‘Touch it, swipe it, shake it’: Does the emergence of

haptic touch in mobile retailing advertising improve its

effectiveness?

Author
Mulcahy, Rory Francis, Riedel, Aimee S

Published
2020

Journal Title
Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services

Version
Accepted Manuscript (AM)

DOI
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2018.05.011

Copyright Statement
© 2018 Elsevier. Licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-
NoDerivatives 4.0 International Licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)
which permits unrestricted, non-commercial use, distribution and reproduction in any medium,
providing that the work is properly cited.

Downloaded from
http://hdl.handle.net/10072/421424

Griffith Research Online

https://research-repository.griffith.edu.au
Please cite as: Mulcahy, R. F., & Riedel, A. S. (2018). ‘Touch it, swipe it, shake it’: Does

the emergence of haptic touch in mobile retailing advertising improve its

effectiveness?. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services.

Abstract

This article illustrates that haptic touch, the sensation of gaining and sending information

through the hand, can improve mobile retailing advertisements’ effectiveness. To date,

(haptic) touch has been predominantly thought of as a sensation only possible for physical

retail settings, with limited theoretical or empirical evidence of its existence in mobile

retailing advertising in the current literature. This study presents a model which includes

interactivity, value, involvement, brand attitude and purchase intentions in a singular model

for the first time. The model is comparatively examined across haptic touch (n=303) versus

non-haptic touch (n=359) conditions using structural equation modelling (SEM) multi-group

test of invariance. The findings demonstrate haptic touch improves the experience of

advertisements and this strengthens purchase intentions, whereas for the non-haptic touch

condition, results demonstrate the actual brand being advertised should be leveraged to

increase purchase intentions. These findings present a new theoretical perspective that haptic

touch is now a sensation which can be engaged in mobile and digital retail settings and

provides an important foundation for future research.

Keywords: Haptic touch, mobile retailing, sensory marketing, interactivity

1. Introduction

Consumers moving from bricks-and-mortar stores and traditional media (e.g. radio and

television) to digital platforms, such as the smartphone, is well documented in both academic

(Fuentes et al., 2017; Kim et al., 2017; Toufaily et al., 2013) and industry literature

1
(Mortimer and Grimmer, 2017). Online retailing is estimated to grow to US$4.48 trillion

(Statista, 2018a) and mobile advertising is expected to reach US$102.31 billion by 2021

(Statista, 2018b). It is due to these rapid changes in consumer preferences and consumption

that retailing and advertising is in a state of revolution, as technology begins to provide new

opportunities for retailers and advertisers to create experiences for consumers (De Kerviler et

al., 2016).

Traditionally, brick-and-mortar retailing is said to have one advantage in promoting

products that is unattainable to online retailers – the ability to engage the sense of touch (Peck

and Shu, 2009). For example, Citrin and colleagues (2003) state “a shortcoming of internet-

based retailing efforts is consumers’ (in)ability to touch” (p. 915). Typically, retailers have

advertised products on mobile platforms through periodic SMS messages, static pictures or

video content that highlight new offerings (Shankar et al., 2010). However, new

developments in smartphone technology are enabling consumers to use haptic touch, the

receiving or giving of information via the hand (Brasel and Gips, 2014; Gibson, 1966), to

engage with advertised products. New haptic technologies in smartphones and tablets enable

consumers to tilt, tap or shake their phone to gain and provide information throughout their

mobile retail advertising experiences. For example, 3D Touch, a technology developed by

Apple Inc., enables users to distinguish between different levels of force being applied to

surfaces to enable users another form of informational input (Apple Inc., 2018). Another

example is IKEA Place, an augmented reality catalogue app developed by IKEA which

allows users to tilt and move their phones to visualise products in their home (IKEA, 2018).

These technological advancements have the potential to change mobile retail advertising

practice dramatically, challenging past theoretical and practical assumptions that the

engagement of touch is not possible in these settings. As exciting as these developments in

mobile retailing advertising practice appear to be, little evidence exists as to whether haptic

2
touch improves mobile retail advertising effectiveness. This is where our study aims to

contribute to knowledge.

The sensation of touch in physical retail settings has been shown to improve outcomes

such as psychological ownership and purchase intentions (Peck and Wiggins, 2006; Spence

and Gallace, 2011). As such, it could be surmised mobile retail advertisements that utilise

haptic touch should also be superior in driving outcomes such as purchase intentions

compared to those that do not. Literature has begun to provide preliminary insights into how

haptic touch may improve retailing and advertising outcomes online (Brasel and Gipps, 2014,

2015) in a variety of product categories which are of a materialistic (physical) nature,

including food (de Vries et al., 2018; Zhu and Meyer, 2017), home-styling products

(Brengman et al., 2018) and fashion (Rodrigues et al., 2017). Yet, to the authors’ knowledge,

there is little to no research that has comparatively examined how and where haptic touch

enhances mobile retailing advertisement effectiveness. This research intends to address this

gap in knowledge by investigating whether mobile retailing advertisements that use haptic

touch strengthen the interrelationships between interactivity, value, involvement, brand

attitude and purchase intentions as these have been identified as important for both retailing

and advertising effectiveness, but not yet collectively tested within a singular model

(Cartwright et al., 2016). Therefore, we seek to provide an answer to the question, how and

where does haptic touch improve mobile retailing advertisements’ effectiveness?

Retailing is at a tipping point, and settings like our research (haptic touch and mobile

retail advertisements) demonstrate these rapid advancements in practice could change the

future of retailing practice. However, a challenge for scholars is ensuring that the

advancement of such practices is supported both theoretically and empirically. We aim to

begin to address this challenge by testing a model using mobile retail advertisement

technology developed by a start-up company for female fashion retail products. Specifically,

3
the study randomly allocates participants into two mobile retail advertisement conditions:

haptic touch (n=303) vs no haptic touch (n=359). The haptic touch technology enables

consumers to interact with an advertisement by shaking, tilting and swiping their phone to

place products into their trolley and skip through the advertisement video. Further details of

the technology will be detailed shortly. The remainder of the paper is organised as follows.

