, pp. 121-125.
Grohmann, B., Spangenberg, E.R. and Sprott, D.E. (2007), “The influence of tactile input on the
evaluation of retail product offerings”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 83 No. 2, pp. 237-245.
Hulten, B. (2011), “Sensory marketing: the multi-sensory brand-experience concept”, European Business
Review, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 256-273, available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09555341111130245
Hulten, B. (2012), “Sensory cues and shoppers’ touching behaviour: the case of IKEA”, International
Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, Vol. 40 No. 4, pp. 273-289, available at:
http://doi.org/10.1108/09590551211211774
Krishna, A. (2012), “An integrative review of sensory marketing: engaging the senses to affect
perception, judgment and behavior”, Journal of Consumer Psychology, Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 332-351.
Krishna, A., Elder, A.S. and Caldara, C. (2010), “Feminine to smell but masculine to touch? Multisensory
congruence and its effect on the aesthetic experience”, Journal of Consumer Psychology, Vol. 20
No. 4, pp. 410-418.
Liu, W., Batra, R. and Wang, H. (2017), “Product touch and consumers’ online and offline buying: the
role of mental representation”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 93 No. 3, pp. 369-381.
Manzano, R., Ferrán, M., Gavilán, D., Avello, M. and Abril, C. (2016), “Need for touch and multichannel
search and purchase”, in Campbell, C. and Ma, J.J. (Eds), Looking Forward, Looking Back:
Drawing on the Past to Shape the Future of Marketing, Springer, Cham, pp. 558-558.
Nunnally, J. (1978), Psychometric Methods, 2nd ed., McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Overmars, S. and Poels, K. (2015), “A touching experience: designing for touch sensations in online Consumer’s
retail environments”, International Journal of Design, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 17-31. Need for
Peck, J. and Childers, T.L. (2003), “Individual differences in haptic information processing: the ‘Need for Touch
Touch’ scale”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 30 No. 3, pp. 430-442.
Peck, J. and Childers, T.L. (2006), “If I touch it I have to have it: individual and environmental influences
on impulse purchasing”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 59 No. 6, pp. 765-769.
Peck, J. and Shu, S. (2009), “The effect of mere touch on perceived ownership”, Journal of Consumer
Research, Vol. 36 No. 3, pp. 434-447.
Peck, J. and Wiggins, J. (2006), “It just feels good: customers’ affective response to touch and its
influence on persuasion”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 70 No. 4, pp. 56-69.
Peck, J., Barger, V.A. and Webb, A. (2013), “In search of a surrogate for touch: the effect of haptic
imagery on perceived ownership”, Journal of Consumer Psychology, Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 189-196.
San-Martín, S., González-Benito, Ó. and Martos-Partal, M. (2017), “To what extent does need for touch
affect online perceived quality?”, International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management,
Vol. 45 No. 9, pp. 950-968.
Skrovan, S. (2017), “Why many shoppers go to stores before buying online”, Retail Dive Consumer
Survey series, available at: www.retaildive.com/news/why-many-shoppers-go-to-stores-before-
buying-online/441112/ (accessed 15 October 2018).
Streicher, M.C. and Estes, Z. (2016), “Multisensory interaction in product choice: grasping a product
affects choice of other seen products”, Journal of Consumer Psychology, Vol. 26 No. 4, pp. 558-565.
Van Kerrebroeck, H., Willems, K. and Brengman, M. (2017), “Touching the void: exploring consumer
perspectives on touch-enabling technologies in online retailing”, International Journal of Retail &
Distribution Management, Vol. 45 Nos 7/8, pp. 892-909.
Webb, A. and Peck, J. (2015), “Individual differences in interpersonal touch: on the development,
validation, and use of the ‘comfort with interpersonal touch’ (CIT) scale”, Journal of Consumer
Psychology, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 60-77, available at: http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcps.2014.07.002
Williams, L. and Ackerman, J. (2011), “Please touch the merchandise”, Harvard Business Review,
available at: https://hbr.org/2011/12/please-touch-the-merchandise
Yazdanparast, A. and Spears, N. (2013), “Can consumers forgo the need to touch products? An
investigation of nonhaptic situational factors in an online context”, Psychology & Marketing,
Vol. 30 No. 1, pp. 46-61.

About the authors

Dr Rupa Rathee is presently working as Assistant Professor in the Department of Management
Studies, DCRUST, Murthal (India). She has more than 16 years of teaching experience to her credit.
She has attended 19 FDPs at various prestigious institutes like IIM-Bangalore, IIM-Calcutta,
IIM-Kozhikode, MDI-Gurgaon, IITM-Gwalior, JNTU-Hyderabad, etc. She has contributed papers in 24
international conferences and several national conferences. She has 36 publications to her credit in
reputed international and national journals. Her areas of interest are Marketing and HRM.
Pallavi Rajain is pursuing her PhD from DCRUST, Murthal (India). She received her BTech Degree
from Kurukshetra University and MBA from DCRUST, Murthal, in 2010 and 2012, respectively. She
has qualified UGC NET and worked as Project Fellow on a UGC sponsored major research project on
Women Entrepreneurship. She has presented papers in 30 national and international conferences. She
has received “Second Best Paper Award” in International Conference held at JIMS, Rohini. She has 28
publications in national and international journals. Pallavi Rajain is the corresponding author and can
be contacted at: pallavirajain@gmail.com

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com