Digital Sensory Marketing: Integrating New Technologies Into Multisensory Online Experience

Abstract

People are increasingly purchasing (e.g., food, clothes) and consuming (e.g., movies, courses) online where, traditionally, the sensory interaction has mostly been limited to visual, and to a lesser extent auditory, inputs. However, other sensory interfaces (e.g., including touch screens, together with a range of virtual, and augmented solutions) are increasingly being made available to people to interact online. Moreover, recent progress in the field of human-computer interaction means that online environments will likely engage more of the senses and become more connected with offline environments in the coming years. This expansion will likely coincide with an increasing engagement with the consumer's more emotional senses, namely touch/haptics, and possibly even olfaction. Forward-thinking marketers and researchers will therefore need to appropriate the latest tools/technologies in order to deliver richer online experiences for tomorrow's consumers. This review is designed to help the interested reader better understand what sensory marketing in a digital context can offer, thus hopefully opening the way for further research and development in the area.

Full text

AUTHOR QUERY FORM
Journal: INTMAR Please e-mail your responses and any corrections to:
E-mail: Corrections.esi@elsevier.spitech.com
Article Number: 273
Dear Author,
Please check your proof carefully and mark all corrections at the appropriate place in the proof (e.g., by using on-screen
annotation in the PDF file) or compile them in a separate list. Note: if you opt to annotate the file with software other than Adobe
Reader then please also highlight the appropriate place in the PDF file. To ensure fast publication of your paper please return
your corrections within 48 hours.
For correction or revision of any artwork, please consult http://www.elsevier.com/artworkinstructions.
We were unable to process your file(s) fully electronically and have proceeded by
Scanning (parts of) your
article Rekeying (parts of) your article Scanning the
artwork
Thank you for your assistance.
Our reference: INTMAR 273 P-authorquery-v11
Page 1 of 1

UNCORRECTED PROOF
1Highlights
2Journal of Interactive Marketing xxx (2018) xxx –xxx
4
5Digital Sensory Marketing: Integrating New Technologies into Multisensory Online Experience
6
7Olivia Petit
a,
⁎, Carlos Velasco
b
, Charles Spence
c
8
9
a
Department of Marketing, Kedge Business School, Domaine de Luminy, Rue Antoine Bourdelle, 13009 Marseille, France
10
b
Department of Marketing, BI Norwegian Business School, Nydalsveien 37, 0484 Oslo, Norway
11
c
Crossmodal Research Laboratory, Department of Experimental Psychology, University of Oxford, Tinbergen Building, 9 South Parks Road, Oxford OX1 3UD, UK
12
13
14
15 •Sensory marketing in online environments.
16 •Product evaluation and consumer experience through sensory-enabling technologies.
17 •Physical contact with products and between consumers in online environments.
18 •Possibilities concerning the multisensory online environment for the near future.
19 •Research perspectives on the “sensorialization”of online environments.
20
21
22
www.elsevier.com/locate/intmar
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intmar.2018.07.004
1094-9968© 2018
Please cite this article as: Olivia Petit, et al., Digital Sensory Marketing: Integrating New Technologies into Multisensory Online Experience, Journal of Interactive
Marketing (2018), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intmar.2018.07.004
Available online at www.sciencedirect.com
ScienceDirect
Journal of Interactive Marketing xx (2018) xxx
INTMAR-00273; No. of pages: 1; 4C:

