A touch of gloss: haptic perception of packaging and consumers’ reactions
| Pages | 117-132 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/JPBM-05-2017-1472 |
| Published date | 11 February 2019 |
| Date | 11 February 2019 |
| Author | Gwenaëlle Briand Decré,Caroline Cloonan |
| Subject Matter | Marketing,Product management,Brand management/equity |
A touch of gloss: haptic perception of
packaging and consumers’reactions
Gwenaëlle Briand Decré
LEMNA Research Center and IUT Saint-Nazaire, Université de Nantes, France, and
Caroline Cloonan
Deloitte, Tour Opus, La Défense, France
Abstract
Purpose –This paper aims to study the cross-modal correspondence between a visual stimulus (i.e. glossiness), haptic per ception and consumers’
reactions (internal responses and behavioral intentions).
Design/methodology/approach –Using an experimental design, three experimental studies have been conducted to test the effect of a glossy
(versus matte) packaging upon the perception of haptic features of a packaging (roughness, thickness and lightness), internal reactions (perceived
product quality and product attractiveness) and behavioral intentions (purchase intention and willingness to pay).
Findings –This paper evidences the significant impact that glossiness bears on the haptic perception of a packaging material as well as upon
internal reactions and behavioral intentions. A new conceptual framework combining the SOR model and the cross-modal corre spondences is
validated.
Research limitations/implications –The results encourage further research to explore the wide range of potential cross-modal correspondences
between visual stimuli and haptic perception.
Practical implications –The results highlight the critical influence of visual cues for managers, especially for online shopping or ad vertising. Even if
consumers cannot touch the product, it is possible to induce haptic perception through visual cues and to influence the internal reactions and
behavioral intentions.
Originality/value –This research demonstrates that the packaging texture and weight can be visually induced through glossiness.
Keywords Packaging, Behavioural intentions, Glossiness, Internal reactions, Perceived haptic features
Paper type Research paper
1. Introduction
Online shopping helps consumersdiscover products, brands or
retailers in a virtual manner. Whereas visual and auditory cues
play a significant role in product evaluation, the haptic sense
cannot be activated. Albeitso, the main barrier to shop online is
the inability to touch items prior to purchase (KPMG
International Report, 2017). Citrin et al. (2003) emphasized
that this inability to touch a product negatively influences the
intention to purchase the product especially for products the
material properties of which are key in the decision-making
process (McCabe and Nowlis, 2003). In fact, touch plays a
decisive role in consumers’decision process (Spence and
Gallace, 2011), enables individuals to collect useful details
about a material (Klatzky et al., 1991;Tiest, 2010), evaluates
products (Krishna, 2012;Krishna and Morrin, 2008;
Grohmann et al., 2007), helps them make a purchasing
decision and disposes them toward paying more for this
product (Peckand Shu, 2009;Peck and Childers, 2006).
The online environment is a perfect example where
consumers must rely on their vision prior to purchase (Grewal
et al.,2017),mainly through the product picture. Kahn (2017)
asserts that the visual cues from packaging are critical
parameters for online shopping because consumers are willing
to isolate one product from the others to examine it in detail,
making the packaging the midpoint of online decision-making
(Vyas, 2015). The designof the packaging can help point out to
consumers the brand effort involved in the product, which will
then influence the perceived quality and the overall evaluation
of the product (Söderlund et al.,2017). Krishna et al. (2017)
underline the significanceof the sensory aspects of packaging as
it could affect the perceived functionality of the product.
Packaging texture deserves more attention because it has been
shown to influence product evaluation and is a characteristic
that suffers paucity in the literature (Spence, 2016). Finally,
packaging is of great interest, given that managers are not
compelled to change any intrinsic product cues as the
packaging can easily be revamped to convey the intended
message.
The sensory experience is more focused in an online
environment compared to the multi-activation of senses in a
physical store. Consequently, visual cues of a product or a
packaging (Kahn, 2017) significantly forge the consumers’
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on
Emerald Insight at: www.emeraldinsight.com/1061-0421.htm
Journal of Product & Brand Management
28/1 (2019) 117–132
© Emerald Publishing Limited [ISSN 1061-0421]
[DOI 10.1108/JPBM-05-2017-1472]
Received 8 May 2017
Revised 12 November 2018
Accepted 12 November 2018
117
reactions, not only for aesthetic but also for the haptic
perceptions they engender. Peck et al. (2013)demonstrate that
the mental image of touching an objectproduces a similar effect
on perceived ownership to the actual action of touching. Put
into perspective with the concept of the cross-modal
correspondences, consumers are able to infer hapticcues of an
object withoutactually touching it.
Previous studies have investigated the effect of visual cues
upon the haptic perception through emotional responses and
attitudes toward the product (Overmars and Poels, 2015), or
directly on the purchasing intention (Suh etal.,2018) and built
models in environmental psychology, structuring the levels
involved in processing stimuli and their link to emotion,
cognition and behavior(Schreuder et al., 2016;Mehrabian and
Russell, 1974). Albeit thus, the task remains of aggregating
cross-modal correspondencesin the environmental psychology
processing visual-tactile attributes and purchasing intention,
and comprising detailed underlying components which have
not been addressedto date.
