The effect of priming with haptic
sensations on perceived brand
personality and logo
preference
Does priming with haptic sensations influence the consumers’ perceptions of brand personality or
logo preference?
By Laura Mensink
The effect of priming
with haptic sensations
on perceived brand personality
and logo preference
Word count: 7938 June 23, 2017
Master Thesis
Faculty of Economics and Business MSc Marketing Management Department of Marketing University of Groningen Laura Mensink l.mensink@live.nl S3030059 Hagestraat 1d 2011CT Haarlem 0624865666 Supervisor: S. A. Sadowski
3
Abstract
Does priming with haptic sensations influence perceived brand personality and logo preference? Previous research found that priming with hardness evoked the
perception of a brand to be ‘rugged’ and this study builds on these findings by investigating whether priming with hardness causes the brand’s personality to be perceived as more ‘competent’ and whether priming with softness causes the brand’s personality to be perceived as more ‘sincere’. Furthermore, it is explored whether soft primes evoke the consumers’ preference for circular logos and whether hard primes evoke the consumers’ preference for angular logos. Even though the former did not yield significant results, this research provides unique evidence for the influence of haptic sensations on logo preference. Additionally, goal anticipation proved to enhance this effect, which seems to indicate that a goal irrelevant prime can be made goal relevant by means of the task participants have to perform.
Keywords: Haptic sensations, bodily experiences, priming, sensory marketing, brand
6
Chapter 1: Introduction
The role of senses in judgment, consumer behavior and decision-making has received an increasing amount of attention in the last couple of years, both in the marketing and psychology field (Krishna and Schwarz, 2014). Sensory marketing can be described as “marketing that triggers the consumers’ senses and affects their
behavior, judgment and perceptions” (Krishna, 2012). This type of marketing appeals
to consumers’ senses, such as smell, touch, taste, sound and sight. Much of the research in the domain of consumer behavior focuses on embodied cognition, which implies that thinking relies on bodily experiences (perceptions, actions and emotions), even in an unconscious matter (Eelen et al., 2013). This unconscious triggering of consumer senses has been explored widely in the field of marketing and appears to be a more efficient way to reach consumers (Krishna, 2012).
7
dimensions of touch (e.g. heaviness, softness, roughness) may influence our decisions and impressions about people and events, even though touch is not directly related to these people and events (Ackerman et al., 2010). In other words, haptic sensations of touch may activate associative concepts, which influence people’s judgments (Wang et al., 2016).
Bodily experiences do not only influence the judgment of other people, they can also be metaphorically linked to a brand’s personality. Aaker et al. (2004) found that consumers seem to easily link brands to personality traits. For example, brands can be ‘rugged’, ‘sincere’ or ‘competent’ (Aaker, 1997). In addition, Krishna (2012) states that sensory marketing can be used to subconsciously influence the consumer
perceptions of abstract notions of the brand’s personality (for example its elegance, its interactivity or its sophistication). In line with this research, Möller and Herm (2013) found that sensory stimulation shape the consumers retail brand personality
perceptions and that consumers are able to (unconsciously) transfer bodily experiences to brand perceptions in a metaphor-specific way.
8
consumers is very valuable for developing a better understanding of consumer behavior (Peck and Childers, 2003a).
This study is building on research by Möller and Herm (2013), who found that priming with hardness translated to a perceived brand personality of being ‘rugged’ and priming with warmth translated to a perceived brand personality of being ‘warm’. However, they stressed the importance of exploring the linkage between haptic sensations and other brand personality dimensions. Investigating dimensions such as ‘sincerity’ and ‘competence’ (Aaker, 1997) could provide valuable new insights in the field of haptic priming. Therefore, the following research question is formulated:
Does priming with haptic sensations influence the consumers’ perception of brand personality?
In this research, it is investigated whether hardness (priming with a hard object) causes the brands’ personality to be perceived as more competent and whether
softness (priming with a soft object) causes the brands’ personality to be perceived as more sincere.
9
In addition, it will be investigated whether haptic priming could have a subsequent spillover effect on logo preference. Building on research by Jiang et al. (2016), who found that angular logos activated the concept of hardness and that circular logos activated the concept of softness, it is hypothesized that this effect will also be present in reverse. Lastly, it will be explored whether the consumers’ need for touch
moderates the interaction between goal states and haptic sensations on competence, sincerity and logo preference.
The primary line of investigation in this research is to examine whether haptic priming can elicit brand personality perceptions of competence and sincerity. Additional lines of investigation are the influence of haptic priming on logo
preference and the effects of goal-states on priming. This research will extent current literature in the field of haptic priming, provide additional insights in the field of sensory marketing and more importantly, in the field of consumer behavior regarding haptic sensations and brand personality. The findings of this paper may be valuable for marketers to improve their decisions about exploiting haptic sensation to
(unconsciously) evoke specific brand personality traits.
10
Chapter 2: Theoretical Framework
Brand personality
Brand personality is one of the most studied constructs of brand associations. It can be described as the human characteristics or traits that are associated with a brand
(Aaker, 1997). Inferential processes are the basis of brand personality, which means that consumers are not personally ‘excited’ or ‘sincere’ about the brand in the literal sense of the word, but they merely project these human personality traits onto brands (Brakus et al., 2009). For example, Ikea is associated with sincerity (Zentes et al., 2008) and Apple is associated with creativity (Fitzsimons et al., 2008).
