This research finds that merely touching an object results in an increase in perceived ownership of that object. For nonowners, or buyers, perceived ownership can be increased with either mere touch or with imagery encouraging touch. Perceived ownership can also be increased through touch for legal owners, or sellers of an object. We also explore valuation of an object and conclude that it is jointly influenced by both perceived ownership and by the valence of the touch experience. We discuss the implications of this research for online and traditional retailers as well as for touch research and endowment effect research.
- Cette recherche montre que le simple fait de toucher un objet entraîne une augmentation de la propriété perçue de cet objet. Pour les non-propriétaires ou les acheteurs, la propriété perçue peut être augmentée avec un simple toucher ou avec un toucher qui encourage l’image. La propriété perçue peut également être augmentée par le toucher pour les propriétaires légaux ou les vendeurs d’un objet. Nous explorons également l’évaluation d’un objet et concluons qu’il est conjointement influencé à la fois par la propriété perçue et par la valence de l’expérience tactile. Nous discutons des implications de cette recherche pour les détaillants en ligne et traditionnels, ainsi que pour la recherche tactile et la recherche sur les effets de dotation.
Mots clefs :
Touch, Sense, Ownership, experience, purchase, Marketing
2003, the Illinois state attorney general’s office issued a warning for holiday shoppers to be cautious of retailers who encourage them to hold objects and imagine the objects as their own when shopping. The basis of this warning was presumably that the combination of physically holding the object and ownership imagery may lead to unplanned or unnecessary purchases.
Research on the sense of touch or haptics has increased in the marketing literature, possibly encouraged by the rise of online shopping where marketers are interested in how to compensate consumers for touch when it is unavailable (Peck and Childers 2007). Previous research in marketing has examined product category differences and found that some product categories encourage touch more than others (e.g., Grohmann, Spangenberg, and Sprott 2007; McCabe and Nowlis 2003; Peck and Childers 2003a). The sense of touch excels at obtaining texture, hardness, temperature, and weight information (Klatzky and Lederman 1992, 1993).
consumers will be more motivated to touch the product prior to purchase to ascertain specific attribute information (please see Peck  for a review of haptic research in marketing)
the experience of touching a pleasantly valenced object can influence persuasion, even if the touch element provides no information regarding the product (Peck and Wiggins 2006)
L’expérience sensorielle joue un réelle rôle dans le choix de l’achat mais également dans le choix entre différentes marque. Nous avons pu voir que le toucher était particulièrement important dans l’acte d’achat. Les consommateurs seront plus motivés à toucher le produit avant de l’acheter pour vérifier les informations d’attributs spécifiques. De plus, l’expérience de toucher un objet et si la sensation est agréablement validé, cette dernière peut avoir une influence sur la persuasion, même si l’élément tactile ne fournit aucune information sur le produit.
Twenty-five years of research has shown that consumers’ valuation of an object increases once they have taken ownership of it, a finding commonly known as the endowment effect (Kahneman, Knetsch, and Thaler 1990; Knetsch and Sinden 1984; Thaler 1980)
Our primary research motivation is to understand how merely touching an object influences perceived ownership and the valuation of an object. Previous work has established that the opportunity to touch can increase unplanned purchasing (Peck and Childers 2006) and also the willingness to donate time or money to a non profit organization (Peck and Wiggins 2006) but has not considered its effects on ownership or valuation
Individuals may feel ownership of an object without actually owning it. Psychological ownership (Pierce et al. 2003) is distinct from legal ownership and is characterized by the feeling that something is “mine.” For example, employees in an organization may develop feelings of ownership toward the organization (Pierce, Kostova, and Dirks 2001, 2003)
Previous literature has suggested concepts similar to perceived ownership, such as anticipatory possession or pseudo-endowment (Ariely and Simonson 2003; Carmon, Wertenbroch, and Zeelenberg 2003)
Sen and Johnson (1997) did not manipulate perceived ownership of an object but did manipulate possession. They used coupons for restaurants and found that having a coupon for a product influenced preference for that option.
Nous avons pu remarquer que la valeur d’un objet augmente une fois qu’il en est devenu propriétaire, constat connu sous le nom d’effet de dotation. De plus, la possibilité de toucher peut augmenter les achats non planifiés.
D’une autre façon, les individus peuvent se sentir propriétaires d’un objet sans le posséder réellement : la propriété psychologique. C’est le sentiment que quelque chose est «mien». Par exemple, les employés d’une organisation peuvent développer un sentiment de propriété à l’égard de l’organisation ou les client d’une marque peuvent développer un sentiment de propriété à l’égard de l’organisation. Un autre exemple, le football quand les supporteurs disent « mon équipe a gagné ». Il ressente un sentiment de propriété envers l’organisation.
