Touch forbidden, consumption allowed: Counter-intuitive effects of touch restrictions on customers’ purchase behavior

Abstract

PostprintThis is the accepted version of a paper published in Food Quality and Preference. This paper has been peer-reviewed but does not include the final publisher proof-corrections or journal pagination.Citation for the original published paper (version of record):Otterbring, T. (2016) Touch forbidden, consumption allowed: Counter-intuitive effects of touch restrictions on customers' purchase behavior. Food Quality and Preference AbstractIn-store events are increasingly used to provide customers with unique shopping experiences.Although recent studies indicate that such events positively influence customers' purchase intentions and store choice decisions, little is known about how customers respond to various in-store events. This paper investigates one type of in-store event that is frequently used in several food and non-food contexts. Specifically, the study investigates how an in-store product demonstration influences customers' subsequent purchase behavior depending on whether they are restricted or encouraged to touch the products being demonstrated. An initial scenario-based experiment involving 35 undergraduates aimed to examine how people intuitively think that restricting (versus encouraging) touch during an in-store product demonstration would influence their subsequent purchase behavior. A two-way ANOVA with participant gender and experimental condition as the between-subjects factors consistently showed that people hold a lay theory that restricting touch should have a negative impact on the amount of money they spend and the number of products they purchase. A second field experiment involving 126 customers in a retail store aimed to investigate whether this lay belief is consistent with customers' actual purchase behavior. Counter-intuitively, a two-way ANOVA with customer gender and experimental condition (touch restriction, touch encouragement) as the between-subjects factors revealed that restricting touch during an instore product demonstration resulted in significantly more money being spent, a larger number of products being purchased, and more expensive products being purchased. These findings show that consumer lay theory can directly contradict customers' actual purchase behavior.

Smile for a while: the effect of employee-displayed smiling on customer affect and satisfaction

“…Participants with z -scores exceeding an absolute value of three standard deviations from the mean on the main dependent variables ( n =8) were treated as outliers, and were therefore removed from the analyses (cf. Hansen et al , 2013; Otterbring, 2016). The bank branch is one of the largest in Scandinavia, with an annual turnover of more than €40 billion, approximately eight million private clients and 600,000 business clients, 500 bank offices, and 15,000 employees.…”

Old minds, new marketplaces: How evolved psychological mechanisms trigger mismatched food preferences.

“…We believe that such attempts will be politically unpopular, as consumers' food preferences which have developed through thousands of generations, cannot be wiped OLD MINDS, NEW MARKETPLACES 10 out by merely increasing the cost and/or limiting the availability of some products. In fact, higher prices of specific food products may paradoxically make them even more desirable due to the scarcity principle, whereby items that are difficult to access or afford are viewed as more desirable (Lynn, 1991;Otterbring, 2016;Otterbring & Rolschau, 2021). In the worst case, this may create a rebound effect, where people are more inclined to buy these foods.…”

Physical proximity as pleasure or pain? A critical review of employee–customer proximity in sales and services settings

“…For example, rather than greeting customers upon arrival at a retail bank, a bank teller may now be well advised to acknowledge customers nonverbally through a smile, nod, or using eye contact, given the positive effects of such actions on customer satisfaction (Andersson et al 2016 ; Otterbring 2017 ; Söderlund, and Rosengren 2008 ) coupled with customers’ potential fear of infection from proximal verbal acts (i.e., others’ open mouths) that may easily transmit viruses. Moreover, the multiple messages that ask customers not to touch products before knowing exactly what to buy—while meant to minimize the spread of infectious diseases—may paradoxically lead to compensatory responses that ultimately increase not only touching, but also purchasing (Brehm 1966 ; Clee and Wicklund 1980 ; Otterbring 2016 ), given that restricting customers’ freedom to act in a certain way makes the restricted action more desirable, as postulated by reactance theory (Brehm and Brehm 2013 ; Otterbring and Rolschau 2021 ). Similarly, employees in sales and service settings may feel confined if mandated to wear face masks or glass shields to mitigate the risk of infection for themselves and their customers.…”