Aaker (1997) developed a widely accepted framework of five brand personality dimensions: Ruggedness (e.g. rugged, tough); sophistication (e.g. charming, glamorous); competence (e.g. reliable, responsible); excitement (e.g. daring, up-to-date) and sincerity (e.g. warm, honest). In this study, the two dimensions of
‘competence’ and ‘sincerity’ are used. According to Aaker (1997), a competent brand can be described as reliable, responsible, dependable, intelligent and successful. On the other hand, a sincere brand can be described as warm, honest, genuine, and down to earth.
11
Priming with bodily experiences
Priming (with situational cues) is the (unconscious) activation of perceptually or conceptually related constructs in a person’s memory, which leads to those constructs becoming more accessible (Berger and Fitzsimons, 2008). These related concepts activated in memory could be applied for categorization or judgment (e.g. the impression someone has from another person) (Higgins et al., 1985; Herr, 1986). In the past, most of the research in the field of priming has been done with words or strings of words (Higgins et al., 1985). However, the concept of priming with bodily experiences has received an increasing amount of attention. In the last couple of years, researchers have noticed the importance of the theory of ‘embodied cognition’, which implies that thinking relies on bodily experiences (perceptions, actions and emotions) beyond the brain, even in an unconscious matter (Eelen et al., 2013). Möller and Herm (2013) define the narrower concept of bodily experiences as
“physical sensations evoked by the external world”.
12
in their study as they solely relied on consumers’ memories of experiences in their survey. Möller and Herm (2013) did manipulate bodily experiences in a lab
experiment as well as a field experiment by using feelings of hardness (activated by a hard piece of furniture) and warmth (activated by warm room temperature). They found that sensory stimulation shape the consumers’ retail brand personality
perceptions. More specifically, they found evidence on the fact that hardness could be used as a metaphor for a rugged brand personality and that feelings of warmth could be used as a metaphor for a warm brand personality. They were the first to transfer the link between bodily experiences and personality traits to the branding context (i.e. a retail environment).
Haptic sensations (touch)
13
Streicher and Estes (2015) found that haptic properties of a product (e.g. weight, texture) could facilitate brand choice, recognition and consideration, regardless of the consumers’ awareness of this haptic priming. A clear representation of an object or person is provided by touch (e.g. the soft coat of a cat would be an indication for its soft character) (Krishna, 2012). Ackerman et al. (2010) also argue that haptic priming effects have a metaphorical specificity, which means that the prime conveys specific associations. The authors found that hard objects made others seem more stable and that heaviness produces impression of importance, which also had an effect on decision-making. In line with this research, Wang et al. (2016) found that touching a rough surface enhanced empathic responses.
Hardness vs. softness
14
Based on the literature above, it can be hypothesized that haptic sensations of
‘hardness’ can metaphorically translated to having a ‘competent’ brand personality. It is therefore hypothesized that:
H1: Haptic sensations of hardness cause the brands’ personality to be perceived as
more competent
The counterpart of hardness used in literature is softness and therefore, the tactile sensations of softness on social perceptions are also explored. In daily life, ‘being soft’ is often associated with being warm, emotional and empathetic. Also, Jiang et al. (2016) found that softness-related attributes led to more favorable perceptions of comfortableness. Softness not only refers to physical softness, it also can evoke associations such as ‘being pleasant’, ‘soft-hearted (i.e. gentle, feels affection for, sympathetic)’ and ‘not harsh’ (Jiang et al., 2016). Translating this to the branding context, softness could make brands or companies appear to be more ‘caring for their customers’. Hence, it can be assumed that haptic sensations of ‘softness’ can be metaphorically translated to having a ‘sincere’ brand personality. It is therefore hypothesized that:
H2: Haptic sensations of softness cause the brands’ personality to be perceived as
15
Logo preference
Not only touch, smell, colors or sounds can influence consumer behavior, shape can also be an important perceptual cue that affects consumer behavior. When elaborating on the concept of hardness and softness, it is well established that people associate angular shapes with masculine, hard and durable things (e.g. bricks, tables) while they associate circular shapes with soft, feminine things (e.g. woman’s curves, pillows, balls). This link between hardness and angular shapes and softness and circular shapes can be described as intuitive, but was not statistically proven before. However, recent research by Jiang et al. (2016) proved that angular- or circular logo shapes can
activate the concept of hardness or softness. The authors are the first to show that these logo shapes in turn influence consumers’ judgments of a company (e.g. consumer sensitivity) or a product’s attributes (e.g. comfortableness, durability), through the activation of the mental concepts of hardness and softness.