UNCORRECTED PROOF
1Q3Q4
Q5
Digital Sensory Marketing: Integrating New Technologies into
2Multisensory Online Experience
3Olivia Petit
a,
⁎& Carlos Velasco
b
& Charles Spence
c
4
a
Department of Marketing, Kedge Business School, Domaine de Luminy, Rue Antoine Bourdelle, 13009 Marseille, France
5
b
Department of Marketing, BI Norwegian Business School, Nydalsveien 37, 0484 Oslo, Norway
6
c
Crossmodal Research Laboratory, Department of Experimental Psychology, University of Oxford, Tinbergen Building, 9 South Parks Road, Oxford OX1 3UD, UK
7
8Abstract
9People are increasingly purchasing (e.g., food, clothes) and consuming (e.g., movies, courses) online where, traditionally, the sensory
10 interaction has mostly been limited to visual, and to a lesser extent auditory, inputs. However, other sensory interfaces (e.g., including touch
11 screens, together with a range of virtual, and augmented solutions) are increasingly being made available to people to interact online. Moreover,
12 recent progress in the field of human–computer interaction means that online environments will likely engage more of the senses and become more
13 connected with offline environments in the coming years. This expansion will likely coincide with an increasing engagement with the consumer's
14 more emotional senses, namely touch/haptics, and possibly even olfaction. Forward-thinking marketers and researchers will therefore need to
15 appropriate the latest tools/technologies in order to deliver richer online experiences for tomorrow's consumers. This review is designed to help the
16 interested reader better understand what sensory marketing in a digital context can offer, thus hopefully opening the way for further research and
17 development in the area.
18 © 2018
19 Keywords: Consumer behavior; Digital marketing; Sensory marketing; HCI; Online environment
20
21
22 COLOURED, STEREOSCOPIC FEELY. WITH SYNCHRO-
23 NIZED SCENTORGAN ACCOMPANIMENT. “Take hold of
24 those metal knobs on the arms of your chair,”whispered
25 Lenina. “Otherwise you won't get any of the feely effects.”
26 (Huxley 1932, p. 119)
27
28 Introduction
29 Who has not wondered, when browsing the website of an
30 online retailer, what one would look like wearing that new
31 sweater, or what it might feel like against the skin; or perhaps
32 whether those new Chinese noodles really would taste as good
33 as they look? Just imagine, for instance, how great it would be
34if one could actually taste the dishes that one sees on Instagram,
35or feel the warmth of the virtual sand under your feet, not to
36mention smell the coconut oil, when viewing your friends'
37travel photos on Facebook. And who would not you want to
38virtually embrace their partner before saying goodbye after a
39Skype call? The current lack of genuinely multisensory
40interaction with the online environment is undoubtedly a
41missed opportunity given that we are spending ever more of our
42time on the Internet (Statista 2016).
43Digital interactive technologies (which enable the creation
44and/or manipulation of products on the screen), especially
45sensory-enabling technologies (i.e., SETs, those that can
46deliver sensory inputs), can be helpful when, for instance, it
47comes to creating a “webmosphere”(i.e., the conscious
48designing of web environments to create positive effects).
49These technologies can also help inform the consumer about
50those other sensory properties of a product (e.g., its texture,
51smell, and possibly even taste) that are simply not available
⁎Corresponding author at: Department of Marketing, Kedge Business
School, Domaine de Luminy, Rue Antoine Bourdelle, 13009 Marseille, France.
E-mail address: olivia.petit@kedgebs.com (O. Petit).
www.elsevier.com/locate/intmar
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intmar.2018.07.004
1094-9968© 2018
Please cite this article as: Olivia Petit, et al., Digital Sensory Marketing: Integrating New Technologies into Multisensory Online Experience, Journal of Interactive
Marketing (2018), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intmar.2018.07.004
Available online at www.sciencedirect.com
ScienceDirect
Journal of Interactive Marketing xx (2018) xxx
INTMAR-00273; No. of pages: 1; 4C:

UNCORRECTED PROOF
52 currently in most (primarily visual) online environments
53 (Childers et al. 2001; Eroglu, Machleit, & Davis 2001;
54 Gallace et al. 2012; Hsieh et al. 2014; Kim & Forsythe
55 2008a; Rose et al. 2012; Song & Zinkhan 2008). SETs include
56 both those devices that are already widespread (such as
57 headphones and touch screens), as well as a whole host of
58 other new technologies that have yet to be fully commercialized
59 in this context such as virtual reality (VR), augmented reality
60 (AR), and even digital taste/smell interfaces.
61 We believe that marketers can do a much better job when it
62 comes to considering and integrating these various technologies
63 and their potential evolution to make the multisensory online
64 experience more engaging, immersive, informative, and,
65 ultimately, enjoyable in the future. Doing so will likely help
66 companies to differentiate themselves from the competition in
67 the crowded online marketplace. Future research is therefore
68 really needed in order to better understand how SETs can be
69 used to enhance the consumer experience (e.g., how immersed
70 they are in “the experience”and how persuasive such
71 experiences are) and nudge the latter's behaviors (e.g., how
72 much do they choose to spend, and on what?).
73 The main objective of this article is therefore to introduce
74 a new way of thinking about (digital-) sensory marketing.
75 This new approach focuses on the use of digital technologies
76 in online contexts, based on theories and concepts taken
77 directly from the growing field of sensory marketing
78 research. We try to bridge the gap between those researchers
79in sensory marketing and those working in the field of
80human–computer interaction (HCI). It is our belief that
81marketers need to better familiarize themselves with the full
82range of SETs that are available while those working in HCI
83may benefit from making themselves aware of some of the
84potentially profitable uses that their technologies might one
85day permit (Velasco et al. 2018). In order to achieve these
86goals, we return to the main sensory marketing theories that
87can be used to help understand consumer behavior in the
88online environment. In the next sections, we explain, based
89on theories and practices, how sensory information can be
90delivered more effectively online by means of digital
91interfaces that have evolved the most in recent years (i.e.,
92visual and haptic devices). We also illustrate how the latest
93advances in other SETs (e.g., in auditory, olfactory, and
94gustatory devices) can potentially be used to reinforce this
95communication and even suggest new multisensory market-
96ing strategies. We finish by providing some ideas concerning
97potentially fruitful directions for further research (see Table 1
98for a summary of the technology).
99Theoretical Framework: What Does Sensory Marketing
100Mean in the Online Environment?
101According to the theory of embodied cognition, all cognitive
102processes are grounded in bodily states and in the brain's
103sensory modality-specific processing systems (Barsalou 2008;
Table 1t1:1
Summary of common and new sensory-enabling technologiest1:2
t1:3Common interfaces New sensory-enabling technologies
t1:4Sense Means/cues Concepts Means/cues Concepts
t1:5Sight Screen: Font, icon,
picture, videos (color
depth, size, position,
dynamic).
Mental imagery (Cian et al. 2014; Eelen et al.
2013; Elder and Krishna 2012;Petit et al. 2016)
sensory congruency (Sunaga et al. 2016;
Velasco et al. 2015; Velasco et al. 2016b;
Woods & Spence 2016), interactivity (Song &
Zinkhan 2008; Van Noort, Voorveld, and Van
Reijmersdal 2012).
3D-interactive view, virtual
try-ons, augmented reality.
Mental imagery (Choi & Taylor 2014; Huang and
Liao 2017), telepresence/ immersion (Animesh et
al. 2011; Klein 2003; Li et al. 2002; Nah et al.
2011; Yim et al. 2017), enjoyment (Kim &
Forsythe 2008a, b; Lee & Chung 2008; Nah et al.
2011; Yim et al. 2017), flow (Animesh et al. 2011;
Huang 2012; Huang and Liao 2017; Jiang &
Benbasat 2004; Nah et al. 2011; Novak, et al.
2000; Van Noort, Voorveld, and Van Reijmersdal
2012), interactivity (Huang 2012; Yim et al. 2017);
self-congruity (Merle et al. 2012), ownership
(Brengman et al. 2018; Huang and Liao 2017),
need for touch (Brengman et al. 2018; Choi &
Taylor 2014), curiosity (Beck and Dominique Crié
2018).
t1:6Hearing Headphones, loud-
speaker (music,
sound, jingle).
Sensory congruency (Hagtvedt and Adam
Brasel 2016; Knoeferle et al. 2016).
Multisensory experience
with auditory inputs (Food
simulator, Straw-like User
Interface).
Sensory congruency (Hashimoto et al. 2008; Ho et
al. 2013; Liu, Hannum, and Simons 2018)
t1:7Touch Mouse, touchscreen. Mental imagery (Shen et al. 2016), ownership
(Brasel & Gips 2014), affect (Brasel & Gips
2015; Shen et al. 2016)/
Vibrotactile interfaces,
body-grounded tactile
actuators, mid-air haptics.
Need for touch (Brasel & Gips 2014; Cano et al.
2017; Jin 2011), telepresence (Leithinger et al.
2014; Sallnäs, Rassmus-Gröhn, and Sjöström
2000Q1 ), emotion (Rantala et al. 2013), Midas touch
effect (Haans & IJsselsteijn 2009; Haans et al.
2014; Spapé et al. 2015).
t1:8Smell X X Multisensory experience
with smell inputs (Season
Traveler, MetaCookie+).
Sensory congruency (
Q2 Ranasinghe et al. 2018;Liu,
Hannum, and Simons 2018).
1O. Petit et al. / Journal of Interactive Marketing xx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
Please cite this article as: Olivia Petit, et al., Digital Sensory Marketing: Integrating New Technologies into Multisensory Online Experience, Journal of Interactive
Marketing (2018), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intmar.2018.07.004

