Advertisement

What is in your hand influences your purchase intention: Effect of motor fluency on motor simulation

  • Ming ChenEmail author
  • Chien-Huang Lin
Article
  • 33 Downloads

Abstract

With the development of the advertisement industry, consumers are surrounded by increasing numbers of different types of visual stimuli (e.g., images on billboards, websites, and newspapers or videos on TV and social media). The present research aims to explore the effect of the connection between visual stimuli and objects in consumers’ hands on purchase intention based on motor simulation theory and motor fluency. The results of two studies demonstrate that when right-handed consumers review an image of food with tableware on the right (vs. left) side, they will have higher purchase intention for the food, while the effect reverses when their right hand is under high motor resource load. In addition, when right-handed consumers review an image of food with tableware on the right side and have nothing (vs. an object) in their right hand, they will have higher purchase intention for the food. However, if the image does not include tableware, placing tableware (vs. nothing or other objects) in the right hand of the consumers will induce higher purchase intention for the food. Our findings not only contribute to the literature on motor simulation, motor fluency, and motor resources but also provide valid insights for managerial applications.

Keywords

Motor simulation Motor fluency Motor resources Handedness Conflict 

Notes

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Alter, A. L., & Oppenheimer, D. M. (2009). Uniting the tribes of fluency to form a metacognitive nation. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 13(3), 219–235.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868309341564.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Avanzino, L., Gueugneau, N., Bisio, A., Ruggeri, P., Papaxanthis, C., & Bove, M. (2015). Motor cortical plasticity induced by motor learning through mental practice. Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience, 9, 105.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fnbeh.2015.00105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barsalou, L. W. (2008). Grounded cognition. Annual Review of Psychology, 59(1), 617–645.  https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.59.103006.093639.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Carr, E. W., Rotteveel, M., & Winkielman, P. (2016). Easy moves: Perceptual fluency facilitates approach-related action. Emotion, 16(4), 540–552.  https://doi.org/10.1037/emo0000146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Casasanto, D. (2009). Embodiment of abstract concepts: Good and bad in right- and left-handers. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 138(3), 351–367.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015854.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Casasanto, D., & Chrysikou, E. G. (2011). When left is “right”: Motor fluency shapes abstract concepts. Psychological Science, 22(4), 419–422.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797611401755.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chao, L. L., & Martin, A. (2000). Representation of manipulable man-made objects in the dorsal stream. Neuroimage, 12(4), 478–484.  https://doi.org/10.1006/nimg.2000.0635.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dreisbach, G., & Fischer, R. (2011). If it's hard to read… try harder! Processing fluency as signal for effort adjustments. Psychological Research, 75(5), 376.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-010-0319-y.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Elder, R. S., & Krishna, A. (2012). The “visual depiction effect” in advertising: Facilitating embodied mental simulation through product orientation. Journal of Consumer Research, 38(6), 988–1003.  https://doi.org/10.1086/661531.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Fritz, J., & Dreisbach, G. (2013). Conflicts as aversive signals: Conflict priming increases negative judgments for neutral stimuli. Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience, 13(2), 311–317.  https://doi.org/10.3758/s13415-012-0147-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gordon, R. M. (1986). Folk psychology as simulation. Mind & Language, 1(2), 158–171.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0017.1986.tb00324.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Grèzes, J., & Decety, J. (2001). Functional anatomy of execution, mental simulation, observation, and verb generation of actions: A meta-analysis. Human Brain Mapping, 12(1), 1–19.  https://doi.org/10.1002/1097-0193(200101)12:1<1::AID-HBM10>3.0.CO;2-V.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Grèzes, J., & Decety, J. (2002). Does visual perception of object afford action? Evidence from a neuroimaging study. Neuropsychologia, 40(2), 212–222.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0028-3932(01)00089-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hayes, A. E., Paul, M. A., Beuger, B., & Tipper, S. P. (2008). Self produced and observed actions influence emotion: The roles of action fluency and eye gaze. Psychological Research, 72(4), 461–472.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-007-0125-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Im, H., Lennon, S. J., & Stoel, L. (2010). The perceptual fluency effect on pleasurable online shopping experience. Journal of Research in Interactive Marketing, 4(4), 280–295.  https://doi.org/10.1108/17505931011092808.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Jeannerod, M. (1994). The representing brain: Neural correlates of motor intention and imagery. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 17(2), 187–202.  https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X00034026.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Jeannerod, M. (1999). To act or not to act: Perspectives on the representation of actions. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology. A, Human Experimental Psychology, 52(1), 1–29.  https://doi.org/10.1080/713755803.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Jeannerod, M. (2001). Neural simulation of action: A unifying mechanism for motor cognition. Neuroimage, 14(1), S103–S109.  https://doi.org/10.1006/nimg.2001.0832.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Jeannerod, M. (2004). Actions from within. International Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 2(4), 376–402.  https://doi.org/10.1080/1612197X.2004.9671752.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Jeannerod, M. (2006). The origin of voluntary action. History of a physiological concept. Biologies, 329(5), 354–362.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crvi.2006.03.017.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Jiang, D., Edwards, M. G., Mullins, P., & Callow, N. (2015). The neural substrates for the different modalities of movement imagery. Brain and Cognition, 97, 22–31.