For this research, not shapes but haptic sensations are used as a prime. Although Jiang et al. (2016) proved that priming with angular vs. circular logo shapes activates the concept of hardness vs. softness, it has not yet been proven whether this effect holds true in reverse. Investigating whether haptic sensations could have a subsequent spillover effect on logo preference might produce interesting new results. Therefore, it is hypothesized that:
H3a: Haptic sensations of softness increase the consumers’ preference for circular
logos
H3b: Haptic sensations of hardness increase the consumers’ preference for angular
16
Goal priming
In the field of priming, two categories can be distinguished: Goal-relevant and goal-irrelevant primes. Goal-relevant primes (or direct primes) are stimuli that activate a goal and that (unconsciously) encourage people to pursue means consistent with that particular goal (Janiszewski and Wyer, 2004). For example, Karremans et al. (2006) found that when priming participants with a brand name of a drink (Lipton Ice), their intention to choose (and drink) the primed brand was positively affected, but only if the participants were thirsty (drinking goal). Another example is a study conducted by Aarts et al. (2004), who showed that priming with the goal of earning money
encouraged people to participate in a lottery (that gave access to money), but only when they were actually in need for money (and thus had a goal of money making).
Goal-irrelevant priming (or indirect priming) occurs when associated goals are activated by the primed content (Janiszewski and Wyer, 2004). In this case, the primed construct indirectly affects behavior via shifts in perceptions of a perceptual target (Smeesters et al., 2010). The prime cannot be easily linked to the goal, no clear association can be found. In the present research, the primes that are used (haptic sensations of hardness and softness) are not relevant to the goal (eating goal). Touch has no direct connection to eating in the context of rating perceived brand personality and indicating logo preference. The participants in this study will probably not find a clear association between touching a hard vs. a soft object and rating a brand’s personality.
Goal states
17
Two types of goal states can be distinguished: Goal anticipation and goal attainment. Goal anticipation occurs when one has a particular goal in mind and aims to pursue this goal, whereas goal attainment occurs when the goal is achieved.
Goal anticipation
When people are motivated to pursue a certain goal and the prime is relevant to that goal, priming will influence their behavior (Strahan et al., 2002). When priming a concept related to the goal, concepts that are associated with its completion can be activated and this may encourage behavior that is consistent with the fulfillment of this goal (Janiszewski and Wyer, 2004). When the focal goal receives increasing levels of commitment, the inhibition of alternative goals increases (Shah et al., 2002). This concept is called ‘goal shielding’. Goals that are not fulfilled grow in influence and will receive more attention (Janiszewski and Wyer, 2004). In other words, goal shielding is the extent to which individuals ‘block’ alternative goals. In this research, goal anticipation is expected to block the effect of haptic sensations on brand
personality, because participants will focus on completing their (eating) goal. Goal anticipation is thus expected to weaken one’s attention for the unrelated primes. Therefore, it can be hypothesized that:
H4a: Goal anticipation blocks the effect of haptic sensations on brand personality H4b: Goal anticipation blocks the effect of haptic sensations on logo preference
Goal attainment
18
distinct regulatory dynamics: structured and unstructured regulation. Structured regulation occurs when people actively strive to maintain goal consistency in their behavior and their representations (i.e. goal anticipation). On the other hand,
unstructured regulation occurs when people are attending to salient cues and are more flexible in determining what is an appropriate response to immediate circumstances. They are attuned to their immediate environment (Fujita and Trope, 2014). Engaging in a more unstructured regulation make people more sensitive to immediate demands of their environment. It could be assumed that unstructured regulation occurs when people have attained a goal. Taken together with the assumption by Shah et al. (2002) that the inhibition of alternative goals may seem less salient after completing a goal, it can be hypothesized that goal attainment is expected to reinforce the effect of the unrelated primes. Hence, it can be hypothesized that:
H4c: Goal attainment facilitates the effect of haptic sensations on brand personality H4d: Goal attainment facilitates the effect of haptic sensations on logo preference
Need for touch (=NFT)
Consumers differ greatly in responsiveness to haptic information. Some individuals extract information (e.g. product information) through the sense of touch (i.e. the haptic system) more than others do (Peck and Childers, 2003a). In their research, the authors found that the relationship between direct experience and confidence in judgment is moderated by an individual’s need for touch (NFT).
19
judgment or quality). These instrumental judgments are expected to focus on haptic properties that reflect a product’s texture, hardness, weight or temperature, since the consumer is searching for information in order to form a final (product) judgment (Peck and Childers, 2003b). On the other hand, the autotelic dimension is not directly connected to the consumers’ purchase decision, product judgment or purchase goal (Peck and Childers, 2003a). It has a stronger relation to the hedonic appreciation and the sensory experience of a product and thus the general liking for haptic input (Krishna and Morrin, 2008). This study focuses on the autotelic factor of NFT, since the primary interest is not in the context of an immediate purchase goal, but rather in the understanding of and gaining insights in the consumers’ mental processes when being primed with haptic sensations.
For those higher in NFT, haptic information showed to be more accessible (Peck and Childers, 2003a). The authors measured this by both performing a haptic related reaction-time task and elicited the participants’ order of thoughts during a product evaluation. Also, those high in autotelic NFT can faster access haptic information, which was not the case for instrumental NFT. However, Krishna and Morrin (2008) elaborated on these findings by including non-diagnostic haptic cues in their model. Non-diagnostic haptic cues are cues that are not relevant to the task. The authors used a flimsy (i.e. thin) beverage container in their research, of which the touching should not affect the actual perceived quality or taste of the beverage. Therefore, that cue can be described as diagnostic. Their results show that, in the context of
20
affected by non-diagnostic haptic cues and thus, they appear to be more vulnerable to irrelevant haptic cues.
