The Effects of Touch Versus Non-Touch Interfaces on Online Shopping Experience
COM2 Level 4
Executive Classroom, COM2-04-02
Abstract:
The past few years have witnessed that consumers' online shopping has gradually shifted from non-touch interfaces (e.g., desktops and laptops with a mouse) to touch interfaces (e.g., smartphones and iPads). Recent studies have shown that the mere change of the interface can influence online shopping experiences because of the different response modes. When using a touch interface, consumers usually reach out their hands and use their fingers to touch the image of the product presented, which is a kind of "direct touch." In contrast, when using a non-touch computer interface, they use a mouse to manipulate the product. It is indirect because mouse mediates user response. Although previous literature has offered some insightful findings of how touch versus non-touch interfaces influence consumer perception and behavior, there are still some limitations.
First, processing online product information often involves both visual and tactile activities, which is especially so on the touch interface. Marketing literature has long predicted the powerful influence of the interaction of visual and tactile inputs. Thus, work is needed to investigate the cross-modality effect between product visual depiction and computer interface. Second, the theory of grounded cognition suggests that people's mental activity is "embodied" such that bodily state or action can impact human cognitive processing. As the bodily actions of using touch and non-touch interfaces are quite different, computer interfaces may affect human cognitive processing. However, existing literature has yet systematically explored this possibility. We conduct two empirical studies by using multiple methods to address these research gaps.
The first study is trying to examine the cross-modality effect of product orientation (i.e., orienting a product to one's dominant hand) and computer interface (i.e., touchscreen vs. mouse-click). Based on the theory of grounded cognition, we propose that on touch (vs. non-touch) interfaces, the match (vs. mismatch) between product orientation and handedness can lead to higher product mental interaction and subsequently affect consumer evaluation and choice. Experiment 1 demonstrates that on a touchscreen, orienting a product to ones' dominant (vs. non-dominant) hands can lead to better product attitude, whereas, the effect disappears for participants who use non-touch interfaces. Mental product interaction accounts for this interaction effect. Similarly, Experiment 2 demonstrates that touch (vs. non-touch) interfaces lead to more choice of products oriented to participants' dominant (vs. non-dominant) hands. However, this effect is mitigated by distancing the choice button from the product picture. Experiment 3 is designed to enhance the validity and robustness of our findings by using the method of Event-related Potentials (ERPs). Specifically, we find that right-handed participants experience more conflict (more N2 amplitude in the left and middle hemisphere) and less favorable attitude (less P300 amplitude in the left and middle hemisphere) to left-oriented than right-oriented products, and we only observe such ERPs effects when participants use the touchscreen to view the products.
The second study attempts to examine how touch versus non-touch computer interfaces influences the ways that people construe online content. Drawing on the literature on construal level theory and computer interface, we propose that touch (vs. non-touch) interface can result in low-construal level or concrete thinking and shift consumers' attention to product feasibility considerations over desirability considerations. Multiple experiments have been conducted to examine the association between interface and construal level: touch interfaces make participants describe activities more concretely (vs. abstractly) (Experiment 1a&1b), be less inclusive in the category inclusiveness task (Experiment 2), and be less inclusive by creating more categories in the classification task (Experiment 3). Given the link between the computer interface and construal, we also find that using touchscreen could influence consumers' judgment and behavioral intention. By using touch (vs. non-touch) interfaces, participants prefer the digital camera with high use convenience more than the one with high functionality (Experiment 2), evaluate an apartment with high feasibility of moving time and cost more favorably (Experiment 3), and have a better attitude to the aerobic machine advertisement framed in a low (vs. high) level of construal (Experiment 4).
Overall, these findings offer insightful and essential implications for the literature on the effects of different computer interfaces and the practice of marketing strategies based on different interactive interfaces.