This research aims to conceptualize how to infer the right
haptic perception in the online environment, where consumers
have to rely on their sense of vision while generally preferring
touch. To attain this objective, the impact of a specific
packaging attribute such as glossiness has been investigated.
The prime reason to examine glossiness is that “gloss
reproduction is an important factor for the realistic material
perception on a display device”(Tanakaand Horiuchi, 2015).
As well as color (Husi
c-Mehmedovi
cet al., 2017) or shape
(Garber et al.,2009), a study of a glossyor matte surface bears
relevance in that it is always present and inherent to the
materials used in the packaging: a material is always more or
less glossy or matte. As glossiness is proven to be a deep-rooted
stimulus for humans (Meert et al., 2014),this type of structural
feature is likely to be a salient parameter leading to beneficial
inferences. Glossiness is likely to generate positive reactions,
such as liking and pleasantness (Fujisaki et al., 2015;Meert
et al., 2014) as well as perceived sophistication and elegance
(Fujisaki et al., 2015;Yanagisawa and Yuki,2011). Glossiness
creates not only attractiveness but also perceived haptic
features (Landy, 2007;Chadwick and Kentridge, 2015). For
instance, it makes it possible evaluate material properties such
as texture, roughness, hardness (Fujisaki et al.,2015;Fleming
et al., 2013) or smoothness (Baumgartner et al.,2013).
Glossiness strongly encourages people to touch an item more
than other visual factors (Nagano et al.,2014) and is therefore
perfectly in keeping with a study of the cross-modal
correspondencebetween vision and haptic perception.
This article additionally seeks to determine whethertwo widely
studied theory/conceptual frameworks may be combined: the
cross-modal correspondence theory (Spence, 2011)andtheSOR
model (Mehrabian and Russell, 1974), to associate the cross-
modal correspondence of vision –haptic perception with the
marketing outcome variables such as consumers’internal
responses (product liking, product evaluation) and behavioral
intentions.
The findings of three experimental studies aim to confirm
that consumers share a greater preference for products with a
glossy packaging than those witha matte packaging. Packaging
glossiness allows consumersto infer haptic information about a
product (roughness, thickness, lightness), which prompts a
better product evaluation (product attractiveness and quality)
and thus affects the behavioralintentions.
2. Literature review
2.1 The importance of touch
Touch comprises three dimensions:cutaneous (the mechanical
stimulation of which is perceived by specialized nerves
embedded in the skin), kinesthetic (the stimulation of which is
perceived by the body’smuscles, tendons and joints) and haptic
(which combines cutaneous and kinesthetic dimensions and is
associated with active touch) (Klatzky and Lederman, 2002).
Touch is consequently one of the most significant human
senses and makes us aware of our surroundingenvironment.
The haptic systemenables people to perceive several material
features of an object such as texture, hardness or temperature
(Klatzky et al.,1991). Roughness is the most studied within
the context of tactual perception (Tiest, 2010), and also one of
the most fundamental material features of the haptic sense
(Baumgartner et al., 2013). As regards previous research, this
has highlighted the consensual preference for softness.
Consumers prefer a soft touch whatever the product category
or the assessmenttype (visual or tactile) (Kergoat et al., 2012).
Touch is relevant in product evaluation and the purchasing
intention. Touch sensation(intrinsic cues) is a more prominent
factor in the perceived product quality compared to price
(extrinsic cues), even for a packaged product (Pincus and
Waters, 1975). The haptic feature of the packaging can affect
the evaluation of the product itself (i.e. the flimsiness of a cup
influences the perception of the water quality containedin that
cup, Krishna and Morrin, 2008). McCabe and Nowlis (2003)
demonstrate that the act of touching the product increases the
likelihood of purchase as opposed to just seeing a picture of
the same product in a remote environment. Touch increases
the likelihood that a person spends time or money (Peck and
Wiggins, 2006). The weight of an object influences the
perceived monetary value of this item (Jostmann et al.,2009).
Finally, touching the product significantly impacts the
intention to purchase and the willingness to pay, only when the
mental representation of the product is concrete (versus
abstract) (Liuet al., 2017).
Touch plays a paramount role inthe product evaluation and
decision-making process of consumers, even in situations
where touch is not possible such as an onlineenvironment (Liu
et al., 2017). Peck and Childers (2003a,2003b,2006)
investigate the individual characteristics of the Need for Touch
(NFT) consisting of two functions of touch: the instrumental
function (which enables individualsto obtain information) and
the autotelic function (which pertains to pleasure and sensory
appreciation of the product) (Peck and Childers, 2003a).
Beyond both functions of touch, Peck and Childers (2003b)
show that individuals, depending on their degree of NFT, are
more or less frustrated or confident in their evaluation of a
product when touch is not possible. Nevertheless, they also
corroborate the fact that whatever the degree of NFT, both
categories of individuals are willing to make up for the absence
of touch by a picture of the product. This visual presentation
develops an inferentialprocess which develops a firmer belief in
product quality. Actual and even virtual touch is likely to
influence a consumer’s product evaluation and purchasing
Haptic perception of packaging and consumers’reactions
Gwenaëlle Briand Decré and Caroline Cloonan
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Volume 28 · Number 1 · 2019 · 117–132
118
To continue reading
Request your trial