The purpose of this study was to examine the role of brand familiarity in tactile product evaluation. The results of the two experimental studies showed that individual differences in need for tactile input affect purchase intentions depending upon the structure of the choice environment and familiarity levels of a brand. The well-developed knowledge structures for familiar brands allow consumers to access the diagnostic tactile cues from their memory in product assessment in an online environment. Conversely, for less familiar brands, the inaccessibility of predictive tactile cues in an online shopping environment reduces the purchase intentions. This study makes three important contributions. First, it showed that tactile inputs have a positive effect on purchase intentions in the touch environment, particularly for individuals with high levels of need for tactile input. Second, it posited that the lack of tactility can be overcome by offering familiar brands in the no-touch environment. Finally, it showed that for low need tactile input individuals, lack of tactility does not impede them from making online purchases. The paper discussed the implications of research findings and offered future research avenues along with limitations.

1. Alba, J. W., & Hutchinson, J. W. (1987). Dimensions of consumer expertise. Journal of Consumer Research, 13 (4), 411-454.
2. Campbell, M. C., & Keller, K. L. (2003). Brand familiarity and advertising repetition effects. Journal of Consumer Research, 30 (2), 292-304.
3. Citrin, A. V., Stem Jr, D. E., Spangenberg, E. R., & Clark, M. J. (2003). Consumer need for tactile input: An internet retailing challenge. Journal of Business Research, 56 (11), 915-922.
4. Coyle, J. R., & Thorson, E. (2001). The effects of progressive levels of interactivity and vividness in web marketing sites. Journal of Advertising, 30 (3), 65-77. DOI:10.1080/00913367.2001.10673646
5. d'Astous, A., & Kamau, E. (2010). Consumer product evaluation based on tactile sensory information. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 9 (3), 206-213. DOI: 10.1002/cb.312
6. Dawar, N. (1996). Extensions of broad brands: The role of retrieval in evaluations of fit. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 5 (2), 189-207. DOI: <a href=http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15327663jcp0502_05 target="_blank">http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15327663jcp0502_05</a>
7. Degeratu, A. M., Rangaswamy, A., & Wu, J. (2000). Consumer choice behavior in online and traditional supermarkets: The effects of brand name, price, and other search attributes. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 17 (1), 55-78. DOI: <a href=http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0167-8116(00)00005-7 target="_blank">http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0167-8116(00)00005-7</a>
8. Delgado-Ballester, E., & Hernández-Espallardo, M. (2008). Building online brands through brand alliances in internet. European Journal of Marketing, 42(9/10), 954-976. DOI: <a href=http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/03090560810891091 target="_blank">http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/03090560810891091</a>
9. Deliza, R., & MacFie, H. J. (1996). The generation of sensory expectation by external cues and its effect on sensory perception and hedonic ratings: A review. Journal of Sensory Studies, 11 (2), 103-128. DOI: 10.1111/j.1745-459X.1996.tb00036.x
10. Dick, A., Chakravarti, D., & Biehal, G. (1990). Memory-based inferences during consumer choice. Journal of Consumer Research, 17 (1), 82-93.
11. Feldman, J. M., & Lynch Jr., J. G. (1988). Self-generated validity and other effects of measurement on belief, attitude, intention, and behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73 (3), 421-435.
12. Fenko, A., Schifferstein, H. N. J., Huang, T. - C., & Hekkert, P. (2009). What makes products fresh: The smell or the colour ? Food Quality and Preference, 20(5), 372-379. DOI: <a href=http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2009.02.007 target="_blank">http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2009.02.007</a>
13. Fleck, N., Korchia, M., & Le Roy, I. (2012). Celebrities in advertising: Looking for congruence or likability? Psychology & Marketing, 29 (9), 651-662. DOI: 10.1002/mar.20551
14. 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.
