Consumer Need for Touch and Multichannel Purchasing Behaviour

  1. R. Manzano 1
  2. Magdalena Ferrán Aranaz 1
  3. D. Gavilán 1
  1. 1 Universidad Complutense de Madrid
    info

    Universidad Complutense de Madrid

    Madrid, España

    ROR 02p0gd045

Revista:
Cuadernos de Trabajo de la Facultad de Estudios Estadísticos

ISSN: 1989-0567,  1989-0567

Año de publicación: 2013

Número: 2

Páginas: 1-15

Tipo: Documento de Trabajo

DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openAcceso abierto editor

Otras publicaciones en: Cuadernos de Trabajo de la Facultad de Estudios Estadísticos

Resumen

This paper firstly analyses the relationship between the consumer’s need for touch and the channels used during search and purchase stages. The focus will be the fashion industry, characterised by offering highly hedonic products, where great importance is placed on the sense of touch. Secondly, the moderating effects produced by the type of touch (autotelic / instrumental) and by the types of shopping task (goal-oriented / experiential-oriented) are also analysed. Results show that autotelic NFT becomes delimited by, and subordinated to, the instrumental one, as in the configuration of the overall NFT, high levels always involve a high instrumental dimension without which they do not occur. The instrumental NFT dimension defines both the online purchase, with its lowest values, and the use of physical channels, as it has values as high as those related to the autotelic one. The instrumental NFT dimension prevails over the autotelic one, both for goal-oriented and experiential consumers. Regarding multichannel shopping, those consumers who search or buy on the Internet show a lower level of NFT, both overall and in its two dimensions, compared to those consumers who choose physical channels. This is particularly noticeable in relation to the purchase phase.

