Methods in Business Research

Running Head: Individual Differences In Haptic Information Processing: The Need For Touch Scale
Institute of Business Management (IoBM)
Methods in Business Research

Individual Differences In Haptic Information Processing: The Need For Touch Scale
Submitted to:
Submitted by:
Professor Syed Mohammad Fahim

Salman Khaliq
17817
Farhan Khan
16130
Rubab Thawerani 15373
Table of Contents
Abstract...................................................................................................................... 3
INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................... 4
Literature Review.................................................................................................... 4
Analysis & Discussion................................................................................................. 5
Limitations............................................................................................................... 7
References.................................................................................................................. 8
Abstract
This study is conducted to measure individual differences in preference for haptic information.
The study mainly focuses on 12-item NFT scale consists of autotelic and instrumental
dimensions. These factors, mainly based on the questions asking about the touch desire of people
while shopping or browsing the internet for online shopping. The study is very important
because it gives the actual idea that why people in Pakistan are still avoiding to shop through the
internet. A descriptive research study design was applied to see that how the need for touch
impacts on the decision to buy the product The sample size was collected from 438 respondents
to apply the study on the population, which could be the source of collecting the primary data
and also to get some key information that was needed for this study. Simple random samples
were collected for the purpose of checking and analyzing the impact of customers attitude
towards the need for touch before buying the product and how much the consumer could trust for
the quality of product without actually touching the product. The results of the study indicated
that the there are many other factors that play a key role in purchasing the product.
INTRODUCTION
Consumers behavior and decision-making process identify that consumers decide to buy
products based on different criteria, such as brand name, quality, cost, relevant attributes, etc.One
base of assessment is touching the products. Touching is a means of obtaining information since
the tactile sense helps consumer decision-making by providing sensory forms of pertinent data.
For instance, consumers confidence in a product may differ depending on whether a shopper has
the chance to touch and study it. In summation, a consumers attitude towards a product would
be more positive if he/she receives the chance to touch it and experience pleasurable sensory
feedback before purchase for example by rubbing a soft leather coat (Peck, 2003). The touch
process can influence the purchase decision by providing the consumers with better certainty
about and familiarity with the product.
Literature Review
For centuries, people have recognized the importance of sense of touch. Aristotle
believed that the touch mediates every type of touch perception even vision. As a first step in
exploring haptic information processing, John Peck and Terry L. Childer conducted a research in
2003 namely Individual Differences In Haptic Information Processing: The Need For Touch
Scale for the development of Need for Touch (NFT) scale to measure individual differences.
This study involved two factors, namely the instrumental factor factor and the autotelic factor.
Autotelic NFT was associated with seeking sensory stimulation, fun, and enjoyment, and is
intrinsically motivated.
Touching objects were hedonically oriented and therefore mostly unintended,
spontaneous, and automatic (Peck & Childers, 2003a, 2003b). For instrumental NFT, the
processing was more controlled and conscious. The hypothesis were tested by conducting seven
studies. Initially, Peck and Childers defined NFT as a preference for the extraction and
utilization of information obtained through the haptic system). It meant that using the haptic
system consumers could get product information and use it for making judgments. The NFT
construct was based on motivational versus ability differences among individuals. It suggests two
factors that underline the construct.
In the year 2007, another research was conducted, namely Haptic Information
Processing: Assessing the Need for Touch Scale by Valter Afonso Vieira, Claudio Vaz Torres and
Rogerio Gava. The study analyzed the consumers necessitate of touching, i.e. Need for Touch
(NFT). The sample size was 171 people. There were six research studies conducted suggested in
order to assess the nomological, convergent and discriminant validity of the construct.
The outcomes suggested that four assumptions were supported in the predict direction.
The results also found the dual characterization of NFT as multi-dimensional construct with two
underlying factors, Instrumental and Autotelic Touch. In addition, the outcomes also found that
the NFT Autotelic dimension showed its role as moderator variable, given that when the
consumer has a higher NFT autotelic tendency; the experiential motivation for shopping plays a
more important role of impulsive motivation.
In the year 2010, another research was conducted by the Mandy Nussbaum, Andreas
Voss, Karl Christoph Klauer, and Tilmann Betsch in the Germany, namely Assessing Individual
Differences in the Use of Haptic Information Using a German Translation of the Need for Touch
Scale. There were two studies conducted. Study one tested the German version of Peck and
Childers (2003b) NFT scale. The 14-item NFT scale can be divided into two highly reliable
factors, that is, autotelic and instrumental NFT.
Results from two moderator analyses confirm the construct validity: As expected, NFT
moderated the effect of presence versus absence of haptic information on confidence and
frustration in product evaluation. Consumers higher in NFT felt more confident and were less
frustrated when they could integrate haptic information. Study 2 investigated whether NFT has
spontaneous, noninstrumental influence. For this purpose, we examined the autotelic component
of NFT which was associated with unintended, spontaneous, and automatic processing of haptic
information (Peck & Childers, 2003a, 2003b), and we used a task for which haptic information
should be irrelevant.
In the year 2013, Manzano, Ferran and Gavilan conducted a research in Spain, namely
Consumer Need for Touch and Multichannel Purchasing Behavior. This paper firstly analyzed
the relationship between the consumers need for touch and the channels used during search and
purchase stages. The focus was the fashion industry, characterized by offering highly hedonic
products, where great importance was placed in the sense of touch. The study indicated that
autotelic NFT became delimited by and subordinated to, the instrumental one, as in the
configuration of the overall NFT, higher levels always involve a high instrumental dimension
without which they did not occur.
The instrumental NFT dimension defined both the online purchase, with its lowest
values, and the use of physical channels, as it has values as high as those related to the autotelic
one. The instrumental NFT dimension prevailed over the autotelic one, both for goal-oriented
and experiential consumers. Regarding multichannel shopping, those consumers who searched or
buy on the Internet show a lower level of NFT, both overall and in its two dimensions, compared
to those consumers who choose physical channels. This was particularly noticeable in relation to
the purchase phase.
METHODOLOGY
Need for touch is defined as a preference for the extraction and utilization of information
obtained through the haptic system (Peck and Childers, 2003). NFT is a motivational-based
construct and compromised of 2 dimensions or factors. 1) an instrumental factor reflecting
aspects of pre-purchase touch with a salient purchase goal and 2) an autotelic factor that views
touch as an end unto itself, hedonic in nature (i.e., touching is fun, sensory stimulating, arousing
and enjoyable.) (Jarvis, 1996).
NFT is a two factor scale. Both factors instrumental and autotelic comprise 6 items each,
scored on -3 to +3 strongly disagree to strongly agree (5 point scale). The research paper with
which we were provided with used seven studies to study the nature and buying behavior of
individuals (Peck, 2003).
Scale: 5 Point Likert Scale
Sampling Technique: Convenience Sampling Technique