In this research, haptic sensations of hardness and softness are used as an irrelevant prime; they are not relevant for the task (which is rating a product’s brand personality and choosing between logos). Therefore, it is hypothesized that:
H5a: Haptic sensations will influence perceived brand personality in the goal
attainment, but predominantly for people low in autotelic NFT
H5b: Haptic sensations will influence logo preference in the goal attainment, but
predominantly for people low in autotelic NFT
Conceptual Framework
Figure 1 displays the framework of this study.
21
Chapter 3: Research Design
Participants and design
In total, 173 participants were voluntarily recruited at the McDonalds, Fooddock and the canteen of Saxion University of Applied Sciences (95 female, 78 male, Mage = 24, SD = 9.3). The study used a 2 (hard vs. soft prime) x 2 (goal anticipation vs. attainment) between-subjects factorial design with an incorporated measure of NFT as an additional potential moderator. Table 1 displays the study design.
TABLE 1
(IV) Haptic priming
Hard prime Soft prime
(IV) Goal state
Attainment Hard prime Attainment state
Soft prime Attainment state
Anticipation Hard prime Anticipation state
Soft prime Anticipation state
Procedure
The participants were asked to complete an anonymous survey that consisted of questions related to brand personality and logo preference. They were randomly assigned to one of the two experimental conditions (hard vs. soft prime) and depending on their goal state they were assigned to either the anticipation or
22
reading this product description they had to rate the perceived brand personality of this new product using Aaker’s (1997) brand personality dimensions. The next part consisted of a simple choice task where participants had to choose between either circular or angular logos. To cover up the true purpose of this task, a few triangle options were added. After that, the participants had to answer three questions about the prime in order to check their evaluations of the hardness and softness of the object. Next, the participants’ explicit autotelic need for touch was measured using the autotelic need for touch scale (Peck and Childers, 2003a). The survey also
contained a short food related word completion task in order to measure goal salience and a question to check for their goal state. On the last page, participants were asked to fill out their demographics (age, gender). Lastly, they were thanked for their participation and debriefed by offering them the possibility to leave their e-mail address in order to be contacted about the results of the study. None of the participants correctly identified the purpose of this study.
Independent variables
Haptic priming
Ackerman et al. (2010) used a hard block of wood to activate the concept of hardness and a soft piece of blanket to activate the concept of softness. Möller and Herm (2013) used a hard stone block (hardness) or a soft leather sofa (softness). Reichard et al. (2016) categorize plastic, Tupperware, rubber or wood as hard objects. Plush, paper, fabric or cardboard are categorized as soft objects. In this research, a hard block of wood is used to activate the concept of hardness and a soft piece of blanket (plush fabric) is used to activate the concept of softness. As a manipulation check, participants had to answer three evaluation questions (‘how did the object feel?’, ‘to
23
was soft?’) regarding the hardness and softness of the prime. For the last two
questions participants had to rate their evaluations of hardness and softness on an 11-point Likert scale (0 = not at all soft / hard, 11 = extremely soft / hard).
Goal states
In order to manipulate the goal states, the surveys were conducted at the McDonalds, Fooddock and the canteen of Saxion University of Applied Sciences, all locations where people are going to eat or have already eaten. For the anticipation condition, people who were about to enter the restaurants were asked to participate. For the attainment condition, people who came out of the restaurant were asked to participate. As a manipulation check, the question ‘did you eat something?’ was added, after which the question ‘what did you eat?’ or ‘what are you going to eat?’ was asked. Also, to measure goal salience, participants had to rate their degree of hunger on an 11-point Likert scale (0 = not at all hungry, 11 = extremely hungry).
Need for touch
Since people highly differ in their need for touch, a 7-point Likert scale designed by Peck and Childers (2003a) was added to the survey. The scale consisted out of six items measuring the participants’ autotelic need for touch on a 7-point Likert scale
(1= extremely disagree, 7 = extremely agree) by Peck and Childers (2003a). The six
24
Dependent variables
Brand personality
The brand personality dimensions by Aaker (1997) ‘competence’ and ‘sincerity’ were used. The personality traits belonging to ‘competence’ are reliable, hard working,
secure, intelligent, technical, corporate, successful, leader and confident. The
personality traits belonging to ‘sincerity’ are down to earth, family oriented,
small-town, honest, sincere, real, wholesome, original, cheerful, sentimental and friendly.
These personality traits were translated in Dutch (see appendix 1). Each facet of brand personality is measured by these traits, using Aaker’s (1997) seven-point Likert scale
(1= extremely not descriptive, 7 = extremely descriptive). In addition, five non-related
personality traits (western, tough, independent, young, glamorous) were added. It is assumed that the effect of the hard prime will lead to the consumers’ perceptions of the brand to be competent, whereas it is expected that the effect of the soft prime will lead to more general feelings of sincerity.
