People like graspable objects more when the objects are located on the dominant-hand side of their body or when the handles point toward their dominant-hand side. However, many products do not have handles or are not graspable (e.g., services, objects hanging on the wall). Can nongraspable products nevertheless benefit from the effects of appealing to viewers’ dominant hands? The present research shows that, yes, consumers respond more positively to nongraspable products if a haptic cue (an object that is graspable or suggestive of hand action) is located within the same visual field as the target and is positioned to appeal to the viewer’s dominant hand. This result is driven by the creation and transfer of perceived ownership from cue to target. These findings extend the use of haptic cues to nongraspable products and uncover the critical role played by perceived ownership, including its ability to transfer from one object to another located in the same visual field. Moreover, the current research demonstrates situations in which the use of haptic cues will not enhance response.
AbrahamseElger L.van DijckJean-PhillippeFiasWim (2017), “Grounding Verbal Working Memory: The Case of Serial Order,” Current Directions in Psychological Science, 26 (5), 429–33.
2.
AdilAdnanKamalAnila (2018), “Impact of Perceived Authentic Leadership and Psychological Capital on Burnout: Mediating Role of Psychological Ownership,” Psychological Studies, 63 (3), 243–52.
3.
AnnettJ.AnnettMarianHudsonP.T.W.TurnerAnn (1979), “The Control of Movement in the Preferred and Non-Preferred Hands,” Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 31 (4), 641–52.
4.
AtasoyOzgunMorewedgeCarey K. (2018), “Digital Goods Are Valued Less Than Tangible Goods,” Journal of Consumer Research, 44 (6), 1343–57.
5.
BeilockSian L.HoltLauren E. (2007), “Embodied Preference Judgments: Can Likeability Be Driven by the Motor System?” Psychological Science, 18 (1), 51–57.
6.
BelkRussell (1988), “Possessions and the Extended Self,” Journal of Consumer Research, 15 (2), 139–68.
7.
CasasantoDaniel (2009), “Embodiment of Abstract Concepts: Good and Bad in Right- and Left-Handers,” Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 138 (3), 351–67.
CasasantoDanielJasminKyle (2010), “Good and Bad in the Hands of Politicians: Spontaneous Gestures During Positive and Negative Speech,” PLoS ONE, 5 (7), e11805.
10.
ChaeBoyoun GraceHoeggJoAndrea (2013), “The Future Looks ‘Right’: Effects of Horizontal Location of Advertising Images on Product Attitude,” Journal of Consumer Research, 40 (2), 223–38.
11.
DehaeneStanislasBossiniSergeGirauxPascal (1993), “The Mental Representation of Parity and Number Magnitude,” Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 122 (3), 371–96.
12.
DengXiaoyanKahnBarbara E. (2009), “Is Your Product on the Right Side? The ‘Location Effect’ of Perceived Product Heaviness and Package Evaluation,” Journal of Marketing Research, 46 (6), 725–38.
13.
EardleyAlison F.DarlingStephenDumperPaulBrowneDavidVelzenJose Van (2017), “Related but Different: Examining Pseudoneglect in Audition, Touch and Vision,” Brain and Cognition, 113 (April), 164–71.
14.
EelenJiskaDewitteSiegfriedWarlopLuk (2013), “Situated Embodied Cognition: Monitoring Orientation Cues Affects Product Evaluation and Choice,” Journal of Consumer Psychology, 23 (4), 424–33.
15.
ElderRyan S.KrishnaAradhna (2012), “The ‘Visual Depiction Effect’ in Advertising: Facilitating Embodied Mental Simulation through Product Orientation,” Journal of Consumer Research, 38 (6), 988–1003.
16.
HayesAndrew F. (2018), Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis: A Regression-Based Approach. New York: The Guilford Press.
17.
HughesLaura E.BatesTim C.DaviesAnne Aimola (2004), “Grasping at Sticks: Pseudoneglect for Perception but Not Action,” Experimental Brain Research, 157 (3), 397–402.
18.
JiangYuweiAdavalRashmiSteinhartYaelWyerRobert S. Jr. (2014), “Imagining Yourself in the Scene: The Interactive Effects of Goal-Driven Self-Imagery and Visual Perspectives on Consumer Behavior,” Journal of Consumer Research, 41 (2), 418–35.
19.
JuddCharles M.KennyDavid A.McClellandGary H. (2001), “Estimating and Testing Mediation and Moderation in Within-Subject Designs,” Psychological Methods, 6 (2), 115–34.
20.
KalckertAndreasEhrssonH. Henrik (2014), “The Moving Rubber Hand Illusion Revisited: Comparing Movements and Visuotactile Stimulation to Induce Illusory Ownership,” Consciousness and Cognition, 26 (May), 117–32.
21.