UNCORRECTED PROOF
104 Niedenthal et al. 2005). Thus, all consumer experiences are
105 based on the integration of sensory inputs that affect the latter's
106 judgment and behavior (Krishna 2012). Therefore, by engaging
107 the consumers' senses more effectively, sensory marketing
108 strategies can potentially impact the decision-making process in
109 the store (Krishna 2012;Krishna, & Aydınoğlu 2017;Spence
110 2012; see Spence et al. 2014, for a review). However, one
111 might wonder what impact sensory marketing can really have
112 during online shopping when interactions with the environment
113 are limited to a computer screen.
114 According to the theory of embodied cognition, cognition
115 can be situated (i.e., operated directly on the real-world
116 environment, i.e., online embodiment), or decoupled from the
117 real-world environment (offline embodiment, Wilson 2002). A
118 priori, the options for communicating sensory information in
119 the online environment would appear to be rather limited. After
120 all, it has traditionally not been possible to touch, smell, or taste
121 objects over the Internet (see Gallace & Spence 2014, for a
122 review). Thus, the online environment might be considered as a
123 context of offline embodiment, in which interactions with the
124 world occur only through digital interfaces. However, this does
125 not mean that the senses stop affecting cognition in the online
126 environment. In this context, cognitive activity is still supported
127 by modality-specific sensory systems (Niedenthal et al. 2005).
128 When consumers experience stimuli in the real-world (e.g.,
129 eating potato chips), the brain captures perceptual, motor, and
130 introspective states relating to the various senses and integrates
131 them into multisensory representations that are stored in
132 memory (e.g., texture of the chips crunching between the
133 teeth, Barsalou 2008; Papies and Barsalou 2015). Later, the
134 exposure to product pictures (potato chips) in online stores can
135 trigger spontaneous perceptual re-enactments (i.e., embodied
136 mental simulations: think of this as a more automatic form of
137 mental imagery) of those multisensory representations (Chen,
138 Papies, & Barsalou 2016; Petit et al. 2016Q6 ). These perceptual
139 re-enactments engage some of the same brain areas that were
140 recruited during the previous experiences which, in turn, can
141 produce similar sensations (Simmons, Martin, & Barsalou
142 2005; Spence et al. 2016).
143 Perceptual re-enactments have been observed in different
144 senses. Seeing the picture of a given food or reading its name
145 can activate the olfactory and the gustatory cortices (González
146 et al. 2006; Simmons et al. 2005). Similarly, the sight of lip
147 movements appears to stimulate the auditory cortex too
148 (Calvert et al. 1997). A recent study also showed that watching
149 the hand of someone else grasping food leads to activations in
150 motor-related brain areas (Basso et al. 2018). These studies
151 suggest that through perceptual re-enactments, the consumer's
152 senses might be stimulated online. More specifically, the
153 perceptual re-enactments produced by images on websites can
154 serve to fill in the missing features of the products that are not
155 physically present (this can be thought of as perceptual
156 completion, Pessoa & De Weerd 2003; Spence & Deroy
157 2013). Thus, by viewing product-related images on websites,
158 consumers might define sensory expectations, and even offset
159 their need for touch. We will see in the following sessions that
160 the new visual-enabling technologies might help reinforce
161perceptual reenactments, notably, by improving the feeling of
162immersion.
163In addition to images, devices such as computers and
164smartphones can facilitate auditory (via loudspeakers) and
165haptic interactions (via touch screens and vibrations) with a
166positive effect on product evaluation. These sensory inputs
167might also elicit perceptual re-enactments in other sensory