Item: 12-Item Scale (Questianare)
Sample Size: 438
We chose convenience sampling method to collect the data and conducted an e-survey on
our topic. Convenience sampling is a type of Non-Probabilistic sampling. The advantage of nonprobability sampling is that it is a convenient way for researchers to assemble a sample with little
or no cost and/or for those research studies that do not require representativeness of the
population. Probability samples can be rigorously analyzed to determine possible bias and likely
error (Workman, 2007).
Non-probability sampling does not provide this advantage but is useful for researchers to
achieve particular objectives of the research at hand. Convenience sampling includes participants
who are readily available and agree to participate in a study. Convenience sampling is often
called accidental sampling (Dawson, 1990).
The construct includes items which covers demographic information of individuals as
well as their buying behavior. The sample size was (n=438). We applied cluster sampling
analysis method on the data. Cluster sampling, on the surface, is very similar to stratified
sampling in that survey population members are divided into unique, non overlapping groups
prior to sampling. These groups are referred to as clusters instead of strata because they are
naturally occurring groupings such as schools, households, or geographic units.
The hypothesis that we developed for testing is:
Ho = There is no difference in individual haptic information processing
H1 = There is an individual difference in haptic information processing
H2 = Male are prone in haptic information processing as compare to females.
H3 = Education has no significant differences in haptic information processing
H4 = There is a significant relationship between age & haptic information processing.
H5= Marrital status has a significant impact on haptic information processing.
From the results we concluded that we reject the null hypothesis and accept all the
alternate hypothesis because it has significant relationship with marital status, area of residence
but education has no such major impact in individual differences of haptic information
processing.
Analysis & Discussion

Frequencies
Table 1
Notes
Output Created
20-APR-2015 22:39:22
Comments
Input
Data
C:\Users\farha_000\Desktop\MBR Output files\NFT.sav
Active Dataset
DataSet2
Filter
<none>
Weight
<none>
Split File
<none>
N of Rows in
438
Working Data File

Missing Value
Handling
Definition of
Missing
Cases Used
User-defined missing values are treated as missing.

