Download Consumer Responses to Technology

1
Good Vibrations:
Consumer Responses to Technology-Mediated Haptic Feedback
RHONDA HADI
ANA VALENZUELA
Rhonda Hadi ([email protected]) is an Associate Professor of Marketing at Saïd
Business School, University of Oxford, Park End Street, Oxford OX1 1HP, UK (Phone:
+44 1865 614682). Ana Valenzuela ([email protected]) is a Professor of
Marketing at Baruch College, City University of New York, One Bernard Baruch Way,
New York, NY 10010 (Phone: +1 646 312 3288), and at ESADE Business School.
2
Contribution Statement
Previous research in the field of computer science has suggested that device-delivered
haptic feedback (tactile technology that applies force, vibrations, or motions to the skin)
may symbolize another human’s touch, at least under specific conditions (e.g., if users
are explicitly told that the sensations represent the touch of another person). We are the
first to demonstrate that even incidental device-delivered haptic feedback (e.g.,
vibrational alerts accompanying message notifications on mobile phones and wearables)
can influence consumer responses to communication exchanges, and can have
downstream effects in consequential domains (including consumer performance on
physical tasks). Further, while research in the domain of consumer-product interactions
has demonstrated consequential responses to the haptic properties of products consumers
touch (with the product acting as a passive agent), this work is the first to examine
consumer responses to haptic exchanges initiated by the product itself (with the product
acting as an active agent). In addition, we extend theory by demonstrating the process
through which such haptic feedback exerts its effect: by increasing a sense of “social
presence,” which improves consumers’ attitudes towards the communication, particularly
for those individuals low in technological self-efficacy. These findings contribute to
literature on consumer-product interactions by uncovering an important antecedent of
consumer responsiveness to technological engagement and add insight to the social
psychology literature by documenting how and when technology-mediated haptic
feedback may serve as a rough surrogate for incidental interpersonal touch.
3
Individuals often experience device-delivered haptic feedback (e.g., vibrational alerts
accompanying messages on mobile phones and wearables), yet almost no research has
examined the psychological and behavioral implications of this technology-mediated
touch on users. Drawing from theories in social psychology, computer science, and
communications, we begin to address this gap by exploring how device-delivered haptic
feedback can influence consumer responses. Across three studies, we find that haptic
alerts accompanying messages can improve consumer performance on related tasks, and
demonstrate that this effect is driven by an increased sense of “social presence” in what
can otherwise feel like a distant technological exchange. These findings have applied
value for mobile marketers and gadget designers, and have important implications for
consumer compliance in health and fitness domains.
Keywords: haptics, user-device interaction, mediated communication, wearables,
Internet-of-Things
4
An increasing proportion of everyday communication is mediated through
technological devices consumers hold (e.g., mobile phones) or wear (e.g., smartwatches).
One major challenge marketers face when addressing consumers through mobile and
wearable technology is the small screen size, which limits the scope for visual
communication (in terms of both written text and graphical imagery; Bart, Stephen, and
Sarvary 2014; Shankar and Balasubramanian 2009). Perhaps in an effort to assuage this
limitation, some brands have begun to experiment with haptic technology in their mobile
communication efforts. For example, in mobile ads for Stoli vodka, users feel their phone
vibrate when a woman shakes a cocktail (Johnson 2015). Within product design,
wearable gadget designers are equally keen to employ the power of touch. Two recent
illustrations are the clip-on Lumo sensor, which buzzes if you begin to slouch (Peppet
2014), and the Fitbit wristband, which vibrates when you hit your fitness goal
(Vanhemert 2015). However, while these applications are novel, the technology itself is
nothing new: vibration is by far the most widely used haptic feedback mechanism in
small devices due to the compact size and relatively low power usage of vibrotactile
actuators (Bark et al. 2008). Since social etiquette obliges many of us to place our mobile
devices on “silent” mode, vibrotactile alerts often accompany the receipt of messages,
call notifications, and other communications content. In fact, vibrotactile stimulation is so
omnipresent that many people even report feeling “phantom vibrations”- vibrating
sensations that do not actually exist (Drouin, Kaiser, and Miller 2012).
Despite the prevalence of such device-delivered haptic feedback, very little
research has examined consumer responses to it. Some work has focused on attentional
and accuracy based outcomes of haptic feedback (e.g., keyboards that produce
5
vibrotactile feedback upon fingertip contact lead to improved typing accuracy; Brewster,
Chohan, and Brown 2007). However, we argue that it is valuable to consider what
additional psychological and behavioral consequences might stem from such sensations.
Some scholars in computer science suggest that technology-mediated sensations (e.g.,
haptic feedback delivered through technological devices) can symbolize a human’s touch
under very specific conditions (e.g., if users are explicitly told that the sensations
represent the touch of another person; Haans and IJsselsteijn 2006), and research in social
psychology has shown that incidental interpersonal touch can substantially shape
people’s behavior and judgments in various ways (Gallace and Spence 2010). Yet
surprisingly, no research has explored how incidental haptic feedback accompanying
device communications (e.g., vibrational alerts accompanying message notifications on
mobile phones and wearables) might influence consumer responses to those messages.
In the current research, we address this gap by exploring how device-delivered
haptic feedback can influence consequential consumer judgments and downstream
outcomes. Drawing from theories in social psychology, communications, and computer
science, we suggest that in addition to providing the utilitarian function of alerting
consumers, haptic feedback accompanying communications might also play an additional
role: generating a sense of “social presence” (Qiu and Benbasat 2009) in what might
otherwise feel like a distant technological exchange. This sense of social presence
improves consumer attitudes towards the communication, and, as a consequence, is more
effective in motivating behavioral responses. Across three studies, we investigate how
haptic feedback accompanying messages can influence consumer reactions to the
communication exchange and impact downstream behaviors such as physical task
6
performance. These findings contribute to the literature on consumer-product interactions
by uncovering an important antecedent of consumer responsiveness to technological
engagement, and add insight to the social psychology literature by documenting how and
when technology-mediated haptic feedback may serve as a rough surrogate for incidental
interpersonal touch. Such work is especially timely given recent calls for digital
marketing research that keeps pace with rapidly expanding device types (Yadav and
Pavlov 2014) and that explores consumer-centric responses to mobile marketing
communications (Stephen 2016; Lamberton and Stephen 2016).
Before presenting our empirical evidence, we briefly review the relevant literature
and develop our theoretical framework.
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
Consumer Responses to Haptic Sensations
The sensory marketing literature has extensively documented how cues from all
five sensory modalities (haptics, olfaction, audition, vision, and taste) can profoundly
influence consumer behavior (for a review, see Krishna 2012). However, the power of
haptics (touch) in particular may stem from the fact that it represents “our most proximal
sense” (Montagu and Matson 1979). That is, in contrast to visual, auditory, and olfactory
cues, which might be perceived while a product is at a distance, tactile exchanges always
occur within one’s peri-personal space (i.e., the space in which one can touch and
7
manipulate objects; Holmes and Spence 2004), and typically involve immediate contact
with one’s body (Jones and Lederman 2006; Peck 2010). Accordingly, many argue that
haptic cues have an idiosyncratic capacity to evoke a sense of closeness and human
connection (Montagu & Matson 1979; Gallace and Spence 2010), especially given that
people tend to automatically associate spatial proximity with psychological closeness
(Trope and Liberman 2010).
