Does Sampling Order Moderate the Effect of Autotelic Need for Touch on Product Evaluation: An Abstract

Consumers often sample products sequentially when shopping. Haptic information influences consumers’ evaluation of a product (Biggs et al. 2016; Kampfer et al. 2017; McDaniel and Baker 1977; Schifferstein 2009). This research draws on the literature on how people differ in their need for touch (Peck and Childers 2003a, b) and how they are influenced by order effect in their product evaluation (Biswas et al. 2014; Li and Epley 2009; Mantonakis et al. 2009; O’Brien and Ellsworth 2012; Quigley-McBride et al. 2018).

The Need-for-Touch (NFT) scale is divided into two dimensions: (1) instrumental and (2) autotelic (Peck and Childers 2003a). Consumers’ preferences and motivations on using haptic information differ, and some are more chronically inclined to use touch as an information source (Peck and Childers 2003b). Autotelic touch is about unplanned examination of multisensory product relationships and no purchase goal is required, just an interest to examine product via touch (Klatzky and Peck 2012; Peck and Childers 2003a). High autotelics, due to larger exposure to haptic information and using haptic sense more, are leaving out haptic information of the evaluating process when it is not diagnostic for the task (Krishna and Morri 2008). Therefore, we hypothesize that autotelic need for touch has a significant effect on product evaluation (H1).

Sequential sampling leads participants to compare samples against one another, using the first sample as an anchor. We suggest that anchoring leads to perceived wins and losses when samples differ. Kahneman and Tversky (1979) find that subjective gains are perceived smaller than subjective losses. Schifferstein et al. (1999) find this asymmetry in consumer evaluations of an experiential product. Following the diagnosticity-based model that, for example, Krishna and Morrin (2008) use, high autotelics are capable of leaving the haptic perception out when evaluating a beverage, whereas low autotelics involve the haptic information into their taste evaluation. We hypothesize that when sampled in a sequence, sampling order moderates the effect of autotelic need for touch on product evaluation (H2).

We tested our hypothesis in two separate studies where participants evaluated coffee. Participants were divided into low and high autotelics based on the autotelic NFT scores (Peck and Childers 2003a). When haptic information was minimal, low and high autotelic groups did not differ in their evaluations. However, when sequential sampling and haptic information (flimsy/firm cup) were introduced to the test setting, the results show that autotelic need for touch has a significant effect on product evaluation, but only if the firm cup is sampled first.

Order effect moderating autotelic need for touch, and thus, influencing product evaluation needs to be kept in mind when designing tactile products and experiences as there is no “one size fits all” solution.