DOI - Mendel University Press

DOI identifiers

DOI: 10.11118/ecos2026_041

THE ROLE OF HAPTIC PRODUCT EXPERIENCE IN CONSUMER EVALUATION: AN EYE-TRACKING AND PUPILLOMETRY STUDY OF REUSABLE BOTTLES

Jan Vrána1, Stanislav Mokrý1, Michal Pšurný1
1 Department of Marketing and Trade, Faculty of Business and Economics, Mendel University in Brno, Zemědělská 1, 613 00 Brno, Czech Republic

This study examines how physical and digital product presentation shape consumer evaluation in the context of reusable water bottles. The research focuses on whether the possibility of direct tactile interaction with a product influences perceived attractiveness, purchase intention, certainty of evaluation, and pupil response. An experimental design combining eye-tracking, pupillometry, and a post-exposure questionnaire was used to compare electronic product presentation with physical presentation involving product handling. The findings suggest that tactile interaction did not systematically change perceived product attractiveness. However, for selected products, the form of presentation affected purchase intention and certainty of evaluation, indicating that haptic information may become relevant when material or functional product characteristics are salient. The pupillometry results showed differences between physical and electronic presentation, although pupil dilation was not consistently associated with product attractiveness or purchase intention. Overall, the study contributes to sensory marketing research by showing that physical product experience may influence selected aspects of consumer decision-making, while its effect depends on the specific product and evaluated attribute. The results also highlight both the potential and limitations of pupillometry as a complementary method for studying consumer responses to haptic product presentation.

Keywords: haptics, product presentation, eye-tracking, pupillometry, consumer decision-making, sensory marketing, reusable bottles