When considering how haptics relate to consumer behavior, one may tend to think
of how consumers use their sense of touch to acquire information about a product (e.g.,
touching a sweater to assess its texture; Morales 2009; Peck 2010). While this type of
informational touch can have a considerable influence on consumer assessments, even
incidental, non-informational haptic sensations have been shown to influence consumer
attitudes, typically in a non-conscious manner (Peck and Wiggins 2006; Peck 2010). For
example, haptic sensations that arise from touching a product have been shown to
influence tangential judgements: touching something soft can help reduce peoples’
feelings of uncertainty in unrelated domains (Van Horen and Mussweiler 2014) and
holding a heavy clipboard can lead participants to think job candidates are more qualified
(Ackerman, Nocera, and Bargh 2010). Further, the mere ability to touch is valuable to
consumers, and has been shown to induce feelings of psychological ownership (Peck and
Shu 2009). Recent research has extended this effect to an online shopping context,
showing that touchscreen interfaces (as opposed to a computer touchpad or a mouse)
create stronger psychological ownership of chosen products (Brasel and Gips 2014). Thus
collectively, haptic sensations (irrespective of informational value) have been shown to
8
influence consumer assessments about the touched object itself as well as other tangential
stimuli.
Haptic sensations are also very influential in the context of interpersonal
communications. People use touch to express feelings of intimacy and tenderness, or to
provide encouragement and emotional support (Jones and Yarborough 1985). Whether a
handshake, a pat on the back, or a nudge for attention, physical contact can convey a
liveliness and urgency that is at times more powerful than language (Gallace and Spence
2010; Jones and Yarbrough, 1985). Even a brief, incidental touch from a person (e.g., an
inconspicuous touch on the palm) has been shown to evoke a sense of closeness and
human connection, and positively influence people’s social behavior in both interpersonal
and consumer settings. Studies have accordingly shown that incidental interpersonal
touch can improve attitudes towards services, enhance feelings of security, strengthen
bonds between people, and even increase compliance with requests, regardless of
whether the tactile contact itself is explicitly remembered (see Gallace and Spence 2010
for a review).
In one classic study, Fischer et al. (1976) asked library clerks to return library
cards to students and to either briefly place their hands onto the students’ palms or not
touch them at all. Students’ evaluation of the library was more favorable if the library
clerk “accidentally” touched them, although most of them did not remember being
touched. In a consumer context, Hornik (1992) demonstrated that minimal touch by a
store employee enhanced positive feelings for both external stimuli (e.g., the store) and
the haptic source (e.g., the employee), and increased consumer compliance (e.g.,
responsiveness to samples). Similar unobtrusive touch has led to compliance in situations
9
where the requests are not even made directly: student participation in a course increased
when he or she was touched by a teacher (Guéguen 2004), and participants left greater
tips when touched by a waitress (i.e., “the Midas touch,” Crusco and Wetzel 1984). More
recently, Levav and Argo (2009) showed that minimal interpersonal contact (a brief
touch on the shoulder) altered participants’ financial risk-taking behavior by increasing
their sense of security. In sum, incidental interpersonal touch has the ability to trigger
positive attitudes toward the source of touch, increase compliance, and motivate various
related outcomes (although individual differences in responsiveness to interpersonal
touch do exist, as per the comfort-with-interpersonal-touch scale, Webb and Peck 2015).
Technology-Mediated Touch
The aforementioned literature demonstrates several instances in which a brief
interpersonal touch can influence consumer judgments, even when the latter judgments
are completely unrelated to the source of the touch. Given that touch is such a crucial
component in interpersonal interactions, it is interesting to question how this might
translate to interpersonal exchanges mediated through technology, which typically
transpire over a distance and prevent immediate haptic contact between people.
Some scholars in computer science suggest that haptic feedback technology (tactile
technology that applies forces, vibrations, or motions to the skin) can allow users the
ability to “virtually” touch one another over a distance, in what has been coined
“mediated social touch” (Haans and IJsselsteijn 2006). For example, in one recent study,
Haans and colleagues (2014) attempted to replicate the “midas touch” effect in the
10
context of mediated communication: participants who were told that vibrotactile
sensations from an arm band represented the touch of a confederate were consequently
more compliant and more willing to help the confederate than those who were not
“virtually touched” by the confederate. These authors and others (e.g., Brave, Nass, and
Sirinian 2001) suggest that literature on interpersonal touch offers a good framework for
exploring applications and potential benefits of mediated social touch.
Though haptic feedback technology in its current form does not provide the same
physical sensation as a human’s touch (e.g., electromechanical stimulation does not feel
the same as the touch from another person’s hand), most scholars agree that because
touch is idiosyncratically related to intimacy, mediated social touch should have the
ability to personalize remote interactions in ways that words and visuals ostensibly
cannot (Brave, Nass, and Sirinian 2001; Gallace and Spence 2010; Rovers, Hamm, and
van Essen 2004). However, most of the beneficial effects of mediated social touch have
been a matter of assumption and not submitted to empirical scrutiny (Mueller et al. 2005;
Haans and IJsselsteijn 2006). Further, the few exceptional studies that have explored this
notion (e.g., the aforementioned work of Haans and colleagues, 2014) have always made
the social nature of the touch explicit (i.e., telling participants the sensations represent the
touch of another person).
To summarize, research in computer science suggests that explicit interpersonal
touch can be conveyed through technology and influence communicative exchanges.
Surprisingly however, no research has examined whether incidental haptic feedback (e.g.,
haptic alerts accompanying device notifications, without explicitly describing the
sensations as the touch of another person) might drive effects akin to those of incidental
11
interpersonal touch. This is compelling to investigate given the prevalence of incidental
haptic feedback (as described in this paper’s introduction) and the numerous behavioral
responses that have been shown to stem from incidental interpersonal touch. This
suggests a need for a rigorous investigation of how and when incidental technologymediated touch might influence various consumer responses. To explore how incidental
haptic feedback accompanying device communications might influence consumer
behavior, we next turn to literature on social presence in mediated communication.
The role of social presence in mediated communication
One mechanism that might drive effects of technology-mediated touch on user
responses is an increased sense of “social presence” that is provided by the haptic
sensation. Social presence has been defined as, “the degree to which a user feels access to
the intelligence, intentions, and sensory impressions of another,” (Biocca 1997). The
highest level of perceived social presence is achieved in face-to-face communication
where all social cues (e.g., seeing the other person and hearing her voice) are available.
However, the attribution of social presence is a common phenomenon in user-device
interactions (Caporael 1986; Reeves and Nass 1999), and in the context of mediated
communication, social presence is often conceptualized as the degree to which the sender
is perceived to be a "real person" (Gunawardena and Zittle 1997). In other words, social
presence is felt when the user perceives that a form, behavior, or sensory experience
indicates the presence of another intelligence (Short, Williams, and Christie 1976,
Gunawardena and Zittle 1997).
12
Technologies vary in their ability to invoke social presence, and accordingly,
scholars suggest that social presence is often a direct function of the communication
medium itself (Short, Williams, and Christie 1976). Increasing feelings of social presence
is a common objective for hardware and software designers in areas such as
teleconferencing systems (Lanier 2001) and speech interfaces (Yankelovich, Levow, and
Marx 1995). Importantly, both classic (Goffman 1959) and contemporary (Biocca,
Harms, and Burgoon 2003) scholars have suggested that every sensory channel has the
potential to increase the experience of social presence. Given that touch is the most
proximal modality (Montagu and Matson 1979) and people tend to automatically
associate spatial proximity with psychological closeness (Trope and Liberman 2010),
communications augmented with haptic feedback should accordingly deliver a sense of
social presence in consumer interactions with technology. Consistent with this account,
computer science researchers have found that explicit mediated social touch can indeed
provide an increased sense of social presence. For example, Giannopoulos and colleagues
(2008) found that when participants were able to feel their remote partner’s nudges
(through an electronic thimble providing force feedback every time the partner pressed it)
it increased subjective ratings of “togetherness.” Other studies (e.g., Basdogan, Ho,
Slater, and Shrinivasan 1998, Sallnäs, Sjöström and Rassmus-Gröhn, 2000, Sallnäs 2010)
have similarly documented the ability of explicit mediated social touch to generate a
sense of social presence in shared virtual environments.