First, we review the literature on touch and the focal constructs of this study. The conceptual

model is then presented. Following this, the study’s methodology and research results are

presented. Finally, implications for theory and practice are discussed.

2. Literature review

2.1 Touch in retailing

Scholars have long considered touch in consumer retailing experiences (Krishna, 2012).

Given retailing has predominately been a physical experience, it is not surprising the majority

of research in touch has focused on bricks-and-mortar-type experiences (Table 1). However,

there is an emerging body of literature that suggests touch is also important in online retailing

experiences (Brasel and Gipps, 2014; Jin, 2011). Whilst touch has been proposed as

important there is inconsistency in the literature, with some studies suggesting not all forms

of (or more engagement of) touch are positive. Studies largely in the consumer-to-consumer

context have shown that touch can have a negative or neutral impact (Marlow and Jannson-

Boy, 2011; Martin, 2011; Martin and Nuttall, 2017). One such example evidences that

interpersonal touch between retail shoppers can cause adverse effects (Martin, 2011).

However, studies outside of this context and specifically in the technology or product touch

setting, suggest touch can produce a positive effect in retailing (Table 1). For example, Brasel

and Gipps’ (2014) study showed touching iPad screens led to a positive effect on desired

outcomes. This is consistent with studies in physical settings, such as Peck and Wiggins’

4
(2006) study which demonstrated pamphlets with a tactile object enhanced marketing

persuasion. Given the context of the current research and focus on consumers’ ability to use

haptic touch to engage with products shown in mobile retail advertisements via smartphone

technology, we propose haptic touch will have a positive influence on mobile retail

advertising effectiveness.

Table 1

Chronological overview of related touch studies

Author(s)/Year Physical/Digital Object Positive Neutral Negative

Peck and Wiggins (2006) Physical Pamphlet Y
Krishna and Morrin (2007) Physical Product Y
Peck and Shu (2009) Physical Product Y
Krishna et al. (2010) Physical Product Y
Jin (2011) Digital Product Y
Martin (2011) Physical C2C Y
Marlow and Jannson-Boyd (2011) Physical Product Y
Peck and Johnson (2011) Physical Brochure Y
Brasel and Gips (2014) Digital Screen Y
Brasel and Gips (2015) Digital Screen Y
Brengman et al. (2018) Digital Screen Y
Martin and Nuttall (2017) Physical C2C Y
This study Digital Mobile Y*

Note: C2C=consumer-to-consumer, *anticipated positive impact

2.2 Mobile retailing and advertising

This section defines the focal constructs of this research. A review of the literature identified

five constructs as being important to retail and advertising in digital settings: interactivity,

channel value, involvement, brand attitude and purchase intentions (see Table 2). Interactivity

and channel value were chosen as these two constructs have shown to be useful in

understanding consumers' retailing experiences with technology (Fazal-e-Hasan et al., 2018;

Rose et al., 2012). Further, research suggests there is a need to gain greater insight into the

effect of mobile retailing technology on consumer retail experiences (McLean et al., 2018;

Pantano and Priporas, 2016). Involvement and brand attitude were chosen as these two

constructs represent consumers’ interests and attitudes towards the advertisement

5
(involvement) and brand (brand attitude). Further, research demonstrates both involvement

and brand attitude as important antecedents of desired outcomes, such as purchase intentions

(Drossos et al., 2014; Kim et al., 2009), which is examined in this study. Purchase intentions

was chosen as the outcome for this study due to recent literature suggesting a need to

understand how new technologies can potentially improve sales (Spreer and Rauschnabel,

2016) as well as being a well-established outcome for retail and advertising research.

Overall, this research intends to use these constructs to understand how and where haptic

touch technology may improve the effect of consumer experiences (interactivity and channel

value) of advertising (involvement and brand attitude) on sales (purchase intentions). Next,

we present each construct and their related hypotheses.

6
Table 2

Chronological overview of related studies in retail and advertising

Author(s)/Year Setting Interactivity Channel Involvement Brand Purchase Other Constructs Examined
Value Attitude Intentions
Fortin and Dholakia (2005) Internet advertising Y Y Y Y Social presence, Arousal, Vividness

Ko et al. (2005) Internet advertising Y Y Y Motivation (information, entertainment, convenience, social

interaction)

Kim et al. (2007) Online retailing Y Y Y Y Enjoyment, Desire to stay in online store

Campbell and Wright (2008) Internet advertising Y Y Personal relevance

Yoon et al. (2008) E-commerce Y Y Perceived relationship investment, Relationship quality

Yoo et al. (2010) Online retailing Y Y N/A

Kirk et al. (2012) Digital information Y Y Digital native status, Usefulness

products

Suryandari and Paswan Online/Offline retail Y Y Trust, Interface, Empathy, Offline presence
(2014)

Kang et al. (2015) Mobile retail apps Y Y Y Time convenience, Compatibility, Effort expectancy

Yoon and Youn (2016) Brand websites Y Y Brand experience, Satisfaction, Trust

Yu et al. (2017) Retail website Y Y Y Website quality, Satisfaction, Stickiness, Word-Of-Mouth

Fazal-e-Hasan et al. (2018) Online retailing Y Y Consumer goal attainment, Consumer hope, Satisfaction, Trust

This study Mobile retail Y Y Y Y Y N/A

advertisements
N/A=not applicable as no other constructs examined

7
2.2.1 Interactivity

Interactivity, defined as the user’s ability to control and modify messages (Liu and

Shrum, 2002), is an important construct in understanding consumer experiences with online

retailing websites and advertisements (Ko et al., 2005; Yoon and Youn, 2016). Interactivity is

conceptualised as being a second-order construct having playfulness, user control and

synchronicity dimensions (Gao et al., 2010). Previous research indicates interactivity

positively influences value and involvement in online retailing and advertising contexts

(Belanche et al., 2017; Fortin and Dholakia, 2005; Yoo et al., 2010). For example, Yoo and

colleagues (2010) found interactivity to positively influence value in an online retail setting.