KirkColleen P.PeckJoannSwainScott D. (2018), “Property Lines in the Mind: Consumers’ Psychological Ownership and Their Territorial Responses,” Journal of Consumer Research, 45 (1), 148–68.
22.
LoffingFlorianPrelleLinoHeilLukasCañal-BrulandRouwen (2019), “Body-Specific Influences on Performance Evaluation in Realistic Dynamic Scenes,” Laterality, 24 (3), 355–72.
23.
MamoloCarla M.RoyEric A.RohrLinda E.BrydenPamela J. (2006), “Reaching Patterns Across Working Space: The Effects of Handedness, Task Demands, and Comfort Levels,” Laterality, 11 (5), 465–92.
24.
MontoyaAmanda K.HayesAndrew F. (2017), “Two Condition Within-Participant Statistical Mediation Analysis: A Path-Analytic Framework,” Psychological Methods, 22 (1), 6–27.
25.
O’ReganLouiseSerrienDeborah J. (2018), “Individual Differences and Hemispheric Asymmetries for Language and Spatial Attention,” Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 12 (380), 1–13.
26.
PeckJoannBargerVictor A.WebbAndrea (2013), “In Search of a Surrogate for Touch: The Effect of Haptic Imagery on Perceived Ownership,” Journal of Consumer Psychology, 23 (2), 189–96.
27.
PeckJoannShuSuzanne (2009), “The Effect of Mere Touch on Perceived Ownership,” Journal of Consumer Research, 36 (3), 434–47.
28.
PerelleIra B.EhrmanLee (2009), “An International Study of Human Handedness: The Data,” Behavior Genetics, 24 (3), 217–27.
29.
PierceJon L.KostovaTatianaDirksKurt T. (2003), “The State of Psychological Ownership: Integrating and Extending a Century of Research,” Review of General Psychology, 7 (1), 84–107.
30.
PingRaedy M.DhillonSonicaBeilockSian L. (2009), “Reach for What You Like: The Body’s Role in Shaping Preferences,” Emotion Review, 1 (2), 140–50.
31.
PirlottAngela G.MacKinnonDavid P. (2016), “Design Approaches to Experimental Mediation,” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 66 (September), 29–38.
32.
RomeroMarisabelBiswasDipayan (2016), “Healthy-Left, Unhealthy-Right: Can Displaying Healthy Items to the Left (Versus Right) of Unhealthy Items Nudge Healthier Choices?” Journal of Consumer Research, 43 (1), 103–12.
33.
SalariSoniaBrownBarbara B.EatonJacqueline (2006), “Conflicts, Friendship Cliques and Territorial Display in Senior Center Environments,” Journal of Aging Studies, 20 (3), 237–52.
34.
ShenHaoSenguptaJaideep (2012), “If You Can’t Grab It, It Won’t Grab You: The Effect of Restricting the Dominant Hand on Target Evaluations,” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48 (2), 525–29.
35.
ShuSuzannePeckJoann (2011), “Psychological Ownership and Affective Reaction: Emotional Attachment Process Variables and the Endowment Effect,” Journal of Consumer Psychology, 21 (4), 439–52.
36.
SpencerSteven J.ZannaMark P.FongGeoffrey T. (2005), “Establishing a Causal Chain: Why Experiments Are Often More Effective Than Mediational Analyses in Examining Psychological Processes,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89 (6), 845–51.
ThalerRichard (1980), “Toward a Positive Theory of Consumer Choice,” Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 1 (1), 39–60.
39.
TownsendClaudiaSoodSanjay (2012), “Self-Affirmation Through the Choice of Highly Aesthetic Products,” Journal of Consumer Research, 39 (2), 415–28.
40.
TsakirisManosHaggardPatrick (2005), “The Rubber Hand Illusion Revisited: Visuotactile Integration and Self-Attribution,” Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 31 (1), 80–91.
41.
TuckerMikeEllisRob (1998), “On the Relations Between Seen Objects and Components of Potential Actions,” Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 24 (3), 830–46.
42.
VealeJamie F. (2014), “Edinburgh Handedness Inventory–Short Form: A Revised Version Based on Confirmatory Factor Analysis,” Laterality, 19 (2), 164–77.
43.
WillemsRoel M.HagoortPeterCasasantoDaniel (2010), “Body-Specific Representations of Action Verbs: Neural Evidence From Right- and Left-Handers,” Psychological Science, 21 (1), 67–74.
44.
XieHuMintonElizabeth A.KahleLynn R. (2016), “Cake or Fruit? Influencing Healthy Food Choice Through the Interaction of Automatic and Instructed Mental Simulation,” Marketing Letters, 27 (4), 627–44.
45.
ZhaoXueruHeXianyouZhangWeiChenGuangyaoChenQingHuangLixiang (2018), “Interpersonal Choice: The Advantage on the Left or on the Right?” International Journal of Psychology, 53 (5), 331–38.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
