If I can virtually touch it, I'll buy it - Vortrag GOR19.pdf

Melanie Bender & Christian Bosau
Rheinische Fachhochschule Köln
If I can virtually touch it, I’ll buy it? Analysing the
influence of (non) interactive product presentations in
the online-grocery sector
Contact:
melaniebender@gmx.de; christian.bosau@rfh-koeln.de
General Online Research Conference
GOR 19
6 to 8 March 2019, TH Köln –
University of Applied Sciences, Cologne, Germany
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)
Suggested citation: Bender, M., & Bosau, C. (2019). If I can virtually touch it, I’ll buy it? Analysing the influence of (non) interactive product
presentations in the online-grocery sector. General Online Research (GOR) Conference, Cologne.

Melanie Bender & Prof. Dr. Christian Bosau
General Online Research (GOR) Conference 2019
could imagine
buying fresh food
online in the future
Online grocery retail
3
• The relevance of the online grocery retail has increased significantly in recent years - both
nationally and internationally (e.g. Nielsen, 2017; ATKearney, 2015 & 2016; EHI, 2015; Oliver Wyman, 2014)
23%
growth plus
in 2016
40%
are planning to
shop online in the
next 12 months
60%
consider it beneficial
that one can order
anytime
10%
have ordered up to
20 times online
groceries within six
months in 2017
9%
criticize the missing
testability of food in
an online shop
63%
(Heinick & Mayntz, IFH, 2017) (pwc, 2018) (BVDW, 2018a)
(BVDW, 2018b)
(trnd & Territory, 2018a)
(trnd & Territory, 2018b)

Status Quo of online shops
4

• Activation through mental schemes e.g. by motoric
movement
• Examples: Products are held in hand, or, on the left, a
typical eating action is displayed (e.g. eating something)
• Studies show that the purchase intention can be
significantly increased by embodiment
Embodiment
5
Embodiment definition (consumer psychology)
(e.g. Elder & Krishna, 2012, Genshow, 2013, Felser, 2015)
(Advertisement of REWE, 2016-2018)

General Online Research (GOR) Conference 2019 6
Link
Examples for 360-degree-rotations
Link

Influence factor “presentation“
7
Can representations such as "Embodiment" and "Rotation" increase the intention
to buy groceries in the online food retail?
e.g. De Vries, Jager, Tijssen,, & Zandstra (2018); Elder & Krishna (2012); Li, Daugherty, & Biocca,(2002); Overmars & Poels, (2015)

Influence factor “presentation“(photo)
8
Example for the product “Apple Elstar“, presentation: Photo

Influence factor “presentation“
9
Photo (n= 165) Embodiment (n= 168) Rotation (n= 167)
Photo (n= 165) Embodiment (n= 168) Rotation (n= 167)
Noodles Fusilli
Apple Elstar
Pretest: Testing the shop design and instructions of the rotation in the center of Cologne (N= 37)
Link
<
<
<
<

Influence factor “self-rotation“
10
Higher interaction through “self-
rotation“?
Natural user behavior?
Current studies about rotations are laboratory
experiments = every one had to rotate products.
Rotate product or just watch?
e.g. De Vries, Jager, Tijssen,, & Zandstra (2018) Li, Daugherty, & Biocca,(2002); Overmars & Poels, (2015)

Influence factor “product“
11
Is a durable product better than a fresh product in
terms of product assessment?

Influence factor “need for touch“
12
Can presentations such as „Embodiment“ or „Rotation“ help to ease
the decision of purchase intention?
Need for Touch =
Characteristic that describes the need for touch when shopping
Subdimension Instrumental Need for Touch =
Touch/haptic is used as decision-making aid
e.g. Peck & Childers (2003); Yazdanparast & Spears (2013); Lichters, Kühn, & Sarstedt (2016)