pages: 372-386, online: 2026



References

  1. BALAJI, M. S., RAGHAVAN, S., JHA, S. 2011. Role of tactile and visual inputs in product evaluation: a multisensory perspective. Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics. 23(4), 513-530. https://doi.org/10.1108/13555851111165066 Go to original source...
  2. BERTHEAUX, C., TOSCANO, R., FORTUNIER, R., ROUX, J.-C., CHARIER, D., BORG, C. 2020. Emotion measurements through the touch of materials surfaces. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience. 13, 455. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2019.00455 Go to original source...
  3. BOARDMAN, R., MCCORMICK, H. 2019. The impact of product presentation on decision-making and purchasing. Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal. 22(3), 365-380. https://doi.org/10.1108/QMR-09-2017-0124 Go to original source...
  4. BRADLEY, M. M., MICCOLI, L., ESCRIG, M. A., LANG, P. J. 2008. The pupil as a measure of emotional arousal and autonomic activation. Psychophysiology. 45(4), 602-607. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8986.2008.00654.x Go to original source...
  5. CHEN, X., SHAO, F., BARNES, C. J., CHILDS, T., HENSON, B. 2009. Exploring relationships between touch perception and surface physical properties. International Journal of Design. 3(2), 67-76.
  6. CHO, H., SCHWARZ, N. 2012. I like your product when I like my photo: misattribution using interactive virtual mirrors. Journal of Interactive Marketing. 26(4), 235-243. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intmar.2012.03.003 Go to original source...
  7. FRANCIS, S., ROLLS, E. T., BOWTELL, R., MCGLONE, F., O'DOHERTY, J., BROWNING, A., CLARE, S., SMITH, E. 1999. The representation of pleasant touch in the brain and its relationship with taste and olfactory areas. NeuroReport. 10(3), 453-459. https://doi.org/10.1097/00001756-199902250-00003 Go to original source...
  8. GROHMANN, B., SPANGENBERG, E. R., SPROTT, D. E. 2007. The influence of tactile input on the evaluation of retail product offerings. Journal of Retailing. 83(2), 237-245. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretai.2006.09.001 Go to original source...
  9. HOLBROOK, M. B. 1983. On the importance of using real products in research on merchandising strategy. Journal of Retailing. 59(1), 4-23.
  10. KAHNEMAN, D. 2013. Thinking, Fast and Slow. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
  11. KLATZKY, R. L. ,LEDERMAN, S. J. 1992. Stages of manual exploration in haptic object identification. Perception & Psychophysics. 52(6), 661-670. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03211702 Go to original source...
  12. KLATZKY, R. L., LEDERMAN, S. J. 1993. Toward a computational model of constraint-driven exploration and haptic object identification. Perception. 22(5), 597-621. https://doi.org/10.1068/p220597 Go to original source...
  13. LAENG, B., SUEGAMI, T., AMINIHAJIBASHI, S. 2016. Wine labels: an eye-tracking and pupillometry study. International Journal of Wine Business Research. 28(4), 327-348. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJWBR-03-2016-0009 Go to original source...
  14. LOEWENFELD, I. E. 1993. The Pupil: Anatomy, Physiology, and Clinical Applications. Detroit, MI: Wayne State University Press.
  15. MCCABE, D. B., NOWLIS, S. M. 2003. The effect of examining actual products or product descriptions on consumer preference. Journal of Consumer Psychology. 13(4), 431-439. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327663JCP1304_10 Go to original source...
  16. PARK, W., KI, D., KIM, D.-H., KWON, G. H., KIM, S.-P., KIM, L. 2015. EEG correlates of user satisfaction of haptic sensation. In: 2015 IEEE International Conference on Consumer Electronics (ICCE). IEEE. pp. 569-570. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICCE.2015.7066529 Go to original source...
  17. PARK, W., KIM, D.-H., KIM, S.-P., LEE, J.-H., KIM, L. 2018. Gamma EEG correlates of haptic preferences for a dial interface. IEEE Access. 6, 22324-22331. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2018.2827023 Go to original source...
  18. PECK, J., CHILDERS, T. L. 2003. Individual differences in haptic information processing: the "Need for Touch" scale. Journal of Consumer Research. 30(3), 430-442. https://doi.org/10.1086/378619 Go to original source...
  19. PECK, J., WIGGINS, J. 2006. It just feels good: customers' affective response to touch and its influence on persuasion. Journal of Marketing. 70(4), 56-69. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.70.4.056 Go to original source...
  20. RAMSØY, T. Z., JACOBSEN, C., FRIIS-OLIVARIUS, M., BAGDZIUNAITE, D., SKOV, M. 2017. Predictive value of body posture and pupil dilation in assessing consumer preference and choice. Journal of Neuroscience, Psychology, and Economics. 10(2-3), 95-110. https://doi.org/10.1037/npe0000073 Go to original source...
  21. SCHIFFERSTEIN, H. N. J., CLEIREN, M. P. H. D. 2005. Capturing product experiences: a split-modality approach. Acta Psychologica. 118(3), 293-318. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2004.10.009 Go to original source...
  22. SIROIS, S., BRISSON, J. 2014. Pupillometry. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science. 5(6), 679-692. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcs.1323 Go to original source...
  23. JHA, S., BALAJI, M. S., STAFFORD, M. B. R., SPEARS, N. 2020. Haptic information processing and need for touch in product evaluation. Journal of Consumer Marketing. 37(1), 55-64. https://doi.org/10.1108/JCM-02-2018-2554 Go to original source...
  24. SUH, Y., KIM, S., KIM, W. 2018. Visual tactile attributes in online product presentations for improving purchase intention. International Journal of Contents. 14(2), 7-15.https://doi.org/10.5392/IJOC.2018.14.2.007 Go to original source...
  25. VERHAGEN, T., VONKEMAN, C., VAN DOLEN, W. 2016. Making online products more tangible: the effect of product presentation formats on product evaluations. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking. 19(7), 460-464. https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2015.0520 Go to original source...
  26. VIEIRA, V. A. 2012. An evaluation of the Need for Touch scale and its relationship with need for cognition, need for input, and consumer response. Journal of International Consumer Marketing. 24(1-2), 57-78. https://doi.org/10.1080/08961530.2012.650139 Go to original source...
  27. VRÁNA, J., MOKRÝ, S. 2020. Haptics and its effect on consumers' intentions using neuroscientific methods: literature review. Acta Universitatis Agriculturae et Silviculturae Mendelianae Brunensis. 68(2), 451-457. https://doi.org/10.11118/actaun202068020451 Go to original source...
  28. ZÉNON, A. 2019. Eye pupil signals information gain. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences. 286(1911), 20191593. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2019.1593 Go to original source...