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandc.2015.04.005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lee, A. Y., & Labroo, A. A. (2004). The effect of conceptual and perceptual fluency on brand evaluation. Journal of Marketing Research, 41(2), 151–165.  https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkr.41.2.151.28665.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Milhau, A., Brouillet, T., & Brouillet, D. (2013). Biases in evaluation of neutral words due to motor compatibility effect. Acta Psychologica, 144(2), 243–249.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2013.06.008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Milhau, A., Brouillet, T., & Brouillet, D. (2015). Valence-space compatibility effects depend on situated motor fluency in both right- and left-handers. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 68(5), 887–899.  https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2014.967256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Milhau, A., Brouillet, T., Dru, V., Coello, Y., & Brouillet, D. (2016). Valence activates motor fluency simulation and biases perceptual judgment. Psychological Research, 81(4), 795.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-016-0788-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Moran, A., Guillot, A., MacIntyre, T., & Collet, C. (2012). Re-imagining motor imagery: Building bridges between cognitive neuroscience and sport psychology: Re-imagining motor imagery. British Journal of Psychology, 103(2), 224–247.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8295.2011.02068.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Munzert, J., Lorey, B., & Zentgraf, K. (2009). Cognitive motor processes: The role of motor imagery in the study of motor representations. Brain Research Reviews, 60(2), 306–326.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brainresrev.2008.12.024.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. O’Shea, H., & Moran, A. (2017). Does motor simulation theory explain the cognitive mechanisms underlying motor imagery? A critical review. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 11.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2017.00072.
  29. Reber, R., & Schwarz, N. (1999). Effects of perceptual fluency on judgments of truth. Consciousness and Cognition, 8(3), 338–342.  https://doi.org/10.1006/ccog.1999.0386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Reber, R., Schwarz, N., & Winkielman, P. (2004). Processing fluency and aesthetic pleasure: Is beauty in the perceiver's processing experience? Personality and Social Psychology Review: An Official Journal of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology Inc, 8(4), 364–382.  https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327957pspr0804_3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Ridderinkhof, K. R., & Brass, M. (2015). How kinesthetic motor imagery works: A predictive-processing theory of visualization in sports and motor expertise. Journal of Physiology, 109(1–3), 53–63.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jphysparis.2015.02.003.Google Scholar
  32. Rizzolatti, G., & Matelli, M. (2003). Two different streams form the dorsal visual system: Anatomy and functions. Experimental Brain Research, 153(2), 146–157.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-003-1588-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Schieber, M. H. (2000). Inactivation of the ventral premotor cortex biases the laterality of motoric choices. Experimental Brain Research, 130(4), 497–507.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s002219900270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Schouppe, N., De Houwer, J., Richard Ridderinkhof, K., & Notebaert, W. (2012). Conflict: Run! Reduced stroop interference with avoidance responses. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 65(6), 1052–1058.  https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2012.685080.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Scott, G. G., O’Donnell, P. J., Leuthold, H., & Sereno, S. C. (2009). Early emotion word processing: Evidence from event-related potentials. Biological Psychology, 80(1), 95–104.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsycho.2008.03.010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Sirigu, A., & Duhamel, J. R. (2001). Motor and visual imagery as two complementary but neurally dissociable mental processes. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 13(7), 910–919.  https://doi.org/10.1162/089892901753165827.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Solodkin, A., Hlustik, P., Chen, E. E., & Small, S. L. (2004). Fine modulation in network activation during motor execution and motor imagery. Cerebral Cortex, 14(11), 1246–1255.  https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhh086.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Stevens, J. A. (2005). Interference effects demonstrate distinct roles for visual and motor imagery during the mental representation of human action. Cognition, 95(3), 329–350.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2004.02.008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Taylor, S. E., Pham, L. B., Rivkin, I. D., & Armor, D. A. (1998). Harnessing the imagination: Mental stimulation, self-regulation, and coping. American Psychologist, 53(4), 429–439.  https://doi.org/10.1037//0003-066X.53.4.429.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Topolinski, S., & Strack, F. (2009). Motormouth: Mere exposure depends on stimulus-specific motor simulations. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 35(2), 423–433.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0014504.Google Scholar
  41. Unkelbach, C., Fiedler, K., Bayer, M., Stegmüller, M., & Danner, D. (2008). Why positive information is processed faster: The density hypothesis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95(1), 36–49.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.95.1.36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Winkielman, P., & Cacioppo, J. T. (2001). Mind at ease puts a smile on the face: Psychophysiological evidence that processing facilitation elicits positive affect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81(6), 989–1000.  https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.81.6.989.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Yang, S., Gallo, D. A., & Beilock, S. L. (2009). Embodied memory judgments: A case of motor fluency. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 35(5), 1359–1365.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0016547.Google Scholar
  44. Zhang, R., Zhang, T., Liu, T., Liu, D., Li, M., Li, F., et al. (2016). Structural and functional correlates of motor imagery BCI performance: Insights from the patterns of fronto-parietal attention network. Neuroimage, 134, 475–485.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2016.04.030.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Marketing and Logistics ManagementNanjing University of Finance and EconomicsNanjingChina
  2. 2.Department of Business AdministrationNational Central UniversityJhongli CityTaiwan

Personalised recommendations