Importantly, the attribution of social presence has been shown to improve user
attitudes towards telecommunication exchanges, as it implies there is a certain level of
agency and intent behind the communication (Skalski and Tamborini 2007; Sallnäs,
13
Rassmus-Gröhn and Sjöström 2000). Studies have accordingly demonstrated that
increased feelings of social presence can motivate participant engagement in certain
activities (e.g., increasing student participation in online courses; Picciano 2002) and
improve performance on related tasks (e.g., solving a jigsaw puzzle with a remote other;
Giannopoulos et al 2008). Conversely, research suggests that when a communication
lacks a feeling of social presence, users perceive the exchange to be impersonal and
accordingly behave in a less compliant manner (e.g., are less likely to share information
with others; Leh 2001).
In the current research, we extend the literature above to suggest that even implicit
forms of haptic feedback (e.g., alerts accompanying device notifications) will increase
feelings of social presence in communicative exchanges, which should accordingly
improve user attitudes towards the communication and performance on related concurrent
tasks. Accordingly, we propose the following hypotheses:
H1: Adding haptic alerts to incoming messages will improve user performance on
related tasks.
H2: An increased sense of social presence and improved attitudes toward the
communication will sequentially mediate the effects of haptic alerts on improved
user performance on related tasks.
Critical to our current theorizing is the acknowledgement that not everyone is
equally likely to feel a sense of social presence in technological interactions. Specifically,
14
there are likely to be differences in individuals’ likeliness to attribute human intent from
haptic telecommunicative sensations. In the current context, one especially relevant traitlevel difference to consider is an individual’s technological self-efficacy, which describes
one’s general feelings toward one’s ability to adopt new technology (McDonald and
Siegall 1992). Previous studies have shown that people low in self-rated technological
competency tend to display a greater propensity to attribute human agency when
interacting with devices (Luczak, Schmidt, and Roetting 2003). Some argue that this
tendency to “see human” when interacting with devices may help users lacking
technological self-efficacy to alleviate stress or anxiety in dealing with technological
devices (Waytz 2010). Accordingly, we hypothesize that the increased sense of human
presence derived from haptic alerts may be most exaggerated for those individuals who
lack technological self-efficacy. Specifically:
H3: The mediation proposed in H2 will be moderated by an individual’s
technological self-efficacy, in that individuals low in technological self-efficacy
will feel a greater sense of social presence from haptic alerts than individuals high
in technological self-efficacy.
Our hypothesized effect, process, and boundary conditions are summarized in
(Figure 1).
15
FIGURE 1
ILLUSTRATION OF PROPOSED MODEL
Overview of the Current Research
As far as the authors are aware, this is the first empirical exploration of haptic
feedback in the consumer behavior literature. Accordingly, we chose to center our
investigation on one particular operationalization of haptic feedback: vibrotactile alerts.
As mentioned in the introduction of this paper, vibrotactile stimulation is by far the most
pervasive form of haptic feedback in the marketplace and is the dominant haptic alert
accompanying message notifications, making it especially important to understand how
this particular operationalization might affect consumer responses. Further, given that
vibrotactile stimulation is a relatively crude form of haptic feedback (we discuss more
sophisticated forms in the general discussion), it arguably represents a conservative test
of technology-mediated touch effects.
Vibrotactile alerts can be received in various domains, including interpersonal
correspondence (e.g., texting via mobile), marketing communication (e.g., offers sent via
push-notifications), and self-regulatory devices (e.g., the HAPI Fork vibrates if you eat
too quickly; Peppet 2014). In the current research, we chose to focus our exploration on
16
one important area of consumer performance: physical fitness. This emphasis was fueled
by a number of practical and theoretical considerations.
First, physical fitness represents an externally valid context to investigate devicemediated communications given the skyrocketing adoption of health and fitness apps and
wearable fitness trackers in the marketplace (Lamkin 2016; Orr 2016), which often act as
a personal trainer and/or nutrition coach by tracking users’ performance and sending
them motivational messages to encourage performance (Harris-Fry 2016; Leong 2016).
Secondly, consumer fitness represents a highly consequential domain, given that medical
experts and public health officials have strongly encouraged increased physical
movement (along with healthy eating) as a critical means to combating the ever-pervasive
obesity epidemic (Hu 2008). Lastly, because we expect the potential positive effects of
haptic alerts on performance to be driven by an increased sense of social presence, it was
important to select a context in which social support reliably improves performance. A
well-established literature has demonstrated the positive effects of social support (e.g., a
gym or workout buddy) on physical performance and exercise (for a meta-analysis, see
Carron, Hausenblas and Mack 1996). Given that people show increased motivation and
performance on physical fitness activities when in the physical presence of social
support, it is particularly compelling to explore whether social presence activated through
technology-mediated incidental touch might also improve attitudes and increase
voluntary compliance in this consequential domain.
We conducted a series of laboratory studies to provide empirical support for our
theoretical model. In the first study we examine the impact of adding haptic alerts to text
messages sent to mobile phones. We find that when haptic alerts (versus auditory alerts)
17
are delivered with messages, individuals perform better on a related physical task. In our
second study, we replicate this effect using different haptic-delivery devices
(smartwatches) and applying a different physical task. Further, we added an experimental
condition to test whether the effects are driven by the absence of auditory output, and
incorporate measures to assess the role of mood. Study 3 extends our theory by
documenting the moderating role of technological self-efficacy, ruling out an arousalbased explanation, and demonstrating the mediational role of social presence and
message evaluation. Accordingly, we add to the stream of research on consumer-product
interactions by uncovering an important antecedent of consumer responsiveness to
technological engagement and lend insight to the social psychology literature by
documenting how and when technology-mediated haptic feedback may elicit outcomes
akin to those found for interpersonal touch. We describe the details of our empirical work
next.
STUDY 1: THE POSITIVE EFFECT OF HAPTIC ALERTS ON TASK
PERFORMANCE
The purpose of Study 1 was to provide initial evidence that the mere addition of a
haptic alert to a text message could improve individuals’ performance on a related task.
Participants performed a physically challenging task (standing on one leg for five
minutes) while holding on to a mobile phone that received messages intended to
encourage them. We expected that those participants who received messages
18
accompanied by a haptic alert (e.g., a vibration) would perform better than those who
received the same messages accompanied by a non-haptic (auditory) alert.