Logo preference
Based on the approach of Jiang et al. (2016), this research used seven fictitious logo combinations. Participants were shown these logo combinations, after which they had to choose between the angular or circular logo. Jiang et al. (2016) found that circular logos activated the concept of softness and that angular logos activated the concept of hardness. Therefore, it was expected that participants who touched the soft object would prefer the circular logos, whereas the participants who touched the hard objects were expected to prefer the angular logos. To control for personal preferences or other biases, the logos were non-existent and matched in color. In addition to the seven logo choices, three options with triangle logos were added in order to prevent the
25
Chapter 4: Results
Manipulation check
Prime evaluation
As a manipulation check for the hard and soft prime, participants had to perform an evaluation task and rate the degree of hardness and softness on an 11-point Likert scale (0 = not at all soft / hard, 11 = extremely soft / hard). In line with the
expectations, participants that touched the soft piece of blanket (soft prime) rated the touched object as soft. However, unexpectedly, some participants also rated the block of wood (hard prime) as soft. These respondents (N=12) were excluded from the analysis.
Goal states
As a manipulation check for the participants’ goal state, they had to rate their degree of hunger on an 11-point Likert scale (0 = not hungry at all, 11 = extremely hungry). The participants whose goal state was not aligned with their degree of hunger were excluded (N=3).
Finally, participants under the age of 16 were removed (N=2). The final sample that was used for conducting the analyses contained 156 participants (86 female, 70 male;
Mage = 24, SD = 9.30).
Brand personality
26
(α = .74, N =11). For both dimensions, KMO was > .7 and communalities were > .4. The ratings for each personality dimension were averaged and two variables were created. To test the hypothesis that haptic sensations influence the consumers’ perception of brand personality, a 2 (hard vs. soft prime) x 2 (goal anticipation vs. goal attainment) ANOVA was performed.
Competence.
The ANOVA failed to reveal a significant main effect of prime on competence (F(1,152) = .12, p = .73). There was no significant difference found between
participants in the hard prime condition (M = 4.47, SD = .08) and participants in the soft prime condition (M = 4.51, SD = .08). Therefore, results show no evidence to support H1. In this research, haptic sensations of hardness do not cause the brand personality to be perceived as more competent.
The analysis also failed to reveal an interaction effect for goal state and prime (F(1,152) = 1,69, p = .20). For participants within the attainment condition, no significant difference was found between participants that touched the hard prime (M = 4.60, SD = .11) and participants that touched the soft prime (M = 4.49, SD = .11). As for participants within the anticipation condition, participants that touched the hard prime (M = 4.34, SD = .12) also did not significantly differ from participants that touched the soft prime (M = 4.52, SD = .11).
27
FIGURE 2
Sincerity.
The ANOVA failed to reveal a significant main effect of prime on sincerity (F(1,152) = .26, p = .61). There was no significant difference found between participants in the soft prime condition (M = 4.54, SD = .08) and participants in the hard prime condition (M = 4.6, SD = .08). Therefore, results show no evidence to support H2. In this
research, haptic sensations of softness do not cause the brand personality to be perceived as more sincere.
28
To conclude, not enough evidence was found to support H4a and H4c and therefore it can neither be stated that goal anticipation facilitates the effect of soft prime on
sincerity, nor that goal attainment blocks the effect of soft prime on sincerity. Figure 3 displays the mean scores per experimental group.
FIGURE 3
Logo preference
29
Based on these findings it can be concluded that there is enough evidence to support hypotheses H3 and thus it can be concluded that haptic sensations influence logo preference.
Also, results revealed a significant two-way interaction between the participants' goal state and prime (F(1,152) = 3,77 p = .05). However, contradicting the hypotheses, the interaction effect between prime and goal state seems to be driven by the anticipation condition. The mean scores within the goal attainment condition demonstrate no significant difference in logo preference between the soft prime (M = 3.64, SD = .24) and the hard prime (M = 3.26, SD = .25). Within the anticipation condition,
participants who touched the soft prime (M = 4.07, SD = .24) showed a significantly higher preference for circular logos then participants who touched the hard prime (M = 2.73, SD = .27). A follow up T-test confirms that the interaction effect is driven by goal anticipation (t (73) = -3.55, p = .00). Figure 4 displays the mean scores per experimental group.
30
To conclude, these findings are contradictory to hypotheses H4b and H4d, since goal anticipation was expected to block the effect of prime on logo preference whereas goal attainment was expected to facilitate this effect.
Need for touch
A median split was performed in order to change the continuous variable into a categorical moderator variable. It was expected that within the attainment condition, respondents with a low autotelic need for touch would be more influenced by haptic sensations on brand personality or logo preference. When conducting three-way between-subjects ANOVA, results failed to reveal significant three-way interaction effects between prime, goal state and need for touch on competence (F(1,148) = .83, p = .36), sincerity (F(1,148) = 2.16, p = .14) or logo preference (F(1,148) = .01, p = .94).
Competence
31
Sincerity
For participants in low autotelic need for touch and within the attainment condition, no significant difference on sincerity was found between participants who touched the soft prime (M = 4.37, SD = .16) and participants who touched the hard prime (M = 4.85, SD = .19). As for participants in low autotelic need for touch and within the anticipation condition, participants who touched the soft prime (M = 4.49, SD = .15) also did not significantly differ from participants that touched the hard prime (M = 4.28, SD = .16). Additionally, across all conditions participants with high autotelic need for touch also did not differ with respect to sincerity.