15. Ha, H. - Y. (2004). Factors influencing consumer perceptions of brand trust online. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 13 (5), 329-342. DOI: <a href=http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/10610420410554412 target="_blank">http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/10610420410554412</a>
16. Ha, H. - Y., & Perks, H. (2005). Effects of consumer perceptions of brand experience on the web: Brand familiarity, satisfaction and brand trust. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 4 (6), 438-452. DOI: 10.1002/cb.29
17. Hoyer, W. D., & Brown, S. P. (1990). Effects of brand awareness on choice for a common, repeat-purchase product. Journal of Consumer Research, 17 (2), 141-148. DOI: <a href=http://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1086/208544 target="_blank">http://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1086/208544</a>
18. Huang, W. Y., Schrank, H., & Dubinsky, A. J. (2004). Effect of brand name on consumers' risk perceptions of online shopping. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 4 (1), 40-50. DOI: 10.1002/cb.156
19. Jha, S., & Singh, B. (2013). Impact of ambient music and affability of salespersons on consumer behavior in a real retail setting with emphasis on gender difference. Indian Journal of Marketing, 43 (4), 5-11.
20. Klatzky, R. L. (2009). Touch: A gentle tutorial with implications for marketing. In A. Krishna (Ed.). Sensory marketing research on the sensuality of product (pp.33-48). New York: Routledge Academic.
21. Klatzky, R. L., Lederman, S. J., & Matula, D. E. (1993). Haptic exploration in the presence of vision. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 19 (4), 726-743.
22. Klein, L. R. (2003). Creating virtual product experiences: the role of telepresence. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 17 (1), 41-55. DOI: 10.1002/dir.10046
23. Martinez, E., & de Chernatony, L. (2004). The effect of brand extension strategies upon brand image. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 21 (1), 39-50. DOI: <a href=http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/07363760410513950 target="_blank">http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/07363760410513950</a>
24. 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. DOI:10.1207/S15327663JCP1304_10
25. Menon, G., Raghubir, P., & Schwarz, N. (1995). Behavioral frequency judgments: An accessibility-diagnosticity framework. Journal of Consumer Research, 22 (2), 212-228.
26. Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.
27. Nuszbaum, M., Voss, A., & Klauer, K. C. (2014). Assessing individual differences in the need for interpersonal touch and need for touch. Social Psychology, 45 (1), 31- 40. DOI : <a href=http://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1027/1864-9335/a000157 target="_blank">http://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1027/1864-9335/a000157</a>
28. Park, J., & Stoel, L. (2005). Effect of brand familiarity, experience and information on online apparel purchase. International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, 33 (2), 148-160. DOI : <a href=http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09590550510581476 target="_blank">http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09590550510581476</a>
29. 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.
30. Prince, J. T., & Simon, D. H. (2009). Multimarket contact and service quality: Evidence from on-time performance in the U.S. airline industry. Academy of Management Journal, 52 (2), 336-354. DOI: 10.5465/AMJ.2009.37308251
31. Rindfleisch, A., & Inman, J. (1998). Explaining the familiarity-liking relationship: Mere exposure, information availability, or social desirability? Marketing Letters, 9 (1), 5-19.
32. Shukla, T. (2007). Experiential marketing. The new paradigm. Indian Journal of Marketing , 37 (4), 10 - 12.
33. Söderlund, M. (2002). Customer familiarity and its effects on satisfaction and behavioral intentions. Psychology & Marketing, 19(10), 861-879.
34. Wånke, M., Bohner, G., & Jurkowitsch, A. (1997). There are many reasons to drive a BMW: Does imagined ease of argument generation influence attitudes? Journal of Consumer Research, 24 (2), 170-178. DOI: <a href=http://doi.org/10.1086/209502 target="_blank">http://doi.org/10.1086/209502</a>
35. Zajonc, R. B. (1968). Attitudinal effects of mere exposure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 9 (2), 1-27. DOI : <a href=http://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/h0025848 target="_blank">http://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/h0025848</a>