Overall, it was found in study 1 that for buyers, where actual ownership was absent, object touch led to greater perceived ownership (hypothesis 1), which in turn led to higher valuation of the object, among individuals not instructed to use imagery. In addition, perceived ownership and valuation of an object were both increased by having buyers use ownership imagery
The first two studies found that mere touch can increase perceived ownership for buyers or nonowners (study 1) and for sellers or owners (study 2). In both studies, touch also increased the valuation of the object
Endowment effect research also provides some evidence that receiving objects perceived as unpleasant leads to a negative affective reaction toward the object, as evidenced by lower valuation. For example, Lerner, Small, and Loewenstein (2004) found that an individual’s negative emotional state (such as disgust or sadness) can lower valuation for endowed objects, and work on possession loss aversion (Brenner et al. 2007) shows lower selling prices for negative items.
Study 3 supported our predictions by finding that the ability to directly touch an object with positive sensory feedback increased perceived ownership, affective reaction, and the valuation of the object in a traditional endowment effect experiment. In addition, study 3 directly measured both perceived ownership and affective reactions toward the object and revealed that these two constructs mediate the effects of touch on valuation
It was found across all four studies that touch leads to increased perceived ownership, and this increase in perceived ownership then leads to an increase in valuation of an object if the object provides neutral or positive sensory feedback
Finally, our research supports Captain Jean-Luc Picard’s claim that “For humans, touch can connect you to an object in a very personal way.” In four studies, we found that mere touch does connect a person to an object by increasing the feeling of ownership of the object.
Nous avons remarqué que lorsque la propriété réelle était absente, le contact avec un objet entraînait une perception accrue de la propriété. De plus, le simple toucher peut accroître la perception de propriété pour les acheteurs ou les non propriétaires et pour les vendeurs ou les propriétaires mais également connecte une personne à un objet en augmentant le sentiment. de propriété de l’objet.
Ariely, Dan, Joel Huber, and Klaus Wertenbroch (2005), “When Do Losses Loom Larger than Gains?” Journal of Marketing Research, 42 (May), 134–38.
Ariely, Dan and Itamar Simonson (2003), “Buying, Bidding, Playing, or Competing? Value Assessment and Decision Dynamics in Online Auctions,” Journal of Consumer Psychology, 13, 113–23.
Becker, Gordon M., Morris H. DeGroot, and Jacob Marshak (1964), “Measuring Utility by a Single-Response Sequential Method,” Behavioral Science, 9 (July), 226–32.
Beggan, James K. (1992), “On the Social Nature of Nonsocial Perception: The Mere Ownership Effect,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62 (2), 229–37.
Brenner, Lyle, Yuval Rottenstreich, Sanjay Sood, and Baler Bilgin (2007), “On the Psychology of Loss Aversion: Possession, Valence, and Reversals of the Endowment Effect,” Journal of Consumer Research, 34 (October), 369–76.
Carmon, Ziv and Dan Ariely (2000), “Focusing on the Forgone: How Value Can Appear So Different to Buyers and Sellers,” Journal of Consumer Research, 27 (December), 360–70.
Carmon, Ziv, Klaus Wertenbroch, and Marcel Zeelenberg (2003), “Option Attachment: When Deliberating Makes Choosing Feel Like Losing,” Journal of Consumer Research, 30 (June), 15–29.
Childers, Terry L., Michael J. Houston, and Susan E. Heckler (1985), “Measurement of Individual Differences in Visual versus Verbal Information Processing,” Journal of Consumer Research, 12 (September), 125–34.
Derbaix, Christian (1995), “The Impact of Affective Reactions on Attitudes toward the Advertisement and the Brand: A Step toward Ecological Validity,” Journal of Marketing Research, 32 (November), 470–79.
Dhar, Ravi and Klaus Wertenbroch (2000), “Consumer Choice between Hedonic and Utilitarian Goods,” Journal of Marketing Research, 37 (1), 60–71.
Franciosi, Robert, Praveen Kujal, Roland Michelitsch, Vernon Smith, and Gang Deng (1996), “Experimental Tests of the Endowment Effect,” Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 30 (August), 215–26.
(1978), “Possessions in Humans: An Exploratory Study of Its Meaning and Motivation,”
Social Behavior and Personality, 6 (1), 49–65.
——— (1980), “The Origins and Early Development of Possessive Behavior,” Political Psychology (Spring), 30–42.
Grohmann, Bianca, Eric R. Spangenberg, and David E. Sprott (2007), “The Influence of Tactile Input on the Evaluation of Retail Product Offerings,” Journal of Retailing, 83 (2), 237– 46.
Isaacs, Susan (1933), Social Development in Young Children, London: Routledge.
Johnson, Eric J., Gerald Ha¨ubl, and Anat Keinan (2007), “Aspects of Endowment: A Query Theory of Value Construction,” Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 33 (3), 461–74.
Johnson, Eric J., John Hershey, Jacqueline Meszaros, and Howard Kunreuther (1993), “Framing, Probability Distortions, and Insurance Decisions,” Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 7, 35–51.
Kahneman, Daniel, Jack L. Knetsch, and Richard Thaler (1990), “Experimental Tests of the Endowment Effect and the Coase Theorem,” Journal of Political Economy, 99 (December), 1325–48.
L. and Susan J. Lederman (1992), “Stages of Manual Exploration in Haptic Object
Identification,” Perception and Psychophysics, 52 (6), 661–70.