Logo preference
For participants in low autotelic need for touch and within the attainment condition, no significant difference on logo preference was found between participants who touched the soft prime (M = 3.33, SD = .36) and participants who touched the hard prime (M = 2.92, SD = .43). As for participants in low autotelic need for touch and within the anticipation condition, participants who touched the soft prime (M = 3.91, SD = .33) also did not significantly differ from participants that touched the hard prime (M = 2.63, SD = .35). Additionally, across all conditions participants with high autotelic need for touch also did not differ with respect to their logo preference.
32
Chapter 5: Discussion
The main purpose of this research was to investigate whether haptic sensations of touch influence perceived brand personality. Building on Möller and Herm’s (2013) research, who found that priming with hardness translated to a perceived brand personality of being ‘rugged’, other dimensions by Aaker (1997) were used. More specifically, it was assumed that priming with a hard object would increase the consumers’ perception of a brand to be competent, and that priming with a soft object would increase the consumers’ perception of a brand to be sincere. These hypotheses were tested by letting participants touch either a hard or a soft object (prime), after which they had to rate the brand personality of an (fictitious) innovative lunchbox using Aaker’s (1997) brand personality traits. Goal states were manipulated and need for touch was measured. However, results provided no significant evidence to support these hypotheses. After touching the hard prime, the brand personality of the
lunchbox was not perceived as more competent and after touching the soft prime, the brand personality of the lunchbox was not perceived as more sincere.
A possible explanation for not finding evidence on brand personality dimensions competence and sincerity might be that certain (or all) personality traits belonging to these dimensions were not accessible in participants’ minds (Johar et al., 2005). When this is the case, it is less likely for these participants to use that trait in forming
33
each of the personality traits in the participants’ minds, it remains unclear whether this has biased the results. Perhaps participants could not relate to or understand the meaning of certain traits that belong to competence or sincerity (for example ‘hard working’, ‘leader’, ‘original’ or ‘small-town’) and therefore did not rate the brand personality of the lunchbox as follows. Perhaps language also played a role in the accessibility of the traits in consumers’ minds, since the personality traits were translated from English to Dutch.
In addition, several researchers are critical of the concept of brand personality as developed by Aaker (1997) (e.g. Malik and Naeem, 2013; Azoulay and Kapferar, 2003; George and Anandkumar, 2012). The validity of the concept of brand
34
Another explanation for finding no results could be that the healthy lunchbox was completely fictitious and thus unknown. Participants could not have had previous brand experience, attachment or attitudes towards this product that could influence their perceived brand personality. In Aaker’s (1997) study however, participants rated known brands (e.g. Nike, Guess, Hallmark cards). Möller and Herm (2013) asked their participants to rate the retail store they were in at that moment, so it can be speculated that people who came in knew about this store up front or had been there before. This previous experience or knowledge may have helped participants to link the personality traits to the brand and form a more complete judgment.
Additionally, this research examined whether priming with hardness and softness influenced logo choice. The results show that, as expected, participants that touched the soft prime had a significantly higher preference for circular logos and participants that touched the hard prime had a significantly higher preference for angular logos. This is an important contribution to the work of Jiang et al. (2016), who were the first to found that circular logo’s activated the concept of softness and angular logo’s activated the concept of hardness. The results of this research provide unique
35
Moreover, results show that goal anticipation facilitates the effect of prime on logo preference. This is opposite to our expectations, since goal anticipation was expected to block the effect of priming due to the concept of goal shielding. Based on literature it was expected that the inhibition of alternative goals increase when the focal goal receives more attention (Shah et al., 2002). However, even though the hard and soft primes in this research were not relevant to the participants’ eating goal, the task of rating the innovative lunchbox’s brand personality appeared to evoke an association with the eating goal. Interestingly enough, these results seem to indicate that goal-irrelevant primes become goal-relevant by means of the task participants engage in. Further research is needed to validate these results. The topic of haptic sensations and sensory marketing, especially on consumer behavior and decision-making is an interesting direction for future investigation.
One might wonder why priming with hardness and softness did have a highly
significant effect on logo preference, but did not produce evidence for its influence on brand personality. A reason might be that the connection between circular logo choice and softness is a more simple and intuitive association process (Jiang et al., 2016) than the activation of social perceptions through the notion of touch.
36
evidence was found to support this moderating three-way interaction. Based on literature, haptic information was expected to be more accessible for those with a higher need for touch (Peck and Childers, 2003a), but this effect was also not found.
Research by Ackerman et al. (2010) and Möller and Herm (2013) did not include need for touch in their study designs when finding effects of haptic sensations on social judgment and brand personality. This could be an indication that hardness and softness is activated for all people, irrespective of their need for touch scores. Also, the objects used as primes (a block of wood and a soft piece of blanket) were pretty generic and therefore all people may have produced the same response to these haptic cues.
Limitations and further research
This experiment was performed in a field setting by means of paper surveys, due to the touching of the prime and the manipulation of their goal state. This setting may bring a lot of (visual-, social-, sound-) distractions for the participants while touching the prime or while rating the lunchbox’s brand personality, such as time pressure or social influence. People differ greatly in their ability to concentrate on tasks,
especially when concentration depends on (possibly unknown or unconscious)
37
In addition, Möller and Herm (2013) used the participant’s seats (hard or soft) in a retail setting to activate the metaphor. However, in this research, the participants only came in contact with the hard or soft prime for less than ten seconds. This may have not been enough to activate the metaphorical concept of social (brand personality) perceptions, since this metaphorical association is probably not as intuitive or
accessible as the connection between hardness, softness, circular and angular shapes. Therefore, replicating this research using stronger primes (such as hard or soft seats, or another object they touch during the entire questionnaire) may provide more significant results.