Statistics are based on all cases with valid data.
FREQUENCIES VARIABLES=NFT1 NFT2 NFT3 NFT4 NFT5 NFT6 NFT7
NFT8 NFT9 NFT10 NFT11 NFT12 G Ed Area Age MS MI CS
/STATISTICS=STDDEV VARIANCE SKEWNESS SESKEW KURTOSIS
Syntax
SEKURT
/HISTOGRAM NORMAL
/ORDER=ANALYSIS.
Resources
Processor Time
00:00:03.55
Elapsed Time
00:00:04.84
Table 2
Statistics
I
I feel
If I
plac more cant feel

e
comf
mor ortab
e
le
trust purc
Th The Wa Tou
en
find nd
cati
of
ari nth ren
touc mor onl
are
ng
wal
to
wal
my
on
Resi
tal
ha
man thr
pro king tou
kin
self
prod con wa
oug duc
uct
fide
pro
nt
to
duct stor can
ga
the
ma ma
ucts
prod
stor
kin
that
uct
e, I
g a sur
can
after
woul
be
physi
ke
ts
stor pro stor
chi
es,
duc
es,
ng
it is
ts
all
that
fun. imp eve like
kin
can
orta n if
to
ds
du only
nt
tou
of
hel
for
hav
ch
pro
me
to
no
se
afte
ct
buy
tou
is
if I
chi
han inte pro
of
den
St Inc Sta
ce
at om tus
us
ts
in
tou
wo coul
ng
dle
ntio duc stor
purc
ng
chi
rth
all
all
n of
has
the
ng
bu
han
kin
kind buy
e.
prod
yin
dle
ds
s of
ing
uct
pro
the
of
pro
the
duc
is
pro
duc
m.
to
befo duc
ts.
re
ly
lots duc
hasi
act
er
g in tou
es,
ld
be
ch
pur e a wou
cha pro
in
avoi
befo minin purc

g it.
M Mo Cur
like
prod
re
Ge Edu Area A
en
in
exa
chi
hasin
hed
Wh
lkin
in
touc cally
re
Wh
ts.
es.
ts
ual purc
ly
has
tou
e.
ch
it
N
Val
id
438
438
438 438
43
8
438 438 438 438 438 438 438
43
8
438
438
4 43 438
3
8
43
8
Mi
ssi
ng
Std.
1.10
1.29
1.11
Deviation
Variance
Skewnes
s
1.22
1.66 1.23
.754
.703 .268
1.2 1.0 1.14
1.1
1.1
1.0
1.2
1.1
1.2
43
27
51
49
36
51
39
87
1.5 1.1 1.31
1.2
1.3
1.1
1.5
1.3
1.5
45
71
25
01
29
24
35
.
512
82
Skewnes
.117
.117
.117
.
117
24 .609
0
Kurtosis
-.678
-.72 -.90
8
Std.
Error of
.233
.233 .233
Kurtosis
.
233
-.2 -.01 -.00
-.1 -.35
-.5
17
55
35
.
11 .117
7
s
-.13
Std.
Error of
-.8 -.91 -.64
25
21
.
23 .233
3
117 117 117 117 117 117
-.7 -.25
5
1.0
-.77
-.6
76
89
233 233 233 233 233 233
.
49 .813
4
0
.
24 .662
33
9
9
2.54
6.50
2
7
1.
-.44
6
.394
11 .117 .117
7
1.8
97
-.20
7
1.32
2
23 .233 .233
3
I place more trust in products that can be touched before purchase.