With these findings in mind and coupled with the literature that suggests touch improves

retail and advertising performance (Peck and Wiggins, 2006) we propose:

H1. The positive effect of interactivity will be significantly greater on value (H1a),

involvement (H1b) and brand attitude (H1c) for users of mobile retail advertisements with

haptic touch than for those who use mobile retail advertisements without haptic touch.

2.2.2 Channel value

Value is an important concept to retailers as it has been consistently shown to drive

outcomes such as purchase intentions (for a comprehensive review see Sánchez-Fernández

and Iniesta-Bonillo, 2007). In this research, value refers to the benefits a user subjectively

experiences from using mobile retailing advertisement technology to purchase a product. In

the literature, value is identified as having a direct effect on purchase intentions (Cronin et al.,

2000) and can be mediated by other constructs (Fazal-e-Hasan et al., 2018; Williams et al.,

2017). We align our model with the majority of recent literature that suggests value is

8
mediated by other constructs prior to influencing purchase intentions. Therefore, for this

study, value is proposed to have a positive effect on involvement and brand attitude, rather

than directly influencing purchase intentions. Again, recall touch is suggested to improve

retailing performance, therefore this effect should be greater for the haptic touch condition.

As such, we propose:

H2. The positive effect of channel value will be significantly greater for involvement (H2a)

and brand attitude (H2b) for users of mobile retail advertisements with haptic touch than for

those who use mobile retail advertisements without haptic touch.

2.2.3 Involvement

Involvement can be defined as a self-concept that connects a person’s motivations and

interest to an idea, activity or problem (Suhartanto et al., 2018; Zaichkowsky, 1985). In this

research, involvement refers to a consumer’s level of interest in a mobile retail advertisement.

There is abundant literature suggesting involvement is important in influencing consumer

behaviour and purchasing (Fortin and Dholakia, 2005; Kang et al., 2015; Panagopolous et al.,

2017). We aim to extend this prior literature and the generalisability of prior findings by

demonstrating involvement also plays an important positive role in mobile retail advertising –

a setting where involvement has not yet been thoroughly researched. We again suggest the

inclusion of touch will strengthen the relationship between involvement and purchase

intentions. Stated formally as:

H3. The positive effect of involvement will be significantly greater on purchase intentions for

users of mobile retail advertisements with haptic touch than for those who use mobile retail

advertisements without haptic touch.

9
2.2.4 Brand attitude

Brand attitude refers to consumers’ preferences towards a brand (Li et al., 2002).

Improving the perception of a brand is central to advertising and retail strategies (Collins-

Dodd and Lindley, 2003; Dolbec and Chebat, 2013), particularly for those using digital

platforms (Aaker and Jacobson, 2001; Li et al., 2002). In this hypothesis we suggest the

brand will be more important and influential in the non-haptic touch condition. This is

because it is expected non-haptic touch consumers will leverage more strongly upon their

perceptions of the brand than their interaction with the video. This is due to having limited

engagement with the advertisement, thus the perception of the brand becomes more central.

Whereas, in alignment with the prior hypothesis, it is expected haptic touch consumers will

be more strongly engaged (involved) with the technology than the brand and, in turn, the

brand becomes less central. We therefore propose:

H4. The positive effect of brand attitude will be significantly greater for users of mobile retail

advertisements without haptic touch than for those who use mobile retail advertisements with

haptic touch.

Based upon the prior section and hypotheses developed, we present our conceptual

model in Figure 1. Our study intends to extend previous research by examining prominent

variables within a single conceptual model to be compared between haptic touch vs non-

haptic touch conditions.

10
 H2a
Channel Involvement
value

Purchase
H1a intentions

Interactivity Brand
attitude
H1c

Fig. 1. Conceptual model.

3. Method

Participants were recruited through Australian and American online survey panel providers

during mid–2017 to February 2018. These two market segments were chosen as literature

shows they are culturally similar and comparable for analysis (Parkinson et al., 2018).

Analysis confirmed this, revealing that technological behaviours were consistent between the

Australian and American samples, with no significant differences found for online purchase

habits (χ² (5) =10.05, p=.074) or daily smartphone use (χ² (7)=4.55, p=.715). This was also

visible in the purchase intentions measured in the study (Australian participants M=4.39,

SD=1.59, American participants M=4.38, SD=1.70, t=.123, p=.902). The data were collected

from participants solely through an online survey. As the mobile retailing advertisement

technology was developed by an industry partner for a female fashion retail brand,

judgement-based sampling was employed by recruiting female participants who owned and

used smartphones. Participants did not have any prior experience with the technologies and

were randomly allocated to one of the two conditions – haptic touch vs non-haptic touch –

using a randomised link creator which was embedded in a survey link, thus giving

participants an equal probability of being allocated to one of the two conditions. The haptic

11
touch condition engaged touch by allowing participants to tilt, shake and swipe the phone to

interact with the mobile advertisement. 1 For example, tilting the phone would allow

participants to place a retail product displayed in the advertisement into their shopping cart.

Shaking and swiping the phone to the right skipped the video forward, whereas to the left

skipped the video backwards. Participants were first instructed to interact with (or, for the

non-haptic touch condition, to watch) the mobile retail advertisement and then fill out a set of

three check questions, which were used as a control to ensure participants had interacted with

or watched the video. For example, in the haptic touch condition, participants were asked “in

the advertisement, when I tilted my phone forward during the video, it…” (correct response:

“Added the product on the screen in the video to my cart”). After participants had answered

the check questions correctly, they were invited to fill out the remainder of the survey.

Participants who did not answer the check questions correctly were thanked for their time and

screened out from the remainder of the study. An overview of the participants’ characteristics

can be seen in Table 3. The samples show good variability across income, type of phone

platforms used (iPhone and Android) and purchasing online. Age shows a tendency for

respondents to be somewhat younger (18–35 years), which is consistent with industry reports

indicating mobile shoppers are a younger demographic (Skeldon, 2018) and sampling for

other mobile shopping studies (Yang and Kim, 2012).

1
A video of the technology in use and an overview of the creators and their business is viewable at:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wgmpn6RJWPw

12
Table 3

Participant characteristics (%), whole sample n=662.

Characteristic %
Age
18–35 63.50%
36–50 27.00%
>50 8.50%
Income
Under $15,000 7.36
$15,001–$29,999 25.14
$30,000–$49,999 10.42
$45,000–$59,999 16.33
$60,000–$74,999 15.79
$75,000–$89,999 8.44
$90,000–$104,999 5.57
$105,000–$119,999 10.95
Phone
iPhone 42.90
Android 57.10
Phone Use
Less than 30 mins 3.59
Between 30 mins and 1 hour 8.79
Between 1 and 2 hours 21.36
Between 2 and 3 hours 20.10
Between 3 and 4 hours 16.53
Between 4 and 5 hours 10.95
Between 5 and 6 hours 6.65
Over 6 hours 12.03
Purchase Online
Never 4.13
Rarely 20.10
Once a year 6.11
One a month 41.47
Once a week 26.93
Once a day 1.26

All items were based upon prior studies. The interactivity scale consisted of nine items

adapted from Gao et al. (2010). A shortened version of Kleijnen et al.’s (2007) channel value

scale with eight items was used. Brand attitude contained three items from Gardner’s (1985)

scale. Five items for involvement were adapted from Novak et al. (2000). Purchase intentions

were measured via five items adapted from Spears and Singh (2004). All scales were

13
measured with 5-point semantic differential scales, except for interactivity which was

measured via a 5-point Likert scale.

4. Results

Prior to testing the hypotheses the data and constructs were assessed for normality, reliability

and validity (see Tables 4 and 5). The univariate normality assumption for structural equation

modelling was satisfied, with all skewness and kurtosis values associated with each item

within the range of ± 1.96. All scales for both samples had average variance extracted (AVE)

scores above the recommended threshold of .50, and composite reliability scores above .70.

As suggested in the literature (Fornell and Larcker, 1981), convergent validity was assessed

by verifying the significance of the t-values with the parameter estimates. All items within

each sample were shown to have significant t-values with their related constructs. This also

included interactivity which was measured as a reflective second-order construct (made up of

playfulness, user control and synchronicity). The results showed that the second-order

loadings (e.g. playfulness to interactivity) were statistically significant for both samples; thus,

providing support for the validity of interactivity as a second-order construct. Discriminant

validity was tested by comparing the AVE scores to the shared variance between the

constructs (Fornell and Larcker, 1981). As shown in Table 4, for each comparison the AVE

exceeds the shared variances (also referred to as squared correlations) of constructs in both

samples, thus confirming discriminant validity. Finally, the measurement model was assessed

(in AMOS 24.0) and was found to adequately fit the data (CMIN/DF=3.81, CFI=.96,

TLI=.95, RMSEA=.06) (Iacobucci, 2010).

14
Table 4

Mean (M), standard deviation (SD), correlations and shared variances between constructs.

Haptic Touch (n=303) No Haptic Touch (n=359)

M SD AVE 1 2 3 4 5 M SD AVE 1 2 3 4 5
1. Interactivity 5.05 1.24 .68 0.47 0.34 0.29 0.30 3.98 1.55 .70 0.44 0.30 0.41 0.45
2. Channel Value 5.53 1.18 .74 0.69** 0.43 0.35 0.41 4.97 1.50 .82 0.66** 0.44 0.38 0.49
3. Brand Attitude 5.34 1.11 .79 0.59** 0.66** 0.38 0.44 5.05 1.28 .82 0.55** .66** 0.38 0.53
4. Involvement 4.44 1.22 .63 0.54** 0.59** .62** 0.49 3.92 1.47 .69 0.64** .62** .62** 0.52
5. Purchase Intentions 4.60 1.56 .86 0.55** 0.64** .66** .70** 4.21 1.74 .88 0.67** .70** .73** .72**
Shared variances of constructs are reported in the top half of the matrices: **p<.01

15
Table 5

Construct measurement summary

Construct and Items Haptic Touch No Haptic Touch

(n=303) (n=359)
Loading AVE CR Loading AVE CR
Interactivity
User Control .71 .88 .81 .93
If I felt that I had a lot of control over my advertisement 0.79 0.85
viewing experiences
If I can choose freely what I want to see 0.89 0.93
If my actions decided the kind of experiences I get when 0.92
0.85
viewing the advertisement
Synchronicity .85 .92 .87 .93
I can get the desired answer fast when I request further 0.93 0.91
information
I can get instantaneous information when I respond to the 0.95
0.91
advertisement
Playfulness .72 .89 .77 .91
I feel attracted to the advertisement and enjoy seeing the 0.90
0.89
advertisement
The advertisement is playful 0.83 0.85
The advertisement increases my curiosity towards the 0.88
0.83
company and the product
Channel Value .74 .94 .82 .96
Impractical–practical 0.86 0.88
Useless–useful 0.88 0.93
Not sensible–sensible 0.85 0.92
Inefficient–efficient 0.86 0.90
Unproductive–productive 0.88 0.90
Bad–Good 0.83 0.90
Involvement .60 .89 .69 .91
Important/unimportant (R) 0.76 0.79
Irrelevant/relevant 0.74 0.74
Means a lot to me/Means nothing to me (R) 0.88 0.90
Matters to me/doesn’t matter (R) 0.77 0.79
Of no concern/of concern to me 0.80 0.92
Brand Attitude .79 .92 .82 .93
Very bad/very good 0.89 0.86
Didn’t like it/liked it a lot 0.88 0.94
Favourable opinion/unfavourable opinion 0.91 0.92
Purchase Intentions .86 .97 .88 .97
Never/definitely 0.89 0.93
Definitely do not intend to buy/definitely intend 0.94 0.95
Very low/high purchase interest 0.91 0.93
Definitely not buy it/Definitely buy it 0.95 0.95
Probably not/probably buy it 0.94 0.94
(R)=reversed item; CR=construct reliability

16
4.1 Testing the hypotheses

To establish whether the hypothesised differences in the conceptual model were statistically

significant, multi-group analysis of structural invariance were performed using AMOS 24.0

(Byrne, 2004). This method was chosen as it has been proven useful to understand

differences in the strength of relationships between two samples in prior studies (see for

example Dagger and O’Brien, 2010; Parkinson et al., 2018; Steenkamp and Baumgartner,

1998). Testing for invariance was undertaken by conducting a multi-group analysis,

comparing the constrained and unconstrained models and calculating a chi-square score

(Byrne, 2004; Deng et al., 2005; Parkinson et al., 2018; Riquelme et al., 2016). The findings

are shown in Table 6 and Figure 2.

