Assessing Individual Differences in the Use of Haptic Information Using a German Translation of the Need for Touch Scale
Abstract
A German version of the Need for Touch scale (NFT) was developed and validated in two experiments. Study 1 examined moderator effects of NFT on the influence of product experience on confidence and frustration in product evaluations. As expected, only for high-NFT individuals, confidence increased and frustration decreased when haptic information was available. In Study 2, we explored the influence of NFT in a gambling task. Results showed that individuals with higher NFT more often chose gambling alternatives accompanied by a positive feeling of touch, while individuals with lower NFT did not integrate haptic information. Additionally, results confirmed the theoretically postulated two-dimensional structure of NFT, as well as its discriminant validity.
References
1953). The behavior of rational man in risk situations – A critique of the axioms and postulates of the American school. Econometrica, 21, 503–546.
(2008). AMOS (TM) 17.0 user’s guide. Chicago, IL: SPSS.
(1996). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173–1182.
(2007). Designing internet-based experiments. In , Oxford handbook of internet psychology (pp. 389–401). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
(2003). Generalization across people, procedures, and predictions: Violations of stochastic dominance and coalescing. In , Emerging perspectives on judgment and decision research (pp. 84–107). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
(1992). Bootstrapping goodness-of-fit measures in structural equation models. Sociological Methods and Research, 21, 205–229.
(1997). Do you see what I see? The future of virtual shopping. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 25, 352–360.
(2003). Consumer need for tactile input. An internet retailing challenge. Journal of Business Research, 56, 915–922.
(2007a). Eine deutsche Skala zum Bedürfnis nach Bewertung (Need to Evaluate) [A German scale of the Need to Evaluate). In , ZUMA-Informationssystem. Elektronisches Handbuch sozialwissenschaftlicher Erhebungsinstrumente. 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. ZIS Version 11.00. Bonn: GESIS.
(1961). Risk, ambiguity and the savage axioms. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 75, 643–669.
(1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50.
(1997). Content and discontent: Indications and implications of domain specificity in preferential decision making. In , Research on judgment and decision making: Currents, connections and controversies (pp. 566–617). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
(2007). The influence of tactile input on the evaluation of retail product offerings. Journal of Retailing, 83, 237–245.
(2008). Touch as a “reality sense”. In , Blindness and brain plasticity in navigation and object perception (pp. 259–280). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
(2009). Flow online: Lessons learned and future prospects. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 23, 23–34.
(1996). The need to evaluate. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 172–194.
(2005). Die Psychologie der Entscheidung. Eine Einführung (2. Aufl.) [
(The psychology of decision making. An introduction ]. München: Elsevier.1979). Prospect theory: Analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47, 263–292.
(2000). Choices, values, and frames. In , Choices, values, and frames (pp. 1–16). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
(1987). Hand movements: A window into haptic object recognition. Cognitive Psychology, 19, 342–368.
(2003). The effect of examining actual products or product descriptions on consumer preference. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 13, 431–439.
(1999). Extraction of haptic properties: Individual characteristics and stimulus characteristics. Doctoral Dissertation, Department of Marketing, University of Minnesota.
(2003a). To have and to hold: The influence of haptic information on product judgments. Journal of Marketing, 67(2), 35–48.
(2003b). Individual differences in haptic information processing: The “Need for Touch” scale. Journal of Consumer Research, 30, 430–442.
(2006). If I touch it I have to have it: Individual and environmental influences on impulse purchasing. Journal of Business Research, 59, 765–769.
(2007). If it tastes, smells, sounds, and feels like a duck, then it must be a ...: Effects of sensory factors on consumer behaviors. In , Handbook of consumer psychology. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
(2006). It just feels good: Customers’ affective response to touch and its influence on persuasion. Journal of Marketing, 70, 56–69.
(1997). Exploring the implications of the internet for consumer marketing. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 25, 329–346.
(2003). Manual for Raven’s Progressive Matrices and Vocabulary Scales. Section 1: General overview. San Antonio, TX: Harcourt Assessment.
(2006). The perceived importance of sensory modalities in product usage: A study of self-reports. Acta Psychologica, 121, 41–64.
(1990). The causes of preference reversal. The American Economic Review, 80, 204–217.
(2000). Warum kaufen wir? Die Psychologie des Konsums [
(Why we buy. The science of shopping ]. München: Econ.1994). Individual differences in need for cognitive closure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 1049–1062.
(1995). Structural equation models with nonnormal variables: Problems and remedies. In , Structural equation modeling: Concepts, issues, and applications (pp. 56–75). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
(2007). Centrality of visual product esthetics, tactile and uniqueness needs of fashion consumers. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 31, 589–596.
(2007). Online shopping acceptance model – A critical survey of consumer factors in online shopping. Journal of Electronic Commerce Research, 8, 41–62.
(