Valid
SA
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
78
17.8
17.8
17.8
203
46.3
46.3
64.2
76
17.4
17.4
81.5
9
.
17
5
2.4
51
93
5
.
11
11
8 73
8
65
1. 1.0
1 -.2
1.5
5.
Table 3
Percent
Frequency Table
Frequency
1
7
41
2 31
6
.
08
9
.
70
9
.
50
3
.
47
8
.
117
-.9
19
23
23
23
54
12.3
12.3
93.8
SD
27
6.2
6.2
100.0
438
100.0
100.0
Total
Table 4
I feel more comfortable purchasing a product after physically examining it.
Frequency
SA
Percent
79
Valid Percent
18.0
18.0
Cumulative Percent
18.0
A
197
45.0
45.0
63.0
If I cant touch a product in the store, I would avoid purchasing the product
N
52
11.9
11.9
74.9
Valid
D
49
11.2
11.2
86.1
Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
SD
61
13.9
13.9
100.0
Valid
Total
SA
438
43
100.0
9.8
100.0
9.8
9.8
149
34.0
34.0
43.8
121
27.6
27.6
71.5
89
20.3
20.3
91.8
SD
36
8.2
8.2
100.0
438
100.0
100.0
Total
Table 6
I feel more confident making a purchase after touching a product
Frequency
SA
Valid
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
65
14.8
14.8
14.8
193
44.1
44.1
58.9
48
11.0
11.0
69.9
86
19.6
19.6
89.5
SD
46
10.5
10.5
100.0
438
100.0
100.0
Total
Table 5
Table 7
The only way to make sure a product is worth buying is to actually touch it
Frequency
SA
Valid
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
34
7.8
7.8
7.8
147
33.6
33.6
41.3
126
28.8
28.8
70.1
95
21.7
21.7
91.8
SD
36
8.2
8.2
100.0
438
100.0
100.0
Total
Table 8
There are many products that I would only buy if I could handle them before purchase.
Frequency
SA
Valid
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
52
11.9
11.9
11.9
186
42.5
42.5
54.3
93
21.2
21.2
75.6
71
16.2
16.2
91.8
SD
35
8.0
8.0
99.8
.2
.2
100.0
438
100.0
100.0
7
`
Percent
Total
Table 9
Walking through stores, I cant help touching all kinds of products
Frequency
Valid
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
SA
28
6.4
6.4
6.4
96
21.9
21.9
28.3
111
25.3
25.3
53.7
146
33.3
33.3
87.0
57
13.0
13.0
100.0
438
100.0
100.0
SD
Total
Table 10
Touching products can be fun.
Frequency
SA
Valid
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
32
7.3
7.3
7.3
115
26.3
26.3
33.6
117
26.7
26.7
60.3
118
26.9
26.9
87.2
56
12.8
12.8
100.0
438
100.0
100.0
SD
Total
Table 11
When walking in stores, it is important for me to handle all kinds of products.
Frequency
SA
Valid
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
43
9.8
9.8
9.8
117
26.7
26.7
36.5
149
34.0
34.0
70.5
106
24.2
24.2
94.7
23
5.3
5.3
100.0
438
100.0
100.0
SD
Total
Table 12
I like to touch products even if I have no intention of buying them.
Frequency
SA
Valid
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
37
8.4
8.4
8.4
110
25.1
25.1
33.6
84
19.2
19.2
52.7
132
30.1
30.1
82.9
75
17.1
17.1
100.0
438
100.0
100.0
SD
Total
Table 13
When walking in stores, I like to touch lots of products.
Frequency
Valid
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
SA
38
8.7
8.7
8.7
85
19.4
19.4
28.1
102
23.3
23.3
51.4
162
37.0
37.0
88.4
51
11.6
11.6
100.0
438
100.0
100.0
SD
Total
Table 14
I find myself touching all kinds of products in stores.
Frequency
Valid
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
SA
43
9.8
9.8
9.8
56
12.8
12.8
22.6
93
21.2
21.2
43.8
150
34.2
34.2
78.1
96
21.9
21.9
100.0
438
100.0
100.0
SD
Total
Table 15
Gender
Frequency
Valid
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
255
58.2
58.2
58.2
183
41.8
41.8
100.0
Total
438
100.0
100.0
Table 16
Education
Frequency
Valid
Percent
25
5.7
Valid Percent
5.7
Cumulative Percent
5.7
CA
G
95
21.7
21.7
27.4
219
50.0
50.0
77.4
99
22.6
22.6
100.0
438
100.0
100.0
PG
Total
Table 17
Area of Residence
Frequency
Valid
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
135
30.8
30.8
30.8
GJ
70
16.0
16.0
46.8
GI
22
5.0
5.0
51.8
30
6.8
6.8
58.7
59
13.5
13.5
72.1
34
7.8
7.8
79.9
35
8.0
8.0
87.9
53
12.1
12.1
100.0
438
100.0
100.0
Total
Table 18
Age
Frequency
Valid
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
U2
178
40.6
40.6
40.6
196
44.7
44.7
85.4
40
9.1
9.1
94.5
18
4.1
4.1
98.6
O6
.9
.9
99.5
.5
.5
100.0
438
100.0
100.0
Total
Table 19
Marital Status
Frequency
Valid
Percent
99
22.6
Valid Percent
22.6
Cumulative Percent
22.6
339
77.4
77.4
Total
438
100.0
100.0
100.0
Table 20
Monthly Income
Frequency
Valid
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
A10
189
43.2
43.2
43.2
A25
98
22.4
22.4
65.5
A50
64
14.6
14.6
80.1
M80
29
6.6
6.6
86.8
M100
26
5.9
5.9
92.7
M150
32
7.3
7.3
100.0
Total
438
100.0
100.0
Table 21
Current Status
Frequency
Valid
`
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
191
43.6
43.6
43.6
182
41.6
41.6
85.2
PRO
65
14.8
14.8
100.0
Total
438
100.0
100.0
Histogram
Figure 1
Percent
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4
Figure 5
Figure 6
Figure 7
Figure 8
Figure 9
Figure 10
Figure 11
Figure 12
Figure 13
The graph illustrates that males are prone towards haptic information processing as