Involvement
(adapted of Zaichkowsky,1994)
Tangibility Fun Quality Purchase intention Price acceptance
(adapted of Elder, & Krishna,
2012; Overmars & Poels, 2015)
(own scale) (adapted by Lichters, Kühn und
Sarstedt, 2016)
(adapted by Lichters, Kühn und
Sarstedt, 2016)
(adapted by Carvaljo & Luna,
2014)
Experimental 3x2x2 research design
Independent variables (IV’s)
Dependent variables (DV’s)
Presentation
(Photo/Embodiment/
Rotation)
Product
(fresh/durable)
Inst. Need for Touch
(high/ low)
Repeated measurement
Consideration of the
covariate perspective
taking!
Split into self-rotation
and no self-rotation
14

Recruitment via REWE Payback Online Panel
50.6%
49.4%
Gender
Age
N= 500
N= 500
Device usage
N= 500
Employee 60.4%
Housewife/-man 8.0%
Self-employment 7.8%
Student 7.2%
Official 5.2%
Retired persons 3.4%
Unemployed/ job searching 2.0%
In training 1.8%
Pupil 0.6%
Dual student 0.6%
Pensioner 0.6%
Other 2.4%
Job
N= 500
18-29
30-39
40-49
50-60
24.6%
21.2%
24.2%
30%
Household decisionmakers
Computer Tablet Phablet Smartphone
41.4% 6.8% 0.8% 51%
Without touch With touch
N= 500
45.8% 54.2%
Alone responsible
Together with at least
one other person
responsible
Who is mainly responsible for buying groceries in your household?

Main effect presentation
(N= 500)
Analysis with RM-ANCOVA via SPSS
Covariate: Perspective taking
Seven-point likert scale for all DV’s (shortened here)
Means, Basis n= 165-168
Mean
(p ≤0.001; f= 0.43)
= Involvement
= Tangibility
= Fun
= Quality
= Purchase
intention
(p ≤0.001; f= 0.28)
(p ≤0.001; f= 0.34)
(p ≤0.001; f= 0.28)
(p ≤0.001; f= 0.23)
Legend
• The rotation is rated best for all dependent variables
• Contrary to expectations embodiment is equivalent or even worse than the photo
Influence of presentation
Hypotheses partially
accepted
= significant main effect
The rotation is rated best out of all presentations

About 50% did rotate the products
18
No self-rotation
Self-rotation
52.7%
Basis: n= 167
Self-disclosure as well as adjustment of paradata.
Did you rotate the apple/noodles by yourself?
For the further calculations with the RM-ANCOVA, those participants were selected who rotated (n = 69) or did not rotate (n = 60) both products due to
repeated measurement.
47.3%
Rotation usage (n= 167)

Photo: n= 165; Embodiment: n= 168; self-rotation: n=
69; no self-rotation: n= 60
19
Main effect presentation (split of rotation)
(N= 462)
Mean
(p ≤0.001; f= 0.41)
(p ≤0.001; f= 0.31)
(p ≤0.001; f= 0.36)
(p ≤0.001; f= 0.26)
(p ≤0.001; f= 0.25)
Legend
• The split of rotation into self-rotation and no self-rotation reveals that for purchase intention the self-
rotation is the best presentation form and significant better than the other presentations
Influence of rotation
accepted
Difference significant for
purchase intention, marginally
significant for fun!
Unequal group sizes for presentation!
Especially the self-rotation seems to be a significant
driver for a better product evaluation
= Involvement
= Tangibility
= Fun
= Quality
= Purchase
intention

Quality
(N= 462)
20
• In the case of self-rotation, there are clear differences, especially in terms of quality - the apple is rated better
• In addition, there are no significant product differences
Mean
Interaction effect product x presentation (incl. split of rotation)
(p ≤ 0.001)
(p ≤ 0.05)
= Apple = Noodles
(p ≤0.001; f= 0.19)
= significant product differences = significant interaction effect Basis: n= 60-168
The quality of the apple is rated better than quality of
noodles for self-rotation

Influential factor „need for touch“
21
Can presentations such as „Embodiment“ or „Rotation“ help to ease
the decision of purchase intention?
Need for Touch =
Characteristic that describes the need for touch when shopping
Subdimension Instrumental Need for Touch =
Touch/haptic is used as decision-making aid
e.g. Peck & Childers (2003); Yazdanparast & Spears (2013); Lichters,, Kühn, & Sarstedt (2016)