168modalities. For example, Kitagawa and Igarashi (2005) used
169sound to induce virtual touch sensations. They gave the
170impression to their participants that their ears had been tickled
171by presenting the sound of a brush stroking the ear of a dummy
172head. Several studies have also shown that hearing and touch
173can be used to stimulate visual imagery (de Volder et al. 2001;
174Lacey et al. 2010). Although product pictures are generally
175present on websites, by broadcasting sounds, producing
176vibrations, and allowing consumers to zoom/rotate the images
177with their fingers, marketers might give them a better visual
178representation. Moreover, these sensory inputs might facilitate
179multisensory integration, and thus have a positive effect on
180visual attention and search (Spence 2011).
181Recent progress in HCI has also led to the suggestion that
182marketers might be able to benefit from new multisensory tools
183(including olfactory and even taste stimulation, Obrist et al.
1842016; Petit et al. 2015; Spence et al. 2017). Thus, it might not
185be necessary to go via mental imagery in order to fill in the
186missing sensations in the online environment. The SETs offer a
187glimpse of a new “online”embodied environment, providing
188multisensory experiences similar to those observed in the real
189world. In the following sections, we show that the visual-
190enabling technologies are now able to improve perceptual re-
191enactments in the online environment with positive effects on
192both consumer experience and product evaluation. Thereafter,
193we highlight how the other SETs (i.e., already haptic and
194auditory, and eventually potentially even olfactory and
195gustatory devices) are likely to improve the effects of visual
196devices, while suggesting new forms of interaction with the
197consumer online (see Table 2 for a summary of the research).
198Visual-Enabling Technologies: A New Form of Mental
199Imagery
200Icons, pictures, font, and videos all constitute visual stimuli
201(and are key elements associated with a brand) that marketers
202can adjust (in terms of the resolution, color, depth, size,
203position, etc.) over the Internet in order to improve consumer
204experience. Moreover, it is currently possible to include 3D
205objects (see Fig. 1a, Algharabat et al. 2017) as well as to create
206VR environments (see Fig. 1b; Jin 2009). Visual-enabling
207technologies include larger views (super close-up; zoom in/out;
208enlargement), alternate views (e.g., views from 2 to 3 angles),
2093D-interactive view (views from every angle as a consumer
210drags their mouse), and virtual try-ons (VTO). In addition, they
211allow a consumer to zoom in on the product that they happen to
212be interested in, to rotate it and, by so doing, view it from a
213variety of different angles (Kim & Forsythe 2008a). In addition,
214they can undoubtedly change the way in which the consumer
215interacts with content online. They might be used to facilitate
2O. Petit et al. / Journal of Interactive Marketing xx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
Please cite this article as: Olivia Petit, et al., Digital Sensory Marketing: Integrating New Technologies into Multisensory Online Experience, Journal of Interactive
Marketing (2018), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intmar.2018.07.004

UNCORRECTED PROOF
Table 2t2:1
Research summary on digital sensory marketing concepts and interfaces.t2:2
t2:3Sensory design Relevant literature examples Key findings
t2:4Virtual
experience
3D virtual
environment
Animesh et al. (2011)
Gabisch (2011)
Huang (2012)
Jin (2009)
Lee & Chung (2008)
Nah et al. (2011)
Interactivity which the environment has a positive impact on telepresence and flow.
Self-image congruence and perceived diagnosticity moderate the effects of virtual world on
purchase intent.
Affective involvement has a more positive effect than flow on purchase intention in virtual
world.
Modality richness and prior involvