Sensory Similarity: A Physical Product Perception in Online Context

  • Margot Racat
  • Sonia Capelli
  • Danilo Dantas
Conference paper
Part of the Developments in Marketing Science: Proceedings of the Academy of Marketing Science book series (DMSPAMS)


Research in marketing recently demonstrated that touch-based devices lead to higher product evaluations when compared to traditional interfaces (Brasel SA, Gips J, J Consum Psychol 24(2):226–233, 2014; Shen H, Zhang M, Krishna A, J Market Res 53: 745–758, 2016). In this research, we aim to better understand the impact of sensory similarity related to product tactile cues, of which we focus on the tactile experience, on product evaluation. We define sensory similarity as the extent to which an indirect sensory experience mimics a traditional in store sensory experience with the product. With two experiments, we show that in online environment, the interface touch is not considered as a diagnostic, but consumers’ experience is enhanced with online tactile stimulation. Yet, we also show that direct tactile stimulation becomes a piece of information when textures are unfamiliar. Based on previous researches on the absence of direct product touch in online environments, we bring another point of view regarding the way of stimulating touch via interfaces (Schlosser A, J Consum Res 30(2):184–199, 2003).


Tactile stimulation Product evaluation Online shopping Haptic interface 


  1. Alba, J., Lynch, J., Weitz, B., Janiszewski, C., Lutz, R., Sawyer, A., & Wood, S. (1997). Interactive home shopping: consumer, retailer, and manufacturer incentives to participate in electronic marketplaces. Journal of Marketing, 61(July), 38–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Chen, Y.-H., Hsu, I.-C., & Lin, C.-C. (2010). Website attributes that increase consumer purchase intention: a conjoint analysis. Journal of Business Research, 63(9–10), 1007–1014.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Childers, T. L., Carr, C. L., Peck, J., & Carson, S. (2001). Hedonic and utilitarian motivations for online retail shopping behavior. Journal of Retailing, 77(4), 511–535.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Citrin, A. V., Stem, 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Coyle, J., & Thorson, E. (2001). The effects of progressive levels of interactivity and vividness in web marketing sites. Journal of Advertising, 30(3), 65–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. d’Astous, A., & Kamau, E. (2010). Consumer product evaluation based on tactile sensory information. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 9(3), 206–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Daugherty, T., Li, H., & Biocca, F. (2008). Consumer learning and the effects of virtual experience relative to indirect and direct product experience. Psychology & Marketing, 25(7), 568–586.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Gibson, J. J. (1962). Observations on active touch. Psychological Review, 69(6), 477–491.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Jiang, Z., & Benbasat, I. (2005). Virtual product experience : effects of visual and functional control of products on perceived diagnosticity and flow in electronic shopping. Journal of Management Information Systems, 21(3), 111–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Jin, S.-A. A. (2009). The roles of modality richness and involvement in shopping behavior in 3D virtual stores. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 23(3), 234–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Jin, S.-A. A. (2011). The impact of 3d virtual haptics in marketing. Psychology & Marketing, 28(3), 240–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Keen, C., Wetzels, M., de Ruyter, K., & Feinberg, R. (2004). E-tailers versus retailers. Journal of Business Research, 57(7), 685–695.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kim, J., & Forsythe, S. (2008). Adoption of Virtual Try-on technology for online apparel shopping. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 22(2), 45–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Klatzky, R. L., Lederman, S. J., & Reed, C. (1987). There’s more to touch than meets the eye: the salience of object attributes for haptics with and without vision. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 116(4), 356–369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kock, N. (2005). Media richness or media naturalness? The evolution of our biological communication apparatus and its influence on our behavior toward e-communication tools. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 48(2), 117–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Lederman, S. J., & Klatzky, R. L. (1987). Hand movements: a window into haptic object recognition. Cognitive Psychology, 19(3), 342–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Li, H., Daugherty, T., & Biocca, F. (2003). The role of virtual experience in consumer learning. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 13(4), 395–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lwin, M. O., Morrin, M., & Krishna, A. (2010). Exploring the superadditive effects of scent and pictures on verbal recall: an extension of dual coding theory☆. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 20(3), 317–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Marlow, N., & Jansson-Boyd, C. (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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. McCabe, D. B., & Nowlis, S. M. (2003). The effect of examining actual products or product descriptions on consumer preference. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 13(4), 431–439.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Milgram, P., Takemura, H., Ustimi, A., & Kishino, F. (1994). Augmented reality: a class of display on the reality-virtuality continuum. Telemanipulator and Telepresence Technologies, 2351, 282–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Peck, J., & Childers, T. (2003a). Individual differences in haptic information processing: the “need for touch” scale. Journal of Consumer Research, 30(3), 430–443.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Peck, J., & Childers, T. (2003b). To have and to hold: the influence of haptic information on product judgments. Journal of Marketing, 67(2), 35–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Rosa, J. A., & Malter, A. J. (2003). E-(Embodied) knowledge and E-commerce: how physiological factors affect online sales of experiential products. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 13(1–2), 63–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Schlosser, A. (2003). Experiencing products in the virtual world: the role of goal and imagery in influencing attitudes versus purchase intentions. Journal of Consumer Research, 30(2), 184–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Shen, H., Zhang, M., & Krishna, A. (2016). Computer interfaces and the “ direct – touch ” effect : can iPads increase the choice of hedonic food ? Journal of Marketing Research, 53, 745–758.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Spence, C., & Gallace, A. (2011). Multisensory design: reaching out to touch the consumer. Psychology & Marketing, 28(3), 267–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Wells, W. D. (2000). Recognition, recall, and rating scales. Journal of Advertising Research, 40(6), 14–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Yadav, M., & Pavlou, P. (2014). Marketing in computer-mediated environments: research synthesis and new directions. Journal of Marketing, 78(1), 20–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Yoo, J., & Kim, M. (2014). The effects of online product presentation on consumer responses: a mental imagery perspective. Journal of Business Research, 67(11), 2464–2472.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Academy of Marketing Science 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.IDRAC Business SchoolLyonFrance
  2. 2.University Jean Moulin Lyon 3LyonFrance
  3. 3.HEC MontréalMontrealCanada

Personalised recommendations