compare to females. In general, they feel the need to touch the items before purchasing; this
might give him satisfaction and help in purchase decision.
Figure 14
The graph and results illustrates that education has a significant relationship with
individual differences in haptic information processing. Among the sample population, those
who were graduates feel the need to touch before taking purchase decision. The reason behind it
could be they have better decision making skills and high mental capabilities to judge as
compare to O-level and Matriculate students.
Figure 15
The results interpret that people who reside in DHA are more prone towards haptic
information processing. Reason might be because they are from upper-class and are more
educated, know more about brands and hence they do not make any purchase decision prior
feeling it. Also, the survey type of stores was not asked and every candidate must have responded
based on his perception of store.
Figure 16
Age has again a positive relation with haptic information processing. It has been clear
and evident from the graph that people who are of 25-34 years of age are more prone towards
haptic processing as compare to others. This is because this age group people are mostly
professionals and are adults and mature and have good analytical and purchase decision making
skills. Hence they need satisfaction before taking purchase decision.
Figure 17
The graph illustrates that there is a significant relationship between marital status and
haptic information processing. Unmarried people are more towards haptic information
processing as compared to married people. The reason might be because choices gets influenced
in married couples by the significant others but un married people can take choices on their own.
Figure 18
The above graph illustrates that those who have a monthly income of Rs. 10,000 are more
prone towards haptic information processing. One reason might be that as they have limited
amount of salary so they invest it wisely by touching the objects they satisfy themselves that they
have invested money on the right things. Other reason could be that major respondents might be
are from that salary class who filled the questionnaire.
Figure 19
Current status results shows that those who are full time students are more into haptic
information processing. This might be due to the reason that full time student are more prone
towards research and have time to invest in doing analysis which they do before making any
purchase decision, also they are dependent for their expenses on the family so they need to
purchase things wisely.
T-Test
Table 22
Group Statistics
Touching products can be fun.
Gender
Mean
Std. Deviation
Std. Error Mean
255
3.17
1.105
.069
183
3.04
1.211
.089
Table 23
Independent Samples Test
`
Levene's Test
t-test for Equality of Means
for Equality of
Variances
F
Sig.
df
Sig. (2-
Mean
Std. Error
95% Confidence
tailed)
Difference
Difference
Interval of the
Difference
Lower
Upper
Equal
variances
Touching
assumed
products
Equal
can be fun.
variances
not
2.027
.155 1.205
436
.229
.134
.111
-.085
.353
1.187 370.047
.236
.134
.113
-.088
.357
assumed
The T-tests results show that Males are more prone towards haptic information processing
as compared to females. This is because females get convinced with the product they see in
advertisement, but Males are more judgmental and rationale and cannot be satisfied easily so
they touch every object/product before taking purchase decision.
Cluster Analysis
Figure 20
Figure 21
In cluster analysis the predictor importance elements are those which shows the list of
those elements which are important and have a direct relationship with the topic. Here current
status is on top and shows that it has the significant relationship with haptic information
processing. Now, further in current status professionals are more prone towards this kind of
buying behavior, reasons are that they have more knowledge, informative, mature and think
wisely. Age and monthly income are second most important factors that affect individual
differences in haptic information processing.
If they dont have a good monthly income they would not go for impulse purchasing, also
it is evident that people with age bracket of 25-34 years are more prone towards haptic
information processing this is because they are more mature and can take decisions wisely. Rest
other factors have no an impact on haptic information processing but they dont show significant
relation with the research topic.
Oneway
Following results shows people having low income like to touch product more than
people having higher income. The reason is obvious as people having higher income have higher
disposable income and can afford buying products without touching.
Table 23
Descriptives
N
Mean
Std. Deviation
Std. Error
95% Confidence Interval for Mean