Table 6

Hypotheses testing results.

Relationship Haptic No Haptic ∆χ²

InteractivityChannel Value 0.78*** 0.55*** 6.07*
InteractivityInvolvement 0.23** 0.28** 0.02 (ns)
InteractivityBrand Attitude 0.21** 0.03 (ns) 3.83*
Channel ValueInvolvement 0.32*** 0.50*** 0.03 (ns)
Channel ValueBrand Attitude 0.55*** 0.69*** 0.01 (ns)
InvolvementPurchase Intentions 0.53*** 0.42*** 6.08*
Brand AttitudePurchase Intentions 0.35*** 0.53*** 7.79**
R²
Channel Value 0.62 0.31
Involvement 0.49 0.49
Brand Attitude 0.56 0.50
Purchase Intentions 0.62 0.69
Structural Model Fit (Whole sample)
CMIN/DF 2.57
CFI .96
TLI .95
RMSEA .05
***p<.000 **p<.01 *p<.05 ns=non-significant

17
 Haptic Touch (n=303)

β= .32***
Channel Involvement
value

Purchase
intentions
β= .78***

Interactivity Brand
attitude

β= .41***
Non-Haptic Touch (n=359)

β= .50***
Channel Involvement
value

Purchase
intentions
β= .55***

Interactivity Brand
attitude

β= .03 ns

Note: Bold indicates strong relationships. Dashed lines indicate non-significant path.

Fig. 2. Multi-group hypotheses testing results

The results demonstrate the interactivity to channel value relationship was

significantly stronger for the haptic touch condition (β= 0.78, p<.000) than for the non-haptic

touch condition (β=0.55, p<.000) (∆χ²= 6.07, p<.05), supporting H1a. The data did not

support H1b. The interactivity to brand attitude relationship was significantly stronger for the

haptic touch condition (β= 0.21, p<.01) than for the non-haptic touch condition (β=0.03, ns)

(∆χ²= 3.83, p<.05), supporting H1c. No support was found for significantly differing

18
relationships for H2. As predicted in H3, involvement with the mobile retail advertisement

had a significantly stronger impact on purchase intentions for the haptic touch condition (β=

0.53, p<.000) than for the non-haptic touch condition (β=0.42, p<.000) (∆χ²= 6.08, p<.05),

supporting H3. The data also supported H4, with the brand attitude to purchase intention

relationship being significantly stronger for the non-haptic touch condition (β= 0.53, p<.000)

compared to the haptic touch condition (β=0.35, p<.000) (∆χ²= 7.79, p<.01).

5. Discussion

The core purpose of this research was to offer new theoretical perspectives and insights into

the application of an emerging area of practice – haptic touch in mobile retail advertisements.

We achieved this aim by examining the interrelationships between five constructs identified

as central to retailing and advertising in a singular conceptual model, which to date have not

been tested together (recall Table 2). The findings reveal that haptic touch does indeed

improve mobile retail advertising effectiveness and this leads to strong impacts upon

purchase intentions. By comparison, the non-haptic touch mobile retail advertisement

leverages more upon the advertised brand via brand attitude to impact upon purchase

intentions. The results also demonstrate that haptic touch participants had considerably

heightened levels of interactivity, channel value, involvement, brand attitude and purchase

intentions (refer to the means in Table 4). These findings lead to several important

contributions to the literature and insights for mobile retailers and advertisers.

5.1 Theoretical contributions

Collectively, the results both support and build upon extant literature in two ways. First, the

study adds to the literature on haptic touch by examining whether its effectiveness extends

into mobile retail advertising. Earlier research suggests touch could improve retail outcomes;

19
however, this was predominately in physical retail contexts. This was because, until recently,

touch was a sensation thought not possible in digital settings (Citrin et al., 2003; Peck and

Shu, 2009), such as mobile retail advertising. This study contributes further evidence that

haptic touch is becoming increasingly possible and more predominant, driven by

technological advancements. The evidence of this research combined with that of other

studies advocates for a dramatic shift in how retail and advertising scholars view digital

experiences, and the senses in which they engage, particularly relating to touch (Brasel and

Gips, 2014; Brengman et al., 2018; Jin, 2011). Further, the results suggest the gaps between

bricks-and-mortar and mobile retailing are becoming slimmer as new technologies encroach

on advantages such as touch that were once thought to be only capable for physical retail

settings (Citrin et al., 2003). In addition, our results show the pattern of relationships

improved by haptic touch that allow us to highlight some important nuances regarding prior

research.

Second, this research adds to the literature by examining a model which includes five

central constructs, proposing haptic touch in mobile retail advertisements significantly

enhances their interrelationships. Theorisation and evidence of technologies engaging haptic

touch is emerging, with the majority of studies focusing on how it provides or increases

psychological ownership (Brengman et al., 2018), endowment (Brasel and Gips, 2014) and

brand–self connection (Jin, 2011). The current research, however, is the first study to

comparatively examine a model that includes the constructs of interactivity, channel value,

involvement, brand attitude and purchase intentions in a singular model across haptic touch

and non-haptic touch technologies. These constructs were proffered as worthy of exploration

as they provide insight into customer experiences with technology and the outcomes of

retailing and advertising (Drossos et al., 2014; Fazal-e-Hasan et al., 2018; Kim et al., 2009;

Rose et al., 2012). The current research contributes to the literature by showing where haptic

20
touch strengthens the interrelationships between constructs, and thus improves the pathway

from consumer experience (interactivity and channel value) to retail advertising outcomes

(involvement, brand attitude and purchase intentions). The findings highlight that the strength

of haptic touch technologies resides in interactivity and involvement, which establishes and

contributes new insight in comparison to past research (Brasel and Gips, 2014; Brengman et

al., 2018, Jin, 2011); whereas for non-haptic touch technologies the strength lies within the

brand. This indicates the strength of haptic technology resides in the advertising experience

(interactivity and involvement) and this becomes the stronger driver of purchase intentions;

whereas when haptic touch is not enabled, the strength of influencing purchase intentions is

more brand orientated. Thus, our study highlights the importance of studying the nuances of

where and how haptic touch provides a means for improving mobile retail advertising

effectiveness and begins to unravel where it improves pathways to purchase behaviour.