Referencias bibliográficas

  • Arnold, M.J. and Reynolds, K.E. (2003). “Hedonic shopping motivations”. Journal of Retailing 79. p77-95.
  • Babin, J. B., Darden, W.R., Griffin, M. (1994) “Work and/or fun: Measuring Hedonic and Utilitarian Shopping Value”. Journal of Consumer Research. Vol.20. March 1994. p644-656.
  • Batra, R. and Ahtola, O.T. (1991). “Measuring the Hedonic and Utilitarian Sources of Consumer Attitudes”. Marketing Letters, 2 (2). P159-170
  • Childers, T.L., Carr, C.L., Peck, J. Carson, S. (2001). “Hedonic and utilitarian motivations for online retail shopping behavior”. Journal of Retailing 77. p511-535.
  • Citrin, A. V.; Stem Jr., Donald E.; Spangenberg, E.R.; Clark, M. J. (2003). “Consumer need for tactile input: an internet retailing challenge”. Journal of Business Research. Nov2003, Vol. 56 Issue 11, p915. 8p.
  • Dawson, S; Bloch, P; Ridgway, N. (1990). “Shopping Motives, Emotional States, and Retail Outcomes”. Journal of Retailing. Vol. 66. Issue 4. p408-427.
  • Eicher, J. (1995) “Introduction: dress as expression of ethnic identity”. Dress and Ethnicity: Change across Space and Time (ed. by J.B. Eicher), pp. 1–5. Berg, Oxford.
  • Fiore, A.M. & Kimle, P.A. (1997) “Understanding Aesthetics for the Merchandising & Design Professional”. Fairchild, New York.
  • Fischer, E. & Arnold, S. J. (1990). More than a labor of love: gender roles and Christmas shopping”. Journal of Consumer Research, 17 (December), p333–345.
  • Grohmann, B; Spangenberg, E. R.; Sprott, D, (2007). “The influence of tactile input on the evaluation of retail product offerings”. Journal of Retailing. Apr2007, Vol. 83 Issue 2, p237-245. 9p.
  • Guest and Spence. (2003). “Tactile dominance in speeded discrimination of pilled fabric samples”. Experimental brain research, 150. P201-207.
  • Holbrook, M.B., Hirschman,E.C. (1982). “The Experiential Aspects of Consumption: Consumer Fantasies, Feelings, and Fun”. Journal of Consumer Research. Vol,9. September 1982. P132- 139.
  • Kirmany, A. and Rao, A.R. (2000). “No pain, no gain: A critical review of the literature on signaling unobservable product quality”. Journal of Marketing, 64.66-79.
  • Klatzky, R. L., Lederman, S.J., & Matula, D.E. (1993). “Haptic exploration in the presence of vision”. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Human Perception & Performance. Aug93, Vol. 19 Issue 4, p726-743.
  • Konus, U., Verhoef, P.C., and Neslin, S.A. (2008). “Multichannel Shopper Segments and their Covariates”. Journal of Retailing, 84 (4), p398-413.
  • Krishna, A. and Morrin, M, (2008). “Does Touch affect Taste? The perceptual transfer of product container haptic cues”. Journal of Consumer Research, 34. p807-818.
  • Kumar, V. and Venkatesan, R. (2005). “Who are the multichannel shoppers and how do they perform?: correlates of multichannel shopping behavior”. Journal of Interactive Marketing. Vol. 19. (2). Spring 2005.
  • Lee, H. and Kim, J. (2005). “Investigating Dimensionality of Multichannel Retailer´s Cross Channel Integration Practices and Effectiveness: Shopping Orientation and Loyalty Intention”. Journal of Marketing Channels 17. p281-312.
  • Mathwick, C., Malhotra, N.K., Rigdon,E. (2002). “The effect of dynamic experiences on experimental perceptions of value: and internet and catalog comparison”. Journal of Retailing 78. p51-60.
  • McCabe, D.B; Nowlis,S.M. (2003). “The Effect of Examining Actual Products or Products Description on Consumer Preference”. Journal of Consumer Psychology 2003, Vol. 13 Issue 4, p431-439. 9p
  • McGoldrick, P.J. and Collins, N. (2007). “Multichannel RetailingL Profiling the Multichannel Shopper”. Int. Rev. or Retail, Distribution, and Consumer Research. Vol. 17, Nº 2, p139-158. May 2007.
  • McIver, P. Luxton, S. and Sands, S. (2009). “Multichannel Shopping: The Relationship between Search and Purchase Channel Choice”. ANZMAC 2009.
  • Neslin, S., Grewal, D., Leghorn, R., Shankar, V., Teerling, M., Verhoef, P. (2006). “Challenges and opportunities in Multichannel Customer Management”. CRM Thought Leadership Conference. University of Connecticut 2005.
  • Noble, S.M. Griffith, D.A., Weinberger, M.G. (2005). “Consumer derived utilitarian value and channel utilization in a multichannel retail context”. Journal of Business Research. 58. p1643- 1651.
  • Olson, J.C. and Jacoby, J. (1972). “Cue utilization in the quality perception process”. Advances in Consumer Reserch, 2. 167-179.
  • Peck, J.; Barger, V.; Webb,A. (2012). “In search of a surrogate for touch: The effect of haptic imagery on perceived ownership”. Journal of Consumer Phychology. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jcps.2012.09.001
  • Peck, J. and Childers, T. (2003a). “To have and to hold: The influence of Haptic Information on Product Judgements”. Journal of Marketing vol 67, p35-48.
  • Peck, J. and Childers, T. (2003b). “Individual differences in Haptic Information Processing: The “Need for Touch” Scale”. Journal of Consumer Research vol 30, p430-442.
  • Peck, J. and Childers, T. L. (2006). “If I touch it I have to have it: Individual and environmental influences on impulse purchasing”. Journal of Business Research. Jun2006, Vol. 59 Issue 6, p765-769. 5p.
  • Peck, J. and Shu, S.B. (2009). “The effect of Mere Touch on Perceived Ownership”. Journal of Consumer Research vol 36, p434-447
  • Raghubir, P. and Krishna, A. (1999). “Vital Dimensions in Volume Perception: Can the Eye Fool the Stomach?” Journal of Marketing Research, 36(6), p313-326.
  • Verhoef, Peter C.; Neslin, Scott A.; Vroomen, Björn. (2007). “Multichannel customer management: Understanding the research-shopper phenomenon”. International Journal of Research in Marketing. Jun2007, Vol. 24 Issue 2, p129-148
  • Vieira, V.A. (2012). “An evaluation of the Need for Touch scale and its relationship with Need for Cognition, Need for Input and Consumer Response”. Journal of International Consumer Marketing. Vol 24 Issue 1/2. p57-78
  • Voss, K.E., Spangenberg, E.R., Grohmann, B. (2003). “Measuring the Hedonic and Utilitarian Dimensions of Consumer Attitude”. Journal of Marketing Research. Vol XI. August 2003. p310- 320.
  • Westbrook, R. A., & Black, W. (1985). A motivation-based shopper typology. Journal of Retailing, 61(Spring), p78–103.
  • Yazdanparast, A. & Spears, N. (2013). “Can Consumers Forgo the Need to Touch Products?: An Investigation of Nonhaptic Situational Factors in an Online Context”. Psychology & Marketing, Vol.30 (1). 46-61.
Fuente de los datos: Dialnet