Lower Bound
Minimum
Maximum
Upper Bound
A10
189
3.35
1.018
.074
3.20
3.50
A25
98
3.05
1.222
.123
2.81
3.30
A50
64
3.17
1.242
.155
2.86
3.48
M80
29
2.90
1.423
.264
2.36
3.44
M100
26
3.58
1.238
.243
3.08
4.08
M150
32
3.28
1.054
.186
2.90
3.66
Total
438
3.24
1.151
.055
3.13
3.34
Table 24
Test of Homogeneity of Variances
Levene Statistic
df1
2.430
df2
5
Sig.
432
.034
Table 25
ANOVA
Sum of Squares
Between Groups
df
Mean Square
12.467
2.493
Within Groups
566.311
432
1.311
Total
578.779
437
Post Hoc Tests
F
1.902
Sig.
.093
Table 26
Multiple Comparisons
Dependent Variable: When walking in stores, I like to touch lots of products.
Tukey HSD
(I) Monthly Income
A10
A25
A50
M80
M100
M150
(J) Monthly Income
Mean Difference (I-J)
Std. Error
Sig.
95% Confidence Interval

Lower Bound
Upper Bound
A25
.298
.143
.293
-.11
.71
A50
.177
.166
.893
-.30
.65
M80
.453
.228
.354
-.20
1.11
M100
-.228
.239
.933
-.91
.46
M150
.068
.219 1.000
-.56
.69
A10
-.298
.143
.293
-.71
.11
A50
-.121
.184
.986
-.65
.41
M80
.154
.242
.988
-.54
.85
M100
-.526
.253
.299
-1.25
.20
M150
-.230
.233
.922
-.90
.44
A10
-.177
.166
.893
-.65
.30
A25
.121
.184
.986
-.41
.65
M80
.275
.256
.891
-.46
1.01
M100
-.405
.266
.651
-1.17
.36
M150
-.109
.248
.998
-.82
.60
A10
-.453
.228
.354
-1.11
.20
A25
-.154
.242
.988
-.85
.54
A50
-.275
.256
.891
-1.01
.46
M100
-.680
.309
.240
-1.57
.20
M150
-.385
.294
.779
-1.22
.46
A10
.228
.239
.933
-.46
.91
A25
.526
.253
.299
-.20
1.25
A50
.405
.266
.651
-.36
1.17
M80
.680
.309
.240
-.20
1.57
M150
.296
.302
.925
-.57
1.16
.219 1.000
-.69
.56
A10
-.068
A25
.230
.233
.922
-.44
.90
A50
.109
.248
.998
-.60
.82
M80
.385
.294
.779
-.46
1.22
M100
-.296
.302
.925
-1.16
.57
Homogeneous Subsets
Table 27
When walking in stores, I like to touch lots of
products.
Tukey HSD
`Monthly Income
Subset for alpha =

0.05
1
M80
29
2.90
A25
98
3.05
A50
64
3.17
M150
32
3.28
189
3.35
26
3.58
A10
M100
Sig.
.060
Means for groups in homogeneous subsets are