5.2 Managerial implications

There are several managerial implications derived from this study. Our results provide strong

evidence that retailers and advertisers should be finding ways to enable haptic touch.

Accordingly, as “click” retailers attempt to compete with brick-and-mortar retailers, engaging

more senses in diverse ways can close the gap of the once distinct advantage between the two

channels.

In the haptic touch condition, our results show interactivity is a stronger driver of

value and brand attitude, and involvement is a stronger driver of purchase intentions, which

has important insights for how mobile retail advertisements are designed. For example,

playfulness – one of the key components of interactivity within this study – could be

emphasised to create an enjoyable and entertaining experience. Alternatively, control

(another component of interactivity) could be emphasised by educating consumers as to how

21
haptic touch technology provides greater command over mobile retail advertisement

experiences. This is similarly the case for involvement; given the novelty of the technology,

greater interest and motivation (involvement) to view mobile retail advertising can be used to

encourage consumers to adopt and use the technology, which can then lead to increases in

purchase intentions for the retail brands advertised. Finally, based upon brand attitude being a

stronger driver of purchase intentions for the non-haptic touch mobile retail advertisement,

we propose greater emphasis should be placed upon building positive attitudes towards the

brand in these types of advertisements. This could be achieved by strong consumer–brand

identification or celebrity endorsement, which has been shown to build positive brand

attitudes.

5.3 Limitations and future research directions

As with all studies, this research has limitations that provide opportunities for future research.

This research was cross-sectional and focused on one market segment (Western female

consumers predominately aged 25–30 years) within one retail product category (fashion).

Caution should therefore be taken when attempting to generalise the findings of this research

to other market segments. Future research therefore should seek to extend the current study’s

findings to other segments (e.g. Asian market segments, males and or older age groups) and

other retail product categories to gain insight as to whether responses to haptic touch are

homogenous or heterogenous. An interesting area for future research would be comparing

whether the study’s results are consistent or whether nuanced differences are apparent when

examining hedonic or utilitarian products that are being advertised and bridging the findings

of other studies in haptic touch and technology (Zhu and Meyer, 2017). This research also

examined participants exposed to haptic touch technology in one time and setting. Future

research therefore could undertake different research designs, such as longitudinal and/or

laboratory experiments, to examine whether the strength of haptic touch technologies such as

22
the one tested in this study are long-term or short-term, and additionally provide greater

insight into the causality of the relationships. Finally, additional constructs could also be

worth integrating and investigating in future research, such as psychological ownership, the

need for touch and trust – all of which have been shown to be potentially important for

understanding the sensation of touch in retailing technologies (Brasel and Gips, 2014; Fazal-

e-Hasan et al., 2018; Peck and Childers, 2003; Suryandari and Paswan, 2014; Yoon and

Youn, 2016).

References

Apple Inc. 2018. Take Advantage of 3D Touch. Retrieved

from:https://developer.apple.com/ios/3d-touch/ accessed May 1, 2018.
Aaker, D.A., Jacobson, R., 2001. The value relevance of brand attitude in high-technology
markets. Journal of Marketing Research 38 (4), 485-493.
Belanche, D., Flavián, C., Pérez-Rueda, A., 2017. Understanding interactive online
advertising: congruence and product involvement in highly and lowly arousing,
skippable video ads. Journal of Interactive Marketing 37, 75-88.
Brasel, S.A., Gips, J. 2014. Tablets, touchscreens, and touchpads: how varying touch
interfaces trigger psychological ownership and endowment. Journal of Consumer
Psychology 24 (2), 226-233.
Brasel, S.A., Gips, J. 2015. Interface psychology: touchscreens change attribute importance,
decision criteria, and behavior in online choice. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social
Networking 18 (9), 534-538.
Brengman, M., Willems, K., Van Kerrebroeck, H. 2018. Can’t touch this: the impact of
augmented reality versus touch and non-touch interfaces on perceived ownership.
Virtual Reality, 1-12.
Byrne, B.M., 2004. Testing for multigroup invariance using AMOS graphics: a road less
traveled. Structural Equation Modeling 11 (2), 272-300.
Campbell, D.E., Wright, R.T., 2008. Shut-up I don't care: understanding the role of relevance
and interactivity on customer attitudes toward repetitive online advertising. Journal of
Electronic Commerce Research 9 (1), 62.
Cartwright, J., McCormick, H., Warnaby, G., 2016. Consumers' emotional responses to the
Christmas TV advertising of four retail brands. Journal of Retailing and Consumer
Services 29, 82-91.
Citrin, A.V., Stem Jr, D.E., Spangenberg, E.R., Clark, M.J., 2003. Consumer need for tactile
input: an internet retailing challenge. Journal of Business Research 56 (11), 915-922.