Interaction effect instr. NFT x presentation for purchase intention
(N= 500)
Mean
Legend
• There is no approximation of the two NFT groups
• Across both groups the orations leads to a better product assessment
Influence of instrumental Need for Touch
All hypotheses rejected
(p ≥0.800; f= 0.03)
Involvement
Tangibility
Fun
Quality
Purchase intention
(p ≥0.400; f= 0.05)
(p ≥0.900; f= 0.00)
(p ≥0.600; f= 0.04)
(p ≥0.700; f= 0.03)
Price acceptance (p ≥0.300; f= 0.07)
= Low instr. NFT = High instr. NFT
Interaction effects of all DV‘s
(p ≥0.050; f= 0.11)
Tangibility
Fun
Purchase intention
(p ≥0.050; f= 0.11)
(p ≥0.001; f= 0.19)
Main effects for instr. NFT
Exemplary
presentation, similar for
fun and tangibility
(n= 258) (n= 242)
The rotation leads to a better product assessment
for both NFT groups

accepted
23
(N= 462)
Seven-point likert scale for all DV’s
(shortened here)
Mean
Legend
• In terms of purchase intention it can be tendentially seen that for self-rotation is almost no difference for
both NFT groups
Influence of instrumental Need for Touch
(p ≥0.500; f= 0.07)
Involvement
Tangibility
Fun
Quality
Purchase intention
(p ≥0.400; f= 0.08)
(p ≥0.800; f= 0.04)
(p ≥0.500; f= 0.06)
(p ≥0.500; f= 0.07)
Price acceptance (p ≥0.500; f= 0.07)
Interaction effects of all DV‘s
Purchase intention (p ≥0.001; f= 0.15)
Main effect for instr. NFT
(n= 236) (n= 226)
Approach of the groups,
even though the
interaction effect is not
significant!
Although not significant: In the case of self-rotation
both NFT groups are approaching each other!

Mean
2,0
2,5
3,0
3,5
4,0
4,5
5,0
5,5
Foto Embodiment Selbstrotation Keine
Selbstrotation
24
(N= 462)
Legend
(n= 236) (n= 226)
This seems to be especially the case for the noodles
Apple Noodles
(p ≥0.18; f= 0.010)

Conclusion
26
Rotation
Embodiment
Products
The presentation of the rotation is best suited for the online shop presentation, but the ratio of self-rotation
(~ 50% rotated, 50% not rotated in this study) should be considered!
Embodiment is not recommended according to this study, it seems to lead disgust.
There are hardly any product differences. Only for quality is to be noted that the apple works particularly
better in the self-rotation in comparison to the noodles!
Instr.
Need for Touch
For purchase intention it can be noted that self-rotation seems to seems to act as surrogate for people
with a high instrumental Need for Touch, especially for the noodles.

Ideas for future studies
27
Use of a
„neutral“ sample
“Live“-test regarding user
behavior at the shop
Use of two or more axes
Usability-test regarding
rotation (Widgets etc.)
Taking other factors into
account
(e.g. discounts, test seals, etc.)
Testing of other product
groups

Example “Yihaodian“ in China
28
They already use many
different presentations (e.g.
videos, embodiment,
photos,…) Link

Contact data:
Melanie Bender
B.Sc. & M.Sc. Business Psychology
melaniebender@gmx.de
Prof. Dr. Christian Bosau
Dipl.-Psych. & Master of HRM & IR
christian.bosau@rfh-koeln.de
Thanks for your attention!
Rheinische Fachhochschule Köln
Schaevenstraße 1a–b
50676 Köln
www.RFH-Koeln.de
In cooperation with:

If I can virtually touch it, I'll buy it - Vortrag GOR19.pdf

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to If I can virtually touch it, I'll buy it - Vortrag GOR19.pdf

Similar to If I can virtually touch it, I'll buy it - Vortrag GOR19.pdf (20)

More from Christian Bosau

More from Christian Bosau (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

If I can virtually touch it, I'll buy it - Vortrag GOR19.pdf