Concluding, investigating the concept of priming with haptic sensations is an
38
References
Aaker, J. L. (1997). Dimensions of brand personality. Journal of Marketing Research, 34(3), 347-356. Aaker, J. (1999). The malleable self: The role of self-expression in persuasion. Journal of Marketing
Research, 36, 45-57.
Aaker, J., Fournier, S., & Brasel, S. A. (2004). When good brands do bad. Journal of Consumer
research, 31(1), 1-16.
Aarts, H., Gollwitzer, P. M., & Hassin, R. R. (2004). Goal contagion: perceiving is for pursuing. Journal of personality and social psychology, 87(1), 23-37.
Ackerman, J. M., Nocera, C. C., & Bargh, J. A. (2010). Incidental haptic sensations influence social judgments and decisions. Science, 328(5986), 1712-1715.
Azoulay, A., & Kapferer, J. N. (2003). Do brand personality scales really measure brand personality? Journal of brand management, 11(2), 143-155.
Berger, J., & Fitzsimons, G. (2008). Dogs on the street, pumas on your feet: How cues in the environment influence product evaluation and choice. Journal of Marketing Research, 45(1), 1-14. Brakus, J. J., Schmitt, B. H., & Zarantonello, L. (2009). Brand experience: what is it? How is it measured? Does it affect loyalty? Journal of marketing, 73(3), 52-68.
Caprara, G. V., Barbaranelli, C., & Guido, G. (2001). Brand personality: How to make the metaphor fit? Journal of economic psychology, 22(3), 377-395.
Custers, R., & Aarts, H. (2005). Positive affect as implicit motivator: on the nonconscious operation of behavioral goals. Journal of personality and social psychology, 89(2), 129-142.
Eelen, J., Dewitte, S., & Warlop, L. (2013). Situated embodied cognition: Monitoring orientation cues affects product evaluation and choice. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 23 (4). 424-433.
Fitzsimons, G. M., Chartrand, T. L., & Fitzsimons, G. J. (2008). Automatic effects of brand exposure on motivated behavior: how Apple makes you “think different”. Journal of consumer research, 35(1), 21-35.
39
Fujita, K., & Trope, Y. (2014). Structured versus unstructured regulation: On procedural mindsets and the mechanisms of priming effects. Social Cognition, 32(Supplement), 68-87.
George, D., & Mallery, P. (2003). SPSS for Windows step by step: A simple guide and reference. Boston: Allyn & Bacon, 11.0 update (4th ed.)
George, J., & Anandkumar, V. (2012). From Aaker to Heere: A review and comparison of brand personality scales. Research Journal of Social Science & Management, 1(3), 30-51
Herr, P. M. (1986). Consequences of priming: Judgment and behavior. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 51(6), 1106-1115.
Higgins, E. T., Bargh, J. A., & Lombardi, W. J. (1985). Nature of priming effects on
categorization. Journal of experimental psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 11(1), 59-69. Holbrook, M., & Hirschman, E. (1982). The Experiential Aspects of Consumption: Consumer Fantasies, Feelings, and Fun. Journal of Consumer Research, 9(2), 132-140.
Janiszewski, C. (1998). The influence of display characteristics on visual exploratory search behavior. Journal of Consumer Research, 25(3), 290-301.
Janiszewski, C., & Wyer, R. S. (2014). Content and process priming: A review. Journal of Consumer
Psychology, 24(1), 96-118.
Jiang, Y., Gorn, G. J., Galli, M., & Chattopadhyay, A. (2016). Does Your Company Have the Right Logo? How and Why Circular-and Angular-Logo Shapes Influence Brand Attribute
Judgments. Journal of Consumer Research, 42(5), 709-726.
Johar, G., Sengupta, J., & Aaker, J. (2005). Two Roads to Updating Brand Personality Impressions: Trait versus Evaluative Inferencing. Journal of Marketing Research, 42(4), 458-469.
Karremans, J. C., Stroebe, W., & Claus, J. (2006). Beyond Vicary’s fantasies: The impact of subliminal priming and brand choice. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 42(6), 792-798.
40
Krishna, A., & Schwarz, N. (2014). Sensory marketing, embodiment, and grounded cognition: A review and introduction. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 24(2), 159-168.
Lederman, S. J., & Klatzky, R. L. (1987). Hand movements: A window into haptic object recognition. Cognitive psychology, 19(3), 342-368.
Lederman, S. J., & Klatzky, R. L. (2009). Haptic perception: A tutorial. Attention, Perception, &
Psychophysics, 71(7), 1439-1459.
Macrae, C. N., & Johnston, L. (1998). Help, I need somebody: Automatic action and inaction. Social
Cognition, 16(4), 400-417.
Malik, E. M., & Naeem, B. (2013). Aaker’s brand personality framework: A critical commentary. World Applied Sciences Journal, 24(7), 895.
Moe, W. W. (2003). Buying, searching, or browsing: Differentiating between online shoppers using in-store navigational clickstream. Journal of consumer psychology, 13(1-2), 29-39.