Method
Eighty undergraduate students participated in this laboratory study in exchange
for course credit. Our study took the form of a two level (message alert: auditory versus
haptic) between-subjects design. Upon entering the lab, participants were given mobile
phones and were told that they would receive messages on the phone while attempting a
physical challenge. The phones were preset to emit one of two notification alerts
according to our two experimental conditions: a standard beep (auditory condition) or
standard vibration (haptic condition). While the main objective of the study was to
examine the effects driven by the incorporation of a haptic alert, we chose an auditory
alert (in the form of a standard beep) to serve as the control condition, because a control
condition with no alert at all would preclude theoretically interpretable results, since
participants might not notice the receipt of messages (we address this consideration
further in Study 2). Participants were told to hold onto the phone for the duration of the
study, but not to use the phone for any other purpose aside from reading the text
messages as they received them. Participants then read a description of the physical
challenge, which was to stand on one leg for a duration of five minutes (see Appendix A
for exact instructions). The experimenter proceeded to send each participant a series of
text messages, sent at one-minute intervals. The first text message instructed the
participant to begin the challenge, while the last four were messages encouraging them to
19
complete the task (e.g., “Putting your hands on your hips might help you balance,” see
Appendix B for the texting script, which was identical for all participants). Once the five
minutes were over, participants were told they could sit down again. To ensure there were
no differences across conditions in the number of text messages noticed or received,
participants were asked to indicate how many text messages they received. To assess
their performance (our dependent variable of interest), they were then asked to report
whether or not they were able to stand on one leg the entire time (one limitation of this
measurement is that it relies on self-report and assumes participants reported honestly,
however we overcome this limitation in studies 2 and 3).
Results and Discussion
Message receipt. Twenty-one participants did not receive any messages and/or
alerts due to reception inconsistency in the lab (we installed a wireless signal booster in
the lab for our remaining studies to mitigate this issue) and six participants did not follow
the instructions. This left 52 observations available for analysis. The remaining
participants reported receiving an average of 3.65 out of the 4 messages we sent, and
importantly, there were no differences in the number of messages received across
message alert conditions in this or any of our remaining studies (all p’s >.10). This
confirms that any differences in resulting performance were not being driven by an
increased propensity to notice or read the text dependant on message alert condition.
Task Performance. As predicted, a binary logistic regression analysis confirmed a
significant main effect of message alert on task performance (Χ2 = 4.29, p < .04), in that
participants in the haptic alert condition were more likely to successfully remain standing
20
on one leg for the duration of the challenge than those in the auditory alert condition.
Whereas people in the auditory alert condition were successful in the challenge 47% of
the time, this jumped to 76% in the haptic alert condition. In sum, this study provided
preliminary support for the positive effect of haptic alerts on task performance.
STUDY 2: TESTING ALTERNATIVE PROCESS EXPLANATIONS
The purpose of Study 2 was trifold. Firstly, we wished to replicate the effect we
found in Study 1, but this time using an alternative haptic-delivery device (a smartwatch)
and employing physical task with more variability, objective measurement, and external
validity. In addition, we added a third experimental condition (text messages
accompanied by both auditory and haptic alerts) to allow us to determine whether the
effects in our experimental condition in Study 1 were being driven by the addition of
haptic sensation or by the removal of auditory output. Further, we tested an alternative
explanation of the pattern of results in Study 1: we added measures to assess participants’
mood to examine whether this served as the process through which haptic alerts
improved task performance.
Method
One hundred and one undergraduate students participated in this laboratory study
in exchange for monetary compensation. The study took the form of a three level
(message alert: auditory versus haptic versus auditory + haptic) between-subjects design.
21
Upon entering the lab, each participant was given a smartwatch to wear on their wrist. A
smartwatch is a computerized wristwatch with functionality beyond timekeeping,
including communication functions and activity tracking features (Rawassizadeh, Price,
and Petre 2014). These watches come equipped with pedometers that measure the
number of steps taken by the wearer. To receive text messages, a smartwatch must be
synced to a mobile phone, which relays the messages to the screens of the watches
automatically (in this study and Study 3, these synced phones were hidden behind each
work station, so that participants only interacted with the smartwatch). Immediately
before handing the smartwatches to participants, the experimenter reset the pedometers to
zero. Participants were then told that they would receive messages on the watch while
attempting a physical challenge (described below). Incoming message notifications were
preset to either beep, vibrate, or both beep and vibrate, according to our three
experimental conditions. In all three conditions, messages appeared on the face of the
watch as they were received, without any action required from the wearer. As in study 1,
participants were told not to use the watch for any other purpose aside from reading the
text messages as they received them.
Participants then read a description of the physical task, which was to accumulate
as many steps as they could in a period of five minutes (see Appendix C for exact
instructions). From a separate room, the experimenter proceeded to text the participants at
one minute intervals. As in study 1, the first text message instructed participants to begin
the exercise, while the last four encouraged them in performing the physical task (e.g.,
“You’re doing great! Keep it up,” see Appendix D for the texting script). Once the five
minutes were over, participants were told they could sit down again, and they were
22
instructed to place the smartwatch on their desk for the duration of the experiment. This
insured that the pedometer would not register any additional movement after the
challenge duration was over. Participants then responded to a number of items designed
to assess their mood (on 7-point Likert items: Good, Cheerful, Unhappy (reverse coded),
Bored (reverse coded); α = .73) and reported their gender and age. The experimenter then
came by each participant’s desk to record the number of steps they achieved according to
their smartwatch’s pedometer settings.
Results and Discussion
Task Performance. Fourteen participants reported not receiving text messages,
and one participant deleted his pedometer data before the experimenter was able to record
it. Accordingly, there were 86 observations available for analysis. ANOVA results
confirmed a significant main effect of message alert on the number of steps achieved by
participants (MAuditory = 255.89 vs. MHaptic = 371.32 vs. MAuditory +Haptic = 332.36; F(2, 83) =
4.56, p < .02). An examination of planned contrasts demonstrated that as in Study 1,
those participants who received the text message accompanied by a haptic alert
performed better on the task (achieved more steps) than those who received the text alerts
accompanied by an auditory alert (MAuditory = 255.89, MHaptic = 371.32; F(1, 83) = 8.92, p
< .01). Further, those in the auditory + haptic condition also performed better than those
in the auditory condition (MAuditory = 255.89, MAuditory +Haptic= 332.36; F(1, 83) = 3.73, p <
.06), confirming that the increase in performance did not stem from the removal of
auditory output, but was due to the addition of haptic sensation. Lastly, there was no
23
significant difference in performance between those in the haptic condition and those in
the auditory + haptic condition (MHaptic = 371.32, MAuditory +Haptic= 332.36; F(1, 83) = 1.04,
p > .30), again confirming that no differences in performance were being driven by the
presence or absence of auditory output. Accordingly, we felt comfortable in continuing to
use auditory alerts as a control in our subsequent study.
Mood. ANOVA results failed to produce a significant main effect of text message
alert on reported mood (F(2, 83) = .55, p > .50). Further, when controlling for the effects
of mood, the effect of text message alert on task performance remained significant (F(2,
82) = 4.43, p < .02). Lastly, regression results confirm that mood itself did not have any
effect on task performance (t(85) = -.48, p > .60). Together, these results suggest that the
improved performance is not likely to be driven by improvements in mood that stem from
the receipt of haptic alerts.
Together, our first two studies document the positive effect of haptic alerts from
two different devices (mobile phones and smartwatches) on performance on two different
tasks (a balance exercise and a steps challenge). Further, we rule out process explanations
based on mood or auditory absence.
STUDY 3: EXPLORING THE UNDERLYING MECHANISM AND BOUNDARY
CONDITIONS
The purpose of Study 3 was to examine the process driving the effects found in
our first two studies (thereby testing H2), and to examine potential boundary conditions
(specifically the effect on technological self-efficacy, thereby testing H3). Participants
24
were again given smartwatches that displayed messages while they attempted the same
physical task as in Study 2. However, we added a number of measures into our study
design. According to our theorizing, the inclusion of a haptic alert should increase
feelings of social presence, which should consequently enhance the user’s attitudes
toward the communication and ultimately improve task performance. Thus, we included
these two measures (social presence and message evaluation) as potential process
explanations. Further, given that previous literature suggests that individuals who lack
technological self-efficacy display a greater tendency to attribute human agency when
interacting with devices (Luzak 2003), we explored the moderating role of technological
self-efficacy in our framework. Lastly, we measured arousal in order to see if that might
be an alternative explanation to explain the effect of haptic alerts on task performance.
