Assessing Individual Differences in the Need for Interpersonal Touch and Need for Touch
Abstract
The present study investigates individual differences in the automatic use of haptic information from interpersonal touch. We present a questionnaire assessing individual differences in the need for interpersonal touch (NFIPT), which was validated within an unrelated product-evaluation task. Before entering the laboratory, participants were briefly touched on the shoulder or received no touch. Assessing confidence and frustration within the following product-evaluation task, we examined moderating effects of NFIPT and additionally effects of need for touch (NFT). Results showed that higher NFIPT participants were more confident when they were briefly touched. Effects on frustration were only found for NFT. Results show that frustration was greater for individuals with higher NFT, when they could not touch the product during the evaluation task.
References
1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173–1182. doi 10.1037/0022-3514.51.6.1173
(1992). Interpretations, evaluations, and consequences of interpersonal touch. Human Communication Research, 19, 237–263. doi 10.1111/j.1468-2958.1992.tb00301.x
(2003). Consumer need for tactile input. An internet retailing challenge. Journal of Business Research, 56, 915–922. doi 10.1016/S0148-2963(01)00278-8
(2007a). Eine deutsche Skala zum Bedürfnis nach Bewertung (Need to Evaluate) [
(A German scale to the Need to Evaluate ]. In , ZUMA-Informationssystem. Elektronisches Handbuch sozialwissenschaftlicher Erhebungsinstrumente (Acceptance of documentation: ZIS 7.00, 2003). ZIS Version 11.00. Bonn: GESIS.2007b). Eine deutsche Skala zum Konstrukt “Bedürfnis nach kognitiver Geschlossenheit (NFCC)/Persönliches Strukturbedürfnis (PNS)” [
(A German scale of the construct “Need for Cognitive Closure/Personal Need for Structure” ]. In , ZUMA-Informationssystem. Elektronisches Handbuch sozialwissenschaftlicher Erhebungsinstrumente (Acceptance of documentation: ZIS 7.00, 2003). ZIS Version 11.00. Bonn: GESIS.1984). The Midas touch: The effects of interpersonal touch on restaurant tipping. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 10, 512–517. doi 10.1177/ 0146167284104003
(2007). Tactile contact and evaluation of the toucher. The Journal of Social Psychology, 147, 441–444.
(1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18, 39–50. doi 10.2307/3151312
(2002). Infants’ need for touch. Human Development, 45, 100–103. doi 10.1159/000048156
(1976). Hands touching hands: Affective and evaluative effects of an interpersonal touch. Sociometry, 39, 416–421. doi 10.2307/3033506
(1999). The representation of pleasant touch in the brain and its relationship with taste and olfactory areas. NeuroReport, 10, 453–459. doi 10.1097/00001756-199902250-00003
(2009). The cognitive and neural correlates of tactile memory. Psychological Bulletin, 135, 380–406. doi 10.1037/a0015325
(2010). The science of interpersonal touch: An overview. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 34, 246–259. doi 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2008.10.004
(2002a). Kinds of touch, gender, and compliance with a request. Studia Psychologica, 44, 167–172.
(2002b). Touch, awareness of touch, and compliance with a request. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 95, 355–360. doi 10.2466/pms.2002.95.2.355
(2007). Courtship compliance: The effect of touch on women’s behavior. Social Influence, 2, 81–97. doi 10.1080/ 15534510701316177
(2011). Failure of tactile contact to increase request compliance: The case of blood donation behavior. Journal of Articles in Support of the Null Hypothesis, 8, 2–8.
(2003a). Another evaluation of touch and helping behavior. Psychological Reports, 92, 62–64.
(2003b). Tactile contact and spontaneous help: An evaluation in a natural setting. The Journal of Social Psychology, 143, 785–787. doi 10.1080/00224540309600431
(2005). The effect of touch on tipping: An evaluation in a French bar. Hospitality Management, 24, 295–299. doi 10.1016/j.ijhm.2004.06.004
(2007). The effect of touch on compliance with a restaurant’s employee suggestion. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 26, 1019–1023. doi 10.1016/j.ijhm.2006.12.004
(2008). The virtual Midas touch: Helping behavior after a mediated social touch. In Extended abstracts of CHI 2008 (pp. 3507–3512). New York: ACM Press. doi 10.1145/1358628.1358882
(2011). Gender and the communication of emotion via touch. Sex Roles, 64, 70–80. doi 10.1007/s11199-010-9842-y
(2006). Touch communicates distinct emotions. Emotion, 6, 528–533. doi 10.1037/1528-3542.6.3.528
(1987). The effect of touch and gaze upon compliance and interest of interviewees. The Journal of Social Psychology, 127, 681–683.