Möller, J., & Herm, S. (2013). Shaping retail brand personality perceptions by bodily experiences. Journal of Retailing, 89(4), 438-446.
Peck, J., & Childers, T. L. (2003a). Individual differences in haptic information processing: The “need for touch” scale. Journal of Consumer Research, 30(3), 430-442.
Peck, J., & Childers, T. L. (2003b). To have and to hold: The influence of haptic information on product judgments. Journal of Marketing, 67(2), 35-48.
Peck, J., & Wiggins, J. (2006). It just feels good: Customers' affective response to touch and its influence on persuasion. Journal of Marketing, 70(4), 56-69.
Reichard, U. H., Hirai, H., & Barelli, C. (Eds.). (2016). Evolution of Gibbons and Siamang: Phylogeny,
Morphology, and Cognition. New York: Springer.
41
Smeesters, D., Wheeler, S. C., & Kay, A. C. (2010). Indirect prime-to-behavior effects: The role of perceptions of the self, others, and situations in connecting primed constructs to social
behavior. Advances in experimental social psychology, 42, 259-317.
Steenkamp, J. B. E., & Baumgartner, H. (1992). The role of optimum stimulation level in exploratory consumer behavior. Journal of consumer research, 19(3), 434-448.
Streicher, M. C., & Estes, Z. (2015). Touch and go: Merely grasping a product facilitates brand perception and choice. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 29(3), 350-359.
Strahan, E. J., Spencer, S. J., & Zanna, M. P. (2002). Subliminal priming and persuasion: Striking while the iron is hot. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 38(6), 556-568.
Wang, C., Zhu, R. J., & Handy, T. C. (2016). Experiencing haptic roughness promotes empathy. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 26(3), 350-362.
Wee, T. T. T. (2004). Extending human personality to brands: the stability factor. The Journal of Brand
Management, 11(4), 317-330.
Williams, L. E., & Bargh, J. A. (2008). Experiencing physical warmth promotes interpersonal warmth. Science, 322(5901), 606-607.
Xie, J., Lu, Z., Wang, R., & Cai, Z. G. (2016). Remember hard but think softly: Metaphorical effects of hardness/softness on cognitive functions. Frontiers in Psychology, 7:1343.
Zentes, J., Morschett, D., & Schramm-Klein, H. (2008). Brand personality of retailers–an analysis of its applicability and its effect on store loyalty. The International Review of Retail, Distribution and
42
Appendixes
1. Questionnaire
Bedankt voor het meedoen aan dit onderzoek! Het zal maximaal vijf minuten van uw tijd in beslag nemen. Mocht u vragen hebben, stel ze dan gerust aan de interviewer.
Op een schaal van 1 (helemaal niet positief) tot 10 (heel erg positief), hoe positief bent u over het voorwerp dat u heeft aangeraakt?
Op een schaal van 1 (helemaal niet leuk) tot 10 (heel erg leuk), hoe leuk vond u het om dit voorwerp aan te raken?
Innovatief product: Healthy lunchbox
Revolutionaire, moderne lunchbox, perfect om zowel hoofdmaaltijden als tussendoortjes mee te nemen. Om onderweg toch gezond te eten en/of geld te besparen! Deze lunchbox is stijlvol, praktisch en duurzaam.
Eigenschappen:
- Handgemaakt van hoge kwaliteit bamboe - Stevige sluiting zodat hij niet open kan gaan
- Magnetische onderkant zodat de bakjes niet verschuiven
- Bakjes in verschillende formaten, voor verschillende soorten maaltijden - Geschikt voor zowel de magnetron als de vriezer
43
44
In dit onderdeel krijgt u een aantal concept logo's te zien die zijn ontworpen voor de Healthy
46
_____________________________________________________________________
47
Hoe voelde het object wat u aan het begin van deze survey heeft aangeraakt? O Hard
48
Hoe hard voelde het object wat u aan het begin van deze survey heeft aangeraakt?
Hoe zacht voelde het object wat u aan het begin van deze survey heeft aangeraakt?
49
Heeft u al gegeten?
O Ja O Nee
Wat heeft u gegeten?
Wat wilt u gaan eten?
Hoeveel calorieën denkt u dat er ongeveer in uw maaltijd zitten / zaten?
Op een schaal van 1 tot 10, hoeveel honger heeft u op dit moment?
Wat is uw geslacht?
O Vrouw O Man
Wat is uw leeftijd?
50
2. Toestemmingsverklaringformulier (informed consent)
Dit is een kort onderzoek over merkpersoonlijkheid. Er zijn geen risico’s verbonden tijdens deelname aan dit onderzoek.
“Ik weet dat de gegevens en resultaten van het onderzoek alleen anoniem en vertrouwelijk aan derden bekend gemaakt zullen worden. Ik stem geheel vrijwillig in met deelname aan dit onderzoek. Ik behoud me daarbij het recht voor om op elk moment zonder opgaaf van redenen mijn deelname aan dit onderzoek te beëindigen.”
Voor aanvullende informatie over dit onderzoek (op dit moment of in de toekomst) kunt u contact opnemen met: - Sebastian Sadowski, +31 (0)50 363 7235, s.a.sadowski@rug.nl
- Laura Mensink, l.mensink@live.nl