Method
Fifty-nine undergraduate students participated in this laboratory study in
exchange for course credit. All participants were assigned to one of two conditions
(message alert: auditory vs. haptic). The experimental procedure was the same as in study
2, but with the addition of several measures. Immediately after performing the physical
task, participants responded to a number of items designed to assess their arousal (on six
9-point semantic differential pairs from Mehrabian and Russell, 1974: stimulated-relaxed,
calm-excited, dull-jittery, aroused-unaroused, wide awake-sleepy, sluggish-wild; α =
.77). Participants were then asked to evaluate the messages themselves (all measured on a
7-point Likert scale: “The text messages were nice,” “The text messages helped me
25
perform better at this challenge,” and “It felt good to get the text messages;” α = .67).
Literature on social presence suggests that the construct can be conceptualized as the
degree to which a sender is perceived to be a "real person" in mediated communication
(Gunawardena and Zittle 1997). Accordingly, to assess feelings of social presence,
participants were open-endedly asked to guess who was sending them the messages, in an
effort to ascertain whether they attributed the messages to a human source (“Who do you
think was sending the text messages?” coding described below). Lastly, we asked
participants to evaluate their overall technological self-efficacy (on two items measured
on a 7-point Likert scale: “I generally feel comfortable using technology,” and “I am very
familiar with technological gadgets;” r = .60).
Results and Discussion
Task Performance. Three participants deleted their pedometer data before the
experimenter was able to record it. Accordingly, there were 56 observations available for
analysis. ANOVA results confirmed a significant main effect of message alert on the
number of steps achieved by participants in the predicted direction, replicating the pattern
in Studies 1 and 2: those in the haptic condition achieved more steps than those in the
auditory condition (MAuditory = 229.12 vs. MHaptic = 308.97; F(1, 54) = 6.29, p <.02). In
addition, ANOVA results also demonstrated a positive effect of haptic alerts on selfreported arousal (MAuditory = 3.19 vs. MHaptic = 3.91; F(1, 54) = 4.18, p <.05). However,
even when controlling for the effects of arousal, the effect of text message alert on task
26
performance remained significant (F(1, 53) = 4.73, p <.04), suggesting arousal cannot
fully explain the positive effect of haptic stimulation on task performance.
Message evaluation, Social presence and Technological self-efficacy. ANOVA
results confirmed a significant main effect of message alert on participants’ evaluation of
the text messages they received (MAuditory = 4.50 vs. MHaptic = 5.17; F(1, 54) = 4.87, p <
.04): those participants who received the messages accompanied by a haptic alert
evaluated the messages more favorably than those who received the same messages
accompanied by an auditory alert. An independent coder blind to the study hypothesis
coded participants’ responses to the social presence measure (“Who do you think was
sending the text messages?”). Responses that identified the sender as a human source
(e.g., “A person administering the research,” 23 respondents) were scored a 1, responses
that indicated a non-human source (e.g. “A computer,” 27 respondents) were scored as 1, and neutral responses (e.g. “No idea,” 6 respondents) were scored as 0. ANOVA
results did not produce a significant main effect of message alert on social presence (F(1,
54) = .78, p >.30; neither omitting the neutral responses nor coding them as non-human
changed our results in any meaningful way). However, according to our theorizing, we
examined the interactive effect of message alert x technological self-efficacy on social
presence. Analysis results (Model 1 of the PROCESS SPSS macro, Hayes 2013),
revealed a significant interaction of message alert x technological self-efficacy on social
presence (F(1, 52) = 4.27, p < .05). As expected, analysis results of the conditional effect
of message alert on social presence indicated that for participants low in technological
self-efficacy, there was a significant effect of message alert on social presence, in that
haptic alerts led to a greater tendency to attribute the messages to a human source (β=.82,
27
t = 2.19, p < .04). For participants high in technological self-efficacy, this effect was not
significant (β=-.31, t = -.86, p > .30).
Next, we tested a sequential mediated moderation model to examine the
mechanism through which the message alert x technological self-efficacy interaction
influenced task performance. Specifically, we wished to test the role of social presence
and message evaluation in the process. A sequential mediated moderation analysis (using
model 6 from Hayes 2013; 95% confidence interval with 5000 bootstrap resamples)
supported our hypothesized path (Message Alert x Technological Self-Efficacy
interaction → Social Presence → Message Evaluation → Task Performance) with a 95%
confidence interval excluding zero (indirect effect = -6.0874, 95% CI [-34.6127, -.0263]).
This suggests that for those low in technological self-efficacy, the positive effect of the
vibrotactile alert on task performance was due to an increased sense of social presence
and improved message evaluation respectively. We tested an additional model in which
the order of the mediators was reversed (Message Alert x Technological Self-Efficacy
interaction → Message Evaluation → Social Presence→ Task Performance), but this
model did not reach significance (with a confidence interval including zero; indirect
effect = .0586, 95% CI [-9.5986, 7.9300]), suggesting that our original hypothesized path
was more accurate.
GENERAL DISCUSSION
Research in social psychology and consumer behavior has documented positive
attitudinal outcomes that result from incidental interpersonal touch, but almost no
28
research had explored how incidental technology-mediated touch might impact consumer
judgments and behaviors. We begin to address this gap by exploring how one particular
form of technology-administered haptic feedback (vibrotactile alerts) can indeed
influence consumer responses in consequential domains. Across three studies, we
demonstrate that haptic feedback accompanying telecommunication content can
positively influence consumer attitudes towards the interaction, and impact consequential
downstream behaviors such as physical performance. Studies 1 and 2 demonstrate that
adding a haptic element to text message alerts on both mobile devices and smartwatches
can improve consumer performance on related physical tasks. Study 3 documents the
moderating role of technological self-efficacy, and demonstrates that feelings of social
presence and evaluation of the messages themselves play a role in the underlying process.
Together, these studies provide empirical support for the proposed effect, process, and
boundary conditions represented in our model (Figure 1).
This research contributes to the literature on consumer-product interactions by
uncovering an important antecedent of consumer responsiveness to technological
engagement, and adds insight to the social psychology literature by documenting how
and when technology-mediated haptic feedback may elicit outcomes akin to those of
interpersonal touch. Further, while previous consumer behavior research has
demonstrated consequential responses to the haptic properties of products consumers
touch (with the product acting as a passive agent), this work is the first to examine
consumer responses to haptic exchanges initiated by the product itself (with the product
acting as an active agent). We support a process based on the idea that consumers are
especially likely to attribute social presence to gadgets that appeal to their sense of touch,
29
and the resulting attribution of human intent increases both the value of the
communication and its effectiveness. Finally, we add nuance to this framework by
identifying an individual-level factor, “technological self-efficacy,” which modulates
individuals’ propensity to attribute human agency from haptic technological exchanges.
In sum, we develop a multidisciplinary theoretical framework encompassing
multisensory perception, social psychology, and communication theories to demonstrate
that haptic alerts, by providing a physical cue of “social presence,” can motivate
compliant behavior and improve performance.