23
Collins-Dodd, C., Lindley, T., 2003. Store brands and retail differentiation: the influence of
store image and store brand attitude on store own brand perceptions. Journal of
Retailing and Consumer Services 10 (6), 345-352.
Cronin Jr, J.J., Brady, M.K., Hult, G.T.M., 2000. Assessing the effects of quality, value, and
customer satisfaction on consumer behavioral intentions in service
environments. Journal of Retailing 76 (2), 193-218.
Dagger, T.S., O'Brien, T.K., 2010. Does experience matter? Differences in relationship
benefits, satisfaction, trust, commitment and loyalty for novice and experienced service
users. European Journal of Marketing 44 (9/10), 1528-1552.
De Kerviler, G., Demoulin, N.T., Zidda, P., 2016. Adoption of in-store mobile payment: are
perceived risk and convenience the only drivers? Journal of Retailing and Consumer
Services 31, 334-344.
de Vries, R., Jager, G., Tijssen, I., Zandstra, E.H., 2018. Shopping for products in a virtual
world: why haptics and visuals are equally important in shaping consumer perceptions
and attitudes. Food Quality and Preference 66, 64-75.
Deng, X., Doll, W.J., Hendrickson, A.R., Scazzero, J.A., 2005. A multi‐group analysis of
structural invariance: an illustration using the technology acceptance model,
Information & Management 42, 745‐59.
Dolbec, P.Y., Chebat, J.C., 2013. The impact of a flagship vs. a brand store on brand attitude,
brand attachment and brand equity. Journal of Retailing 89 (4), 460-466.
Drossos, D.A., Kokkinaki, F., Giaglis, G.M., Fouskas, K.G., 2014. The effects of product
involvement and impulse buying on purchase intentions in mobile text advertising.
Electronic Commerce Research and Applications 13 (6), 423-430.
Fazal-e-Hasan, S.M., Ahmadi, H., Mortimer, G., Grimmer, M., Kelly, L., 2018. Examining
the role of consumer hope in explaining the impact of perceived brand value on
customer–brand relationship outcomes in an online retailing environment. Journal of
Retailing and Consumer Services, 41, 101-111.
Fornell, C., Larcker, D.F., 1981. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable
variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 39-50.
Fortin, D.R., Dholakia, R.R., 2005. Interactivity and vividness effects on social presence and
involvement with a web-based advertisement. Journal of Business Research 58 (3),
387-396.
Fuentes C., Backtrom K., Svingstedt A., 2017. Smartphones and the reconfiguration of retails
capes: stores, shopping, and digitalization. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services
39, 270-278.
Gao, Q., Rau, P.P., Salvendy, G., 2010. Measuring perceived interactivity of mobile
advertisements. Behaviour & Information Technology, 29 (1), 35-44.
10.1080/01449290802666770
Gardner, M.P., 1985. Does attitude toward the ad affect brand attitude under a brand
evaluation set? Journal of Marketing Research 22, 192-198.
Gibson, J., 1966. The senses considered as perceptual systems. Houghton Mifflin, Boston.
Iacobucci, D. 2010. Structural equations modeling: Fit indices, sample size, and advanced
topics. Journal of Consumer Psychology 20 (1), 90-98.

24
IKEA. 2018. Say hej to IKEA Place. Retrieved from:
https://www.ikea.com/au/en/apps/IKEAPlace.html accessed May 1, 2018
Jin, S.A.A., 2011. The impact of 3d virtual haptics in marketing. Psychology & Marketing 2
8(3), 240-255.
Kang, J.Y.M., Mun, J.M., Johnson, K.K., 2015. In-store mobile usage: downloading and
usage intention toward mobile location-based retail apps. Computers in Human
Behavior 46, 210-217.
Kim, J., Fiore, A.M., Lee, H.H., 2007. Influences of online store perception, shopping
enjoyment, and shopping involvement on consumer patronage behavior towards an
online retailer. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 14 (2), 95-107.
Kim, M., Kim, J., Choi, J., Trivedi, M., 2017. Mobile shopping through applications:
understanding application possession and mobile purchase. Journal of Interactive
Marketing 39, 55-68.
Kirk, C.P., Chiagouris, L., Gopalakrishna, P., 2012. Some people just want to read: the roles
of age, interactivity, and perceived usefulness of print in the consumption of digital
information products. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 19 (1), 168-178.
Kleijnen, M., de Ruyter, K., Wetzels, M., 2007. An assessment of value creation in mobile
service delivery and the moderating role of time consciousness. Journal of Retailing 83
(1), 33-46. 10.1016/j.jretai.2006.10.004
Ko, H., Cho, C.H., Roberts, M.S., 2005. Internet uses and gratifications: a structural equation
model of interactive advertising. Journal of Advertising 34 (2), 57-70.
Kim, S., Haley, E., Koo, G. Y. (2009). Comparison of the paths from consumer involvement
types to ad responses between corporate advertising and product advertising. Journal of
Advertising, 38(3), 67-80.
Krishna, A., 2012. An integrative review of sensory marketing: engaging the senses to affect
perception, judgment and behavior. Journal of Consumer Psychology 22 (3), 332-351.
Krishna, A., Elder, R.S., Caldara, C., 2010. Feminine to smell but masculine to touch?
Multisensory congruence and its effect on the aesthetic experience. Journal of
Consumer Psychology 20 (4), 410-418.
Krishna, A., Morrin, M., 2007. Does touch affect taste? The perceptual transfer of product
container haptic cues. Journal of Consumer Research 34 (6), 807-818.
Li, H., Daugherty, T., Biocca, F., 2002. Impact of 3-D advertising on product knowledge,
brand attitude, and purchase intention: the mediating role of presence. Journal of
Advertising 31 (3), 43-57.
Liu, Y., Shrum, L.J., 2002. What is interactivity and is it always such a good thing?
Implications of definition, person, and situation for the influence of interactivity on
advertising effectiveness. Journal of Advertising 31 (4), 53-64.
Marlow, N., Jansson‐Boyd, C.V., 2011. To touch or not to touch; that is the question. Should
consumers always be encouraged to touch products, and does it always alter product
perception? Psychology & Marketing 28 (3), 256-266.
Martin, B.A., 2011. A stranger’s touch: effects of accidental interpersonal touch on consumer
evaluations and shopping time. Journal of Consumer Research 39 (1), 174-184.
Martin, B.A., Nuttall, P., 2017. Tense from touch: examining accidental interpersonal touch
between consumers. Psychology & Marketing 34 (10), 946-955.