(1992a). Effects of physical contact on customers’ shopping time and behavior. Marketing Letters, 3, 49–55. doi 10.1007/BF00994080
(1992b). Tactile stimulation and consumer response. Journal of Consumer Research, 19, 449–458. doi 10.1086/ 209314
(1988). Strategies to secure compliance for mall intercept interview. Public Opinion Quarterly, 52, 539–551. doi 10.1086/269129
(1996). The need to evaluate. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 172–194. doi 10.1037/0022-3514.70.1.172
(1985). A naturalistic study of the meanings of touch. Communication Monographs. Communication Monographs, 52, 19–56. doi 10.1080/03637758509376094
(2007). Touch, compliance, and awareness of tactile contact. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 104, 581–588. doi 10.2466/pms.104.2.581-588
(2003). Touch. In , Handbook of psychology (Vol. 4, pp. 147–176). New York: Wiley.
(1977). Compliance to requests made by gazing and touching experimenters in field settings. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 13, 218–223. doi 10.1016/0022-1031(77)90044-0
(1997). Nonverbal correlates of confederates’ touch: Confounds in touch research. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 12, 821–830.
(2012). Pleasant human touch is represented in pregenual anterior cingulate cortex. NeuroImage, 59, 3427–3432. doi 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2011.11.013
(1998). Reach out and touch your customers. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 39, 60–65. doi 10.1177/001088049803900312
(1986). Touching: The human significance of the skin (3rd ed.). New York: Harper & Row.
(2006). Automaticity: A theoretical and conceptual analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 132, 297–326. doi 10.1037/0033-2909.132.2.297
(2010). Assessing individual differences in the use of haptic information using a German translation of the Need for Touch Scale. Social Psychology, 41, 263–274.
(1986). Touch compliance and interpersonal affect. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 10, 41–50. doi 10.1007/BF00987204
(2003a). Individual differences in haptic information processing: The “Need for Touch” scale. Journal of Consumer Research, 30, 430–442.
(2003b). To have and to hold: The influence of haptic information on product judgments. Journal of Marketing, 67, 35–48.
(2006). If I touch it I have to have it: Individual and environmental influences on impulse purchasing. Journal of Business Research, 59, 765–769. doi 10.1016/j.jbusres.2006.01.014
(2006). It just feels good: Customers’ affective response to touch and its influence on persuasion. Journal of Marketing, 70, 56–69. doi 10.1509/jmkg.70.4.56
(2003). Manual for Raven’s progressive matrices and vocabulary scales. Section 1: General overview. San Antonio, TX: Harcourt Assessment.
(1990). Touch, attachment, and health: Is there a relationship? In , Touch: The foundation of experience (pp. 195–228). Madison, WI: International Universities Press.
(1988). Cultural and sex differences in touch avoidance. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 67, 544–546. doi 10.2466/pms.1988.67.2.544
(2003). Representations of pleasant and painful touch in the human orbitofrontal and cingulate cortices. Cerebral Cortex, 13, 308–317. doi 10.1093/cercor/13.3.308
(1990). The sense of touch. In , Touch: The foundation of experience (pp. 299–324). Madison, WI: International Universities Press.
(2006). The perceived importance of sensory modalities in product usage: A study of self-reports. Acta Psychologica, 121, 41–64. doi 10.1016/j.actpsy.2005.06.004
(1982). Interpersonal touch and compliance with a marketing request. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 3, 35–38. doi 10.1207/ s15324834basp0301_3
(1986). The effect on tipping of a waitress touching male and female customers. Journal of Social Psychology, 126, 141–142.
(1994). Individual differences in need for cognitive closure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 1049–1062. doi 10.1037/0022-3514.67.6.1049
(1979). Multidimensional reaction to therapeutic touch in a hospital setting. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 87–96. doi 10.1037/0022-3514.37.1.87
(2001). Social anxiety and response to touch: Incongruence between self-evaluative and physiological reactions. Biological Psychology, 58, 181–202. doi 10.1016/S0301-0511(01)00113-2
(1978). Interpersonal touch among preschool children at play. Psychological Record, 28, 501–508.
(1980). The use of interpersonal touch in securing compliance. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 5, 49–55. doi 10.1007/BF00987054
(1968). Attitudinal effects of mere exposure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 9, 1–27. doi 10.1037/ h0025848
(