While marketing literature has examined the efficacy of mobile marketing efforts
from a firm’s perspective, there exists a dearth of research exploring consumer-centric
responses to mobile marketing communications (Stephen 2016; Lamberton and Stephen
2016). Our research addresses this gap by investigating consumer reactions to
communications mediated through mobile devices. In addition, by extending our
empirical work to smartwatches, we also address recent calls for consumer research that
keeps pace with rapidly expanding device types and interaction modes (Yadav and
Pavlov 2014; Stephen 2016).
In addition to the theoretical contributions, this research provides valuable
insights for both industry and public policy. Mobile advertising expenditure is projected
to surpass $100 billion worldwide this year (accounting for more than 50% of all digital
advertising expenditure; Grieff 2015), and the emerging category of smartwatch
advertising is already expected to reach $69 million by 2019 (Samuely 2015; Kharif
2015). Brand managers can choose to add haptic feedback to communications on such
devices, and our research would suggest that doing so might be an easy way to positively
30
influence consumers’ responses to the messages and improve attitudes towards the
sender. Similar logic can be applied to within-app brand communications (more than
90% of the top 100 global brands have launched at least one branded app; Meola 2015).
Haptic feedback can be programmed into an apps functionality during the softwaredevelopment phase, and might be a way to both improve consumer engagement with the
app itself and to strengthen consumer connections with the brand or company.
The current research also has important implications for public policy. Two of our
empirical studies demonstrated that haptic feedback can bolster the effectiveness of
messages encouraging users’ physical activity. Examining antecedents to increased
physical activity is paramount, given that medical experts and public health officials have
strongly encouraged healthy eating along with increased physical movement as a way to
combat the pervasive obesity epidemic (Hu 2008). Our findings are particularly
interesting given the steep rise in consumer use of health and fitness apps and wearable
fitness trackers (Lamkin 2016), which often act as a personal trainer and/or nutrition
coach by tracking users’ performance and sending them motivational messages to
encourage performance (Harris-Fry 2016; Leong 2016). We suggest that developers of
these health and fitness applications should consider incorporating haptic feedback into
such motivational communication attempts.
Despite the prevalence of device-administered haptic sensations, very little
research had examined consumer responses to what the computer science literature
coined as “mediated social touch” (Haans and IJsselsteijn 2006). The current work
represents what we believe to be the first rigorous investigation of how incidental
technology-mediated touch can influence consumer behavior. Accordingly, our
31
understanding of technology-mediated haptic effects is at a very early stage of
development, and there are many interesting avenues to expand work in this research
stream. For example, in this paper we focused on haptic feedback that accompanies
positively-valenced content (e.g., encouraging messages). However, in reality, consumers
might also receive telecommunication content that is unwelcome (e.g., bad news from a
friend or notification of an overdue credit card payment), and may even receive haptic
feedback with inherently negative connotations (e.g., the HAPI Fork and Lumo sensor
buzz when one is either eating too quickly or slouching respectively). The interpretation
of a haptic sensation depends on the context and message in which the touch is
embedded, and accordingly, it is likely that multiple symbolic meanings can be extracted
from a particular haptic sensation (Burgoon 1991; Burgoon, Walther, and Baesler 1992).
Thus while we chose to focus on positive content in this initial exploration, we
acknowledge that haptic alerts might operate differently if accompanying negativelyvalenced message content.
Relatedly, it might be interesting to explore contexts in which technologymediated haptic feedback is transmitted in the absence of any message content. For
example, the creator of the TapTap wristband (still a prototype) describes the product as a
way to allow couples to discretely share feelings over a distance: when one wristband is
tapped, a signal is sent to the other wristband, which vibrates in turn, letting the recipient
know the sender is thinking of them (Bertucci 2015). While this represents a more
explicit form of social touch than we considered in the current research, we believe it
might be interesting to explore the long-term effects of such technologically-facilitated
haptic exchanges on interpersonal relationships.
32
Importantly, the current work focused on the most pervasive form of haptic
feedback currently on the market- vibrational alerts. However, we acknowledge that this
is a relatively rudimentary form of haptic stimulation, and it might be interesting to
develop a more nuanced account of how various specific technology-mediated sensations
map out onto consumer perceptions and responses. In fact, some gadget manufacturers
are already spending considerable sums to develop more refined forms of haptic feedback
(e.g., the Apple Watch’s “Taptic Engine” produces alerts meant to feel as though
someone is tapping your wrist; Vanhemert 2015). Given that our research demonstrates
positive attitudinal outcomes from even a crude form of technology-mediated haptic
feedback, it might be interesting to see if such effects are further enhanced by more
sophisticated haptic stimulation.
Lastly, we believe the effects of technology-mediated haptic feedback can be
explored in some alternative and very consequential contexts. For example, healthcare
practitioners and scholars argue that a physician’s touch can be instrumental in
comforting patients (Stepansky 2016), yet a growing number of doctor-patient
consultations (including mental health assessments) are transpiring through technological
interfaces (e.g., the Doctor on Demand app allows consumers to video-connect to a
physician via a smartphone; Hermar 2016). It might be interesting to explore whether and
how technology-mediated forms of haptic feedback might augment telemedicine
interactions, help health providers connect with their patients more intimately, and
perhaps even boost patient compliance.
As consumers rely on technology-mediated services in more and more contexts
and consumer-product interactions become increasingly imbued with online connectivity,
33
the authors believe the role of haptic sensations will continue to play an important role in
shaping consumer perceptions, judgments and behaviors- just as they do in our offline
world.
34
APPENDIX A
Participant Instructions for Task in Study 1:
INSTRUCTIONS: THE ONE LEG CHALLENGE
For this challenge, we would like you to try to stand on one leg for 5 minutes without
switching legs. This requires both strength and balance. Do your best to stand on one leg
(either right or left) the entire 5 minutes without switching legs.
DO NOT hold on to the chair or desk to help support yourself.
Remember to hold onto the phone the entire time, and read the text messages as you
receive them.
APPENDIX B
Text Message Script in Study 1:
“Please click the button to proceed to the next page, and start standing on one leg.”
“Putting your hands on your hips might help you balance.”
“If you feel tired, just take a deep breath…”
“You’re doing great! Keep it up.”
“You’re almost there, just a little bit longer…”
35
APPENDIX C
Participant Instructions for Task in Study 2 and 3:
INSTRUCTIONS: STEPS CHALLENGE
We are testing out a new coaching service that operates through text messages. For this
challenge, we would like you to try to march in place for 4 minutes. Your goal is to try to
get as many steps as you can in the 4 minutes. Please stay in front of your computer while
marching in place. At the end of the study, we can let you know how well you did. In the
meantime, you will get text messages on your smartwatch. Please read the text messages
as you receive them. Please do not use the watch for any other purpose.
APPENDIX D
Text Message Script in Studies 2 and 3:
“Proceed to the next page and begin marching.”
“You’re doing great! Keep it up.”
“If you feel tired, take a deep breath.”
“Great job! You’re getting lots of steps.”
“You’re almost there, just a little bit longer.”
36
REFERENCES
Ackerman, Joshua M. Ackerman, Joshua M., Christopher C. Nocera, and John A. Bargh
(2010), “Incidental Haptic Sensations Influence Social Judgments and Decisions,”
Science, 328.5986 (June), 1712-5.
Bark, Karlin, Jason W. Wheeler, Mark R. Cutkosky, and Sunthar Premakumar (2008),
“Comparison of Skin Stretch and Vibrotactile Stimulation for Feedback of
Proprioceptive Information,” in Symposium on Haptic Interfaces for Virtual
Environment and Teleoperator Systems, ed. Jan Weisenberger, Allison Okamura,
and Karon MacLean, Piscataway, NJ: IEEE, 71-8.
