Mimic Physical Actions in Digital Contexts

Every product is evaluated differently.

For example, how would you assess a pillow? Perhaps by fluffing the sides?

Well, show this interaction in online images:

Images should satisfy cravings of interactivity.

Rotational cues are especially persuasive because they activate the insula and precuneus areas of the brain, suggesting a heightened immersion in which people imagine themselves interacting with products:

...[the] rotation video enabled consumers to self-reference themselves with the apparel products... may give a better sense of “feeling by hand” (Jai et al., 2014)

Always satisfy key assessments.

For example, how would you assess a bag of carrots? You might:

• View them closer
• Flip them over
• Feel and bend them

Embed these actions in a digital store:

• Amazon Fresh helps people look closer via zooming
• Target flips packages with a hover animation
• Walmart conveys freshness by snapping a carrot in half

No store was satisfying all 3 assessments — but they probably should.

• Cano, M. B., Perry, P., Ashman, R., & Waite, K. (2017). The influence of image interactivity upon user engagement when using mobile touch screens. Computers in Human Behavior, 77, 406-412.
• Hu, X., & Wise, K. (2020). Perceived control or haptic sensation? Exploring the effect of image interactivity on consumer responses to online product displays. Journal of Interactive Advertising, 20(1), 60-75.
• Jai, T. M., O'Boyle, M. W., & Fang, D. (2014). Neural correlates of sensory‐enabling presentation: An fMRI study of image zooming and rotation video effects on online apparel shopping. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 13(5), 342-350.
• Jai, T. M., Fang, D., Bao, F. S., James III, R. N., Chen, T., & Cai, W. (2021). Seeing it is like touching it: Unraveling the effective product presentations on online apparel purchase decisions and brain... Journal of Interactive Marketing, 53(1), 66-79.
• Jha, S., Balaji, M. S., & Peck, J. (2023). Conveying product weight in digital media using a hand image. Journal of Retailing, 99(3), 353-369.
• Krishna, A., Elder, R. S., & Caldara, C. (2010). Feminine to smell but masculine to touch? Multisensory congruence and its effect on the aesthetic experience. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 20(4), 410-418.
• Liu, Y., Jiang, Z., & Choi, B. C. (2023). Pushing yourself harder: The effects of mobile touch modes on users’ self-regulation. Information Systems Research, 34(3), 996-1016.
• Racat, M., Capelli, S., & Lichy, J. (2021). New insights into ‘technologies of touch’: Information processing in product evaluation and purchase intention. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 170, 120900.
• Roggeveen, A. L., Grewal, D., Townsend, C., & Krishnan, R. (2015). The impact of dynamic presentation format on consumer preferences for hedonic products and services. Journal of Marketing, 79(6), 34-49.