displayed.
a. Uses Harmonic Mean Sample Size = 44.341.
b. The group sizes are unequal. The harmonic mean of
the group sizes is used. Type I error levels are not
guaranteed.
Means Plots
Figure 22
This graph clearly depicts that the need for touching the product decreases with increase
in income level however there is an unexpected rise in the need for touching the product which
could be systematic error because in the survey type of stores was not asked and every candidate
must have responded based on his perception of store.
Conclusion
We started off this research with an aim to accomplish the simple looking task of
identifying the attitude and behavior of Karachities towards the need of touch. But with time and
experiences it was learnt that this was not at all an easy task, especially the data analyzing part
because we had to analyze the data thoroughly in order to interpret it.
We have examined from the analysis that the Need For Touch do exist in the Karachiites
as the results of variables indicates that most of the people strongly agree or agree with the need
for touch. The culture and economy of the Pakistan also forces the people to touch the products
before buying as the per capita income in Pakistan is $3, 149 and has 140th ranking in the world
economy. Therefore, we can conclude that the Need for Touch is present in Karachiites.
Though, we are able to achieve all the goals and objectives of our research, but still we
think that lots of advancement can be done on this project. We have provided the platform and
the platform is ready for everyone to work on it. For advancements, we need more time, money
and hard work. The money and time would remain the critical issue cause in order to upgrade the
research many of the stuff would need an up gradation.
Nevertheless, this research has been a success as far as learning and practical
implementation of business research concepts is concerned. The basic idea proposed in this
research works well and can be implemented in Karachi. Most research related to touch focus on
touchs influential effect when it enables consumers to gather information on specific product
attributes. However, our research went beyond this limited application and found that touch
could influence consumer behavior, even in the absence of useful product-related information.
For people with a high need for touch, a marketing communication that incorporates touch
leads to increased customer response and greater persuasion (Whitfield, 2002).
Limitations
The population of Karachi is around 25 million. With a sample size of only 438, the
objective of this research cannot be achieved efficiently. Hence, we cannot interpret that in
Karachi the need of touch is high or low due the small sample size. It is difficult to analyze that
which segment and area have more need for touch amongst the different categories such as age,
gender, area, education, etc. However, It was observed that the customers from low-class areas
have more need of touch as compared to upper and middle-class areas. Therefore, we invite
people to come forward and work on this project by putting more efforts in terms of time, monay
and sample size.
References
Peck, Joann and Terry L. Childers (2003), To Have and To Hold:The Influence of
HapticInformation on Product Judgments,Journal of Marketing, April 67 (2), 3548.
Whitfield, Kermit (2002), Touch and Go, Automotive Design &Production, 114 (6), 3638.
Peck, J., & Childers, T. L. (2007). If it tastes, smells, sounds, and feels like a duck, then it must
be a . . .: Effects of sensory factors on consumer behaviors. In F. Kardes, C. Haugtvedt, & P. Herr
(Eds.), Handbook of consumer psychology. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Workman, J. E., & Caldwell, L. F. (2007). Centrality of visual product esthetics, tactile and
uniqueness needs of fashion consumers. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 31, 589596.
Dawson, S., Bloch, P.H. & Ridgway, N.M. (1990). Shopping motives, emotional states and retail
outcomes, Journal of Retailing, 66 (winter), p. 408-427.
Johansson, Roland S. (1978), Tactile Sensibility in the Human Hand: Receptive Field
Characteristics of Mechanoreceptive Units in the Glabrous Skin Area, Journal of Physiology,
281 (2), 101123.
Jarvis, W. Blair G. and Richard Petty (1996), The Need to Evaluate,Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 70 (1),172194.

Methods in Business Research

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Methods in Business Research

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Running Head: Individual Differences In Haptic Information Processing: The Need For Touch Scale

Institute of Business Management (IoBM)

Methods in Business Research

Professor Syed Mohammad Fahim

Sampling Technique: Convenience Sampling Technique

Analysis & Discussion

C:\Users\farha_000\Desktop\MBR Output files\NFT.sav

Working Data File

User-defined missing values are treated as missing.

plac more cant feel

ari nth ren

touc mor onl

pro king tou

duct stor can

stor pro stor

fun. imp eve like

han inte pro

ntio duc stor

befo minin purc

438 438 438 438 438 438 438

1.2 1.0 1.14

1.5 1.1 1.31

-.2 -.01 -.00

-.8 -.91 -.64

117 117 117 117 117 117

233 233 233 233 233 233

I place more trust in products that can be touched before purchase.

Touching products can be fun.

Std. Error Mean

t-test for Equality of Means

95% Confidence Interval for Mean

Post Hoc Tests

(J) Monthly Income

Mean Difference (I-J)

95% Confidence Interval

Subset for alpha =

Means for groups in homogeneous subsets are

You might also like