Bart, Yakov, Andrew T. Stephen and Miklos Sarvary (2014), "Which products are best
suited to mobile advertising? A field study of mobile display advertising effects
on consumer attitudes and intentions." Journal of Marketing Research. 51.3, 270285.
Basdogan, Cagatay, Chih-Hao Ho, Mandayam A. Srinivasan, and Mel Slater (2000), “An
Experimental Study on the Role of Touch in Shared Visual Environments,” ACM
Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction (TOCHI) - Special Issue on
Human-Computer Interaction and Collaborative Virtual Environments, 7
(December), 443-60.
Bertucci, Kristie (2015), “Stay In Touch With A Loved One With The TapTap
Wristband,” http://www.gadgetreview.com/taptap-wristband.
Biocca, Frank (1997), “The Cyborg's Dilemma: Progressive Embodiment in Virtual
Environments,” Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 3 (September).
37
Biocca, Frank, Chad Harms, and Judee K. Burgoon (2003), “Toward a More Robust
Theory and Measure of Social Presence: Review and Suggested
Criteria,” Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 12 (October), 45680.
Brasel, S. Adam and James Gips (2014), “Tablets, Touchscreens, and Touchpads: How
Varying Touch Interfaces Trigger Psychological Ownership and Endowment,”
Journal of Consumer Psychology, 24(2), 226–33.
Brave, Scott, Clifford Nass, and Erenee Sirinian (2001), “Force-Feedback in ComputerMediated Communication,” in Proceedings of HCI International 2001 (9th
International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction), Vol. 3, ed.
Constantine Stephanidis, Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 145-9.
Brewster, Stephen, Faraz Chohan, and Lorna Brown (2007), “Tactile Feedback for
Mobile Interactions,” in Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human
Factors in Computing Systems, ed. Mary B. Rosson and David Gilmore, New
York, NY: ACM, 159-62.
Burgoon, Judee K. (1991), “Relational Message Interpretations of Touch, Conversational
Distance, and Posture,” Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 15 (4), 233-59.
Burgoon, Judee K., James E. Baesler, and Joseph B. Walther (1992), “Interpretations,
Evaluations, and Consequences of Interpersonal Touch,” Human Communication
Research, 19 (?), 237-63. Caporael, Linnda R. (1986), “Anthropomorphism and Mechanomorphism: Two Faces of
the Human Machine,” Computers in Human Behavior, 2 (3), 215-34.
38
Carron, Albert V., Heather A. Hausenblas, and Diane Mack (1996), "Social influence and
exercise: A meta-analysis," Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 18: 1-16.
Crusco AH, Wetzel CG (1984) The Midas touch: the effects of interpersonal touch on
restaurant tipping. Pers Soc Psychol Bull 10:512–517 Diesing, Genevieve (2014),
“Where Are Displays and Interfaces Going?” Appliance Design, 62 (August), 911.
Drouin, Michelle, Daniel A. Miller, and Daren H. Kaiser (2012), “Phantom Vibrations
Among Undergraduates: Prevalence and Associated Psychological
Characteristics,” Computers in Human Behavior, 28(4), 1490-6.
Fisher, Jeffrey D., Marvin Rytting, and Richard Heslin (1967), “Hands Touching Hands:
Affective and Evaluative Effects of an Interpersonal Touch,” Sociometry, 39
(December), 416-21. Gallace, Alberto and Charles Spence (2010), “The Science of Interpersonal Touch: An
Overview,” Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 34 (February), 246-59.
Giannopoulos, Elias, Laura González, Manuel Ferre, María Oyarzabal, Mel Slater, Teresa
Hierro, and Victor Eslava (2008), “The Effect of Haptic Feedback on Basic Social
Interaction Within Shared Virtual Environments,” in EuroHaptics '08
Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Haptics: Perception, Devices
and Scenarios, ed. Manuel Ferre, Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag, 301-7.
Goffman, Erving (1959), The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life, Garden City, NY:
Anchor.
39
Greiff , Felicia (2015), “Global Mobile Ad Spending Will Climb to $100 Billion in
2016”, http://adage.com/article/digital/global-mobile-ad-spending-climb-100billion-2016/297889/.
Guéguen, Nicolas (2004), “Nonverbal Encouragement of Participation in a Course: The
Effect of Touching,” Social Psychology of Education, 7 (March), 89-98.
Gunawardena, Charlotte N. and Frank J. Zittle (1997), “Social Presence as a Predictor of
Satisfaction Within a Computer‐Mediated Conferencing Environment,” American
Journal of Distance Education, 11 (3), 8-26.
Haans, Antal and Wijnand IJsselsteijn (2006), “Mediated Social Touch: A Review of
Current Research and Future Directions,” Virtual Reality, 9 (January), 149-59.
Haans, Antal, Renske de Bruijn, and Wijnand A. IJsselsteijn (2014), “A Virtual Midas
Touch? Touch, Compliance, and Confederate Bias in Mediated Communication,”
Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 38 (3), 301-11.
Hayes, Andrew F. (2013), Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional
Process Analysis, New York, NY: Guilford.
Harris-Fry, Nick (2016), “The 50 Best Health and Fitness Apps,”
http://www.coachmag.co.uk/fitness-technology/4226/the-best-health-and-fitnessapps.
Hermar, Bob (2016), “Virtual Reality: More Insurers are Embracing Telehealth,” Modern
Healthcare, 46 (February), 16-9.
Holmes, Nicholas P. and Charles Spence (2004), “The Body Schema and Multisensory
Representation(s) of Peripersonal Space,” Cognitive Processing, 5 (March), 94105.
40
Hornik, Jacob (1992), “Tactile Stimulation and Consumer Response,” Journal of
Consumer Research, 19 (December), 449-58.
Hu, Frank B. (2008), "Physical activity, sedentary behaviors, and obesity." Obesity
epidemiology. New York (NY): Oxford University Press, 301-19.
Johnson, Lauren (2015), “Stoli's Mobile Ads Let You Actually Feel a Cocktail Being
Made in Your Hand,” http://www.adweek.com/news/technology/stolis-mobileads-let-you-actually-feel-cocktail-being-made-your-hand-167812.
Jones, Lynette A. and Susan J. Lederman (2006), Human Hand Function, New York,
NY: Oxford University Press.
Jones, Stanley E. and A. Elaine Yarbrough (1985), “A Naturalistic Study of the Meanings
of Touch,” Communications Monographs, 52 (1) (1985): 19-56.
Kharif, Olga (2015), “Coming Soon to Your Smartwatch: Ads Targeting Captive
Eyeballs,” http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-05-12/coming-soon-toyour-smartwatch-ads-targeting-captive-eyeballs.
Krishna, Aradhna (2012), “An Integrative Review of Sensory Marketing: Engaging the
Senses to Affect Perception, Judgment and Behavior,” Journal of Consumer
Psychology, 22 (July), 332-51.
Lamberton, Cait, and Andrew T. Stephen (2016), "A thematic exploration of digital,
social media, and mobile marketing research's evolution from 2000 to 2015 and
an agenda for future research," Journal of Marketing,
Lamkin, Paul (2016), “#Trending: Fitness Trackers Still the Leading Light,”
http://www.wareable.com/trending/trending-fitness-trackers-still-the-leadinglight-2649.
41
Lanier, Jaron (2001), “Virtually There: Three-dimensional Tele-immersion May
Eventually Bring the World to Your Desk,” Scientific American, 284 (April), 6675.