——— (1993), “Toward a Computational Model of Constraint Driven Exploration and Haptic Object Identification,” Perception, 22, 597–621.
Knetsch, Jack L. and Jack A. Sinden (1984), “Willingness to Pay and Compensation Demanded: Experimental Evidence of an Unexpected Disparity in Measures of Value,” Quarterly Journal of Economics, 99 (August), 507–21.
Krishna, Aradhna (2006), “Interaction of Senses: The Effect of Vision versus Touch on the Elongation Bias,” Journal of Consumer Research, 32 (March), 557–65.
Krishna, Aradhna and Maureen Morrin (2008), “Does Touch Affect Taste? The Perceptual Transfer of Product Container Haptic Cues,” Journal of Consumer Research, 34 (6), 807–18.
Lerner, Jennifer S., Deborah A. Small, and George Loewenstein (2004), “Heart Strings and Purse Strings: Carryover Effects of Emotions on Economic Transactions,” Psychological Science, 15 (5), 337–41.
McCabe, Deborah Brown and Stephen M. Nowlis (2003), “The Effect of Examining Actual Products or Product Descriptions on Consumer Preference,” Journal of Consumer Psychology, 13 (4), 431–39.
Morewedge, Carey K., Lisa L. Shu, Daniel T. Gilbert, and Timothy D. Wilson (2006), “Owning, Not Loss Aversion, Causes the Endowment Effect,” working paper, Social Psychology Department, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA.
Nayakankuppam, Dhananjay and Himanshu Mishra (2005), “The Endowment Effect: Rose-Tinted and Dark-Tinted Glasses,” Journal of Consumer Research, 32 (2), 390–95.
Novemsky, Nathan and Daniel Kahneman (2005), “The Boundaries of Loss Aversion,” Journal of Marketing Research, 42 (May), 119–28.
Peck, Joann (2009), “Does Touch Matter? Insights from Haptic Research in Marketing,” in Sensory Marketing: A Confluence of Psychology, Neuroscience and Consumer Behavior Research, ed. Aradhna Krishna, New York: Psychology Press/ Routledge.
Peck, Joann and Terry L. Childers (2003a), “To
Have and To Hold: The Influence of Haptic Information on Product Judgments,”
Journal of Marketing, 67 (April), 35–48.
——— (2003b), “Individual Differences in Haptic Information Processing: The ‘Need for Touch’ Scale,” Journal of Consumer Research, 30 (December), 430–42.
——— (2006), “If I Touch It I Have to Have It: Individual and Environmental Influences on Impulse Purchasing,” Journal of Business Research, 59, 765–69.
——— (2007), “Effects of Sensory Factors on Consumer Behaviors,” in Handbook of Consumer Psychology, ed. Frank Kardes, Curt Haugtvedt, and Paul Herr, Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Peck, Joann and Jennifer Wiggins (2006), “It Just Feels Good: Customers’ Affective Response to Touch and Its Influence on Persuasion,” Journal of Marketing, 70 (4), 56–69.
Pierce, Jon L., Tatiana Kostova, and Kurt T.
Dirks (2001), “Towards a Theory of Psychological Ownership in Organizations,”
Academy of Management Review, 26 (2), 298–310.
——— (2003), “The State of Psychological Ownership: Integrating and Extending a Century of Research,” Review of General Psychology, 7 (1), 84–107.
Rottenstreich, Yuval and Suzanne B. Shu (2004), “The Connections between Affect and Decision Making: Nine Resulting Phenomena,” in The Blackwell Handbook of Judgment and Decision Making, ed. Derek Koehler and Nigel Harvey, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 444–63.
Rudmin, Floyd W. and John W. Berry (1987), “Semantics of Ownership: A Free-Recall Study of Property,” Psychological Record, 37 (22), 257–68.
Ann E. (2003), “Experiencing Products in a Virtual World: The Role of Goals and
Imagery in Influencing Attitudes versus Intentions,” Journal of Consumer
Research, 30 (September), 377–83. —
—— (2006), “Learning through Virtual Product Experience: The Role of Imagery on True versus False Memories,” Journal of Consumer Research, 33 (3), 377–83.
Sen, Sankar and Eric J. Johnson (1997), “Mere-Possession Effects without Possession in Consumer Choice,” Journal of Consumer Research, 24 (June), 105–17.
Shiv, Baba and Alexander Fedorikhin (1999), “Heart and Mind in Conflict: The Interplay of Affect and Cognition in Consumer Decision Making,” Journal of Consumer Research, 26 (December), 278–92.
Strahilevitz, Michal A. and George Loewenstein (1998), “The Effect of Ownership History on the Valuation of Objects,” Journal of Consumer Research, 25 (December), 276–89.
Thaler, Richard (1980), “Toward a Positive
Theory of Consumer Choice,” Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 1,
——— (1985), “Mental Accounting and Consumer Choice,” Marketing Science, 4 (3), 199–214.
Wolf, James R., Hal R. Arkes, and Waleed A. Muhanna (2005), “Is Overbidding in Online Auctions the Result of a PseudoEndowment Effect?” working paper, Social Science Research Network.