25
McLean G., Al-nabhani K., Wilson A., 2018. Developing a mobile applications customer
experience model (MACE) – implications for retailers. Journal of Business Research
85, 325-336.
Mortimer, G., Grimmer, L., 2017. Why retailers want you to ‘click and collect'. The
Conversation. http://theconversation.com/why-retailers-want-you-to-click-and-collect-
83094.
Novak, T.P., Hoffman, D.L., Yung, Y., 2000. Measuring the customer experience in online
environments: a structural modeling approach. Marketing Science 19 (1), 22-42.
10.1287/mksc.19.1.22.15184
Panagopoulos, N.G., Rapp, A.A., Ogilvie, J.L., 2017. Salesperson solution involvement and
sales performance: the contingent role of supplier firm and customer–supplier
relationship characteristics. Journal of Marketing 81 (4), 144-164.
Pantano E., Priporas C.V., 2016. The effect of mobile retailing on consumers’ purchasing
experiences: a dynamic perspective. Computers in Human Behavior 61, 548-555.
Parkinson, J., Russell-Bennett, R., Previte, J., 2018. Challenging the planned behavior
approach in social marketing: emotion and experience matter. European Journal of
Marketing 52 (3/4), 837-865.
Peck, J., Childers, T. L. (2003). To have and to hold: The influence of haptic information on
product judgments. Journal of Marketing, 67(2), 35-48. Peck, J., Johnson, J.W., 2011.
Autotelic need for touch, haptics, and persuasion: the role of involvement. Psychology
& Marketing 28 (3), 222-239.
Peck, J., Shu, S.B., 2009. The effect of mere touch on perceived ownership. Journal of
Consumer Research 36 (3), 434-447.
Peck, J., Wiggins, J., 2006. It just feels good: customers' affective response to touch and its
influence on persuasion. Journal of Marketing 70 (4), 56-69.
Riquelme, I.P., Román, S., Iacobucci, D., 2016. Consumers' perceptions of online and offline
retailer deception: a moderated mediation analysis. Journal of Interactive Marketing 35,
16-26.
Rodrigues, T., Silva, S.C., Duarte, P., 2017. The value of textual haptic information in online
clothing shopping. Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management: An International
Journal 21 (1), 88-102.
Rose, S., Clark, M., Samouel, P., Hair, N., 2012. Online customer experience in e-retailing:
an empirical model of antecedents and outcomes. Journal of Retailing 88 (2), 308-322.
Sánchez-Fernández, R., Iniesta-Bonillo, M.Á., 2007. The concept of perceived value: a
systematic review of the research. Marketing Theory 7 (4), 427-451.
Shankar, V., Venkatesh, A., Hofacker, C., Naik, P., 2010. Mobile marketing in the retailing
environment: current insights and future research avenues. Journal of Interactive
Marketing 24 (2), 111-120.
Skeldon, P., 2018. ‘Radically evolving’ young shoppers rapidly reshaping retail with
smartphones and social media. http://internetretailing.net/2018/03/radically-evolving-
young-shoppers-rapidly-reshaping-retail-smartphones-social-media/
Spears, N., Singh, S.N., 2004. Measuring attitude toward the brand and purchase
intentions. Journal of Current Issues & Research in Advertising 26 (2), 53-66.

26
Spence, C., Gallace, A., 2011. Multisensory design: Reaching out to touch the
consumer. Psychology & Marketing 28 (3), 267-308.
Spreer P., Rauschnabel P.A., 2016. Selling with technology: understanding the resistance to
mobile sales assistant use in retailing. Journal of Personal Selling and Sales
Management 36 (3), 240-263.
Statista, 2018a. Retail e-commerce sales worldwide from 2014 to 2021 (in billion U.S.
dollars). https://www.statista.com/statistics/379046/worldwide-retail-e-commerce-
sales/
Statista, 2018b. Mobile advertising spending in the United States from 2015-2021.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/269916/mobile-advertising-spending-in-the-united-
states/ (Accessed 18 January 2018).
Steenkamp, J‐B.E.M., Baumgartner, H., 1998. Assessing measurement invariance in cross‐
national consumer research. Journal of Consumer Research. 25, 78‐90.
Suhartanto, D., Dean, D., Nansuri, R., Triyuni, N.N., 2018. The link between tourism
involvement and service performance: evidence from frontline retail
employees. Journal of Business Research 83, 130-137.
Suryandari, R.T., Paswan, A.K., 2014. Online customer service and retail type-product
congruence. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 21 (1), 69-76.
Toufaily, E., Souiden, N., Ladhari, R., 2013. Consumer trust toward retail websites:
comparison between pure click and click-and-brick retailers. Journal of Retailing and
Consumer Services 20 (6), 538-548.
Williams, P., Soutar, G., Ashill, N.J., Naumann, E., 2017. Value drivers and adventure
tourism: a comparative analysis of Japanese and Western consumers. Journal of Service
Theory and Practice 27 (1), 102-122.
Yang, K., Kim, H. Y. 2012. Mobile shopping motivation: an application of multiple
discriminant analysis. International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management,
40(10), 778-789.
Yoo, W.S., Lee, Y., Park, J., 2010. The role of interactivity in e-tailing: creating value and
increasing satisfaction. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 17 (2), 89-96.
Yoon, D., Choi, S.M., Sohn, D., 2008. Building customer relationships in an electronic age:
the role of interactivity of E‐commerce Web sites. Psychology & Marketing 25 (7),
602-618.
Yoon, D., Youn, S., 2016. Brand experience on the website: its mediating role between
perceived interactivity and relationship quality. Journal of Interactive Advertising 16
(1), 1-15.
Yu, X., Roy, S.K., Quazi, A., Han, Y., 2017. Internet entrepreneurship and “the sharing of
information” in an Internet-of-Things context: The role of interactivity, stickiness, e-
satisfaction and word-of-mouth in online SMEs’ websites. Internet Research 27 (1), 74-
96.
Zaichkowsky, J.L., 1985. Measuring the involvement construct. Journal of Consumer
Research 12 (3), 341-352.
Zhu, Y., Meyer, J., 2017. Getting in touch with your thinking style: how touchscreens
influence purchase. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 38, 51-58.

27