Leh, Amy S. C. (2001), “Computer-Mediated Communication and Social Presence in a
Distance Learning Environment,” International Journal of Educational
Telecommunications, 7 (November), 109-28.
Leong, Lewis (2016), “Pebble Sets Sights on Fitbit with Massive Fitness-Focused
Update,” http://www.techradar.com/news/wearables/pebble-sets-sights-on-fitbitwith-massive-fitness-focused-update-1321061.
Levav, Jonathan and Jennifer J. Argo (2010), “Physical Contact and Financial Risk
Taking,” Psychological Science, 21 (June), 804-10.
Luczak, Holger, Ludger Schmidt, and Matthias Roetting (2003), “Let's Talk:
Anthropomorphization as Means to Cope with Stress of Interacting with
Technical Devices,” Ergonomics, 46 (13-14), 1361-74.
McDonald, Tracy and Marc Siegall (1992), “The Effects of Technological Self-Efficacy
and Job Focus on Job Performance, Attitudes, and Withdrawal Behaviors,” The
Journal of Psychology: Interdisciplinary and Applied, 126 (5), 465-75.
Mehrabian, Albert and James A. Russell (1974), An Approach to Environmental
Psychology, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Meola, Andrew (2016), “Brands are now trying to reach you through your mobile apps,”
http://www.businessinsider.com/mobile-marketing-how-brands-will-advertise-inapps-2016-2?IR=T.
42
Morales, Andrea C. (2009), “Understanding the Role of Incidental Touch in Consumer
Behavior,” in Sensory Marketing: Research on the Sensuality of Products, ed.
Aradhna Krishna, New York, NY: Routledge Academic, 49-62.
Montagu, Ashley, and Floyd W. Matson (1979), The Human Connection. St Louis, MO:
McGraw-Hill.
Mueller Florian, Frank Vetere, Jesper Kjeldskov, Martin R. Gibbs, Sonja Pedell, Steve
Howard (2005), “Hug Over a Distance,” in CHI ’05 Extended Abstracts on
Human Factors in Computing Systems, ed. Gerrit van der Veer and Carolyn Gale,
New York, NY: ACM, 1673-76.
Orr, Andrew (2016), “Study: Amid Sea of Disposable Apps, Health and Fitness Reigns
Supreme”, http://appleinsider.com/articles/16/05/13/study-amid-sea-ofdisposable-apps-health-and-fitness-reigns-supreme.
Peck, Joann (2010), “Does Touch Matter? Insights from Haptic Research in Marketing,”
in Sensory Marketing: Research on the Sensuality of Products, ed. Aradhna
Krishna, New York, NY: Routledge, 17-31.
Peck, Joann and Jennifer Wiggins (2006), “It Just Feels Good: Consumers’ Affective
Response to Touch and Its Influence on Attitudes and Behavior,” Journal of
Marketing, 70 (4), 56-69.
Peck, Joann and Suzanne B. Shu (2009), “The Effect of Mere Touch on Perceived
Ownership,” Journal of Consumer Research, 36 (3), 434-47.
Peppet, Scott R. (2014), “Regulating the Internet of Things: First Steps Toward
Managing Discrimination, Privacy, Security, and Consent,” Texas Law Review,
93 (November), 85-176.
43
Picciano, Anthony G. (2002), "Beyond student perceptions: Issues of interaction,
presence, and performance in an online course." Journal of Asynchronous
Learning Networks, 6, 1, 21-40.
Qiu, Lingyun, and Izak Benbasat (2009), “Evaluating Anthropomorphic Product
Recommendation Agents: A Social Relationship Perspective to Designing
Information Systems,” Journal of Management Information Systems, 25 (4), 14582.
Rawassizadeh, Reza, Blaine A. Price, and Marian Petre (2014), “Wearables: Has the Age
of Smartwatches Finally Arrived?” Communications of the ACM, 58 (December),
45-7.
Reeves, Byron and Clifford Nass (1996), The Media Equation: How People Treat
Computers, Televison, and New Media Like Real People and Places, Stanford,
CA: Cambridge University Press.
Rovers AF, and van Essen (2004), “HIM: A Framework for Haptic Instant Messaging,”
in CHI ‘04 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems, ed.
Dykstra-Erickson, Elizabeth and Manfred Tscheligi, New York, NY: ACM, 131316.
Sallnäs, Eva-Lotta (2010), “Haptic Feedback Increases Perceived Social Presence,” in
Proceedings of the 2010 International Conference on Haptics - Generating and
Perceiving Tangible Sensations: Part II. ed. Kappers, Astrid M., Frans C. van der
Helm, Jan B. van Erp, and Wouter M. Bergmann Tiest, Berlin, Heidelberg:
Springer-Verlag, 178-85.
44
Sallnäs, Eva-Lotta, Calle Sjöström, and Kirsten Rassmus-Gröhn (2000), “Supporting
Presence in Collaborative Environments by Haptic Force Feedback,” ACM
Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, 7 (December), 461-76.
Samuely, Alex (2015), “Smartwatch Advertising Spend to Reach $69m by 2019:
Report,” http://www.mobilemarketer.com/cms/news/advertising/20246.html.
Shankar, Venkatesh and Sridhar Balasubramanian (2009), “Mobile marketing: a
synthesis and prognosis,” Journal of Interactive Marketing, 23(2), pp.118-129.
Short, John, Bruce Christie, and Ederyn Williams (1976), The Social Psychology of
Telecommunications, London, UK: John Wiley & Sons.
Skalski, Paul, and Ron Tamborini (2007), "The role of social presence in interactive
agent-based persuasion," Media psychology, 10, 385-413.
Stepansky, Paul E. (2016), In the Hands of Doctors: Touch and Trust in Medical Care,
Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO.
Stephen, Andrew T. (2016), "The role of digital and social media marketing in consumer
behavior." Current Opinion in Psychology, 10, 17-21.
Trope, Yaacov, and Nira Liberman (2010), "Construal-level theory of psychological
distance," Psychological Review, 117, (2), 440.
Van Horen, Femke, and Thomas Mussweiler (2014), "Soft assurance: Coping with
uncertainty through haptic sensations," Journal of Experimental Social
Psychology, 54, 73-80.
Vanhemert, Kyle (2015), “Apple’s Haptic Tech Is a Glimpse at the UI of the Future,”
http://www.wired.com/2015/03/apples-haptic-tech-makes-way-tomorrowstouchable-uis/.
45
Waytz, Adam, Carey K. Morewedge, George Monteleone, Jia-Hong Gao, John T.
Cacioppo, and Nicholas Epley (2010), “Making Sense by Making Sentient:
Effectance Motivation Increases Anthropomorphism,” Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 99 (3), 410-35.
Webb, Andrea and Joann Peck (2015), “Individual Differences in Interpersonal Touch:
On the Development, Validation, and Use of the 'Comfort with Interpersonal
Touch'(CIT) Scale,” Journal of Consumer Psychology, 28 (1), 60-77.
Yadav, Manjit S., and Paul A. Pavlou (2014), "Marketing in computer-mediated
environments: Research synthesis and new directions," Journal of Marketing
78.1, 20-40.
Yankelovich, Nicole, Gina-Anne Levow, and Matt Marx (1995), “Designing SpeechActs:
Issues in Speech User Interfaces,” in Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on
Human Factors in Computing Systems, ed. Irvin R. Katz, Jakob Nielsen, Linn
Marks, Mary B. Rosson, and Robert Mack, New York, NY: ACM, 369-76. F