What’s In A Nonverbal Object Caress? Study Addresses Affectionate Stoking In Sales
Christopher Philip
Little kids hug, squeeze and stroke their teddy bears, a gambler kisses a pair of dice, a man tenderly washes his beloved sports car. But what does seemingly affectionate touching really mean when it is done on an inanimate object? What does it mean in sales? Is a customer that strokes our touches a product actually feeling more attached to it and more likely to buy it?
Researchers Rhonda Hadi and Ana Valenzuela have published a study in the Journal of Consumer Psychology in which they propose that positive meaning can be transferred toward a product by mere physical actions.
They take this idea one step further by stripping away all other intentions. Just the touching of an object, even when people don’t consciously feel anything, shapes how our emotions, beliefs, and attitudes are created about that object.
They aren’t alone. Previous research has shown that people prefer objects that they have touched, while simultaneously dislike objects touched by others. Other studies have shown that touch affects mood surrounding an object as well as other attributes about the product.
“Such findings,” say the researchers in their paper “are supportive of embodied perspectives of psychology, which hold that higher order cognitions and emotions are based in, or scaffolded upon, more primitive perceptual systems.”
In other words, simple touch, which is a primitive process (unlike, say, calculus), is more than just the body making contact with an object, rather the brain is being influenced by the object through touch. Simple touch affects brain processes much higher up in cognition.
“Much of the literature on embodiment,” say the researchers “suggests that some gestures are so closely linked to certain thoughts and emotions that the mere execution of the gesture has a consequent impact on an individual’s thinking or feeling.”
For example, nodding in agreement primes the brain to be more positive, while sitting upright produces feelings of confidence, pride, and self-efficacy.
In the current study, the researchers aimed to measure the affect of “affectionate gestures” on objects. These include hugging and stroking.
The researchers hypothesized that the mere execution of an affectionate gesture would be enough to produce emotional attachment and thus enhance product evaluation and desirability.
However, the researchers propose limits to the effects. They say that while people habitually ascribe human-like characteristics to objects, “anthropomorphization”, they are unlikely to do so if the specific object or product carries few human-like characteristics inherently.
Secondly, they presumed that the characteristics of people will also affect their reaction to attachment such that more “lonely” people will tend to attach more to objects through touch as they have an inherent need to bond that isn’t met otherwise.
In the first experiment, a product, paper towels, either had a human face printed on it or no face. This provided the human-element required to satisfy the priming for anthropomorphism. Ostensibly, the subjects were told that they were being evaluated on their impressions of moving a product from one location to another as this effect is common in all sales. To prime the subjects further, an image was provided to them which silently gave them instructions on how to carry the object. In one condition, the product was shown to be carried in one hand, and in the other, hugged.
The results showed that only when the product had human characteristics, a human face, did the affectionate gesture affect purchase intention. When the face was absent, no effect was found. They also found that bodily approach, that is, moving closer to an object had a much more profound effect on intentions to purchase. This supports previous findings. Additionally, when the product was not anthropomorphized, hugging the object produced worse outcomes that simply carrying it.
In the second experiment, subjects were initially primed for loneliness. This was done with the help of a survey which guided them toward the feelings. At the completion of the questionnaire, they were moved to another experiment and were told it was “unrelated to the first.” Here, they were instructed to evaluate the ease with which products can be moved from one location to another. Again, they were to hug or handle the paper towel as they moved them.
When subjects were made to feel lonely, the same effect was found; they evaluated the product more favourably when they hugged it.
In the third experiment, subjects were instructed through a drawing on how to touch a clock that either hand human features – a set of eyes, or not. In one condition, the subjects were instructed to stroke the object.
Again, the researchers found that stroking improved product evaluations when they had human-like characteristics.
Drawing Conclusions
Over three studies, embodied affection was shown to enhance positive feelings toward products. However, these effects were only found when the objects carried human-like characteristic.
The researchers note that when product interaction through anthropomorphization, that the product be linked to some sort of positive exchange or positive experience.
Also, the effects were largely mediated by feelings of loneliness and quite likely, personality as well so the effects are strongest with those who have specific voids in their lives which could potentially be filled with consumption.
When human-like characteristics are not present, using touch and affection may produce a negative outcome on product evaluations.
Resources
Hadi, R., and Valenzuela, A., A meaningful embrace: Contingent effects of embodied cues of affection. Journal of Consumer Psychology. 2019. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jcps.2019.02.001
Argo, J. J., Dahl, D. W., & Morales, A. C. (2006). Consumer contamination: How consumers react to products touched by others. Journal of Marketing, 70(April), 81–94.
Briñol, P., Petty, R. E., & Wagner, B. (2019). Body posture effects on self-evaluation: A self-validation approach. European Journal of Social Psychology, 39, 1053–1064.
Krishna, A., & Morrin, M. (2008). Does touch affect taste? The perceptual transfer of product container haptic cues. Journal of Consumer Research, 34(6), 807–818.
Peck, J., & Shu, S. B. (2019). The effect of mere touch on perceived ownership. Journal of Consumer Research, 36(Oct), 434–447.
Peck, J., & Wiggins, J. (2006). It just feels good: Consumers’ affective response to touch and its influence on persuasion. Journal of Marketing, 70(Oct), 56–69.
Roberts, T. -A., & Arefi-Afshar, Y. (2007). Not all who stand tall are proud: Gender differences in the proprioceptive effects of upright posture. Cognition and Emotion, 21, 714–727.
Williams, L. E., Huang, J. Y., & Bargh, J. A. (2019). The scaffolded mind: Higher mental processes are grounded in early experience of the physical world. European Journal of Social Psychology, 39, 1257–1267.
Wells, G. L., & Petty, R. E. (1980). The effects of head movement on persuasion: Compatibility and incompatibility of responses. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 1, 219–230.
Learn More Starting Today!
Learn the basics of body language quickly and easily by taking one of our tailor-made video courses!
Short on cash? Then read an ENTIRE comprehensive book on body language – it’s totally FREE!
Which body language video course will you start with?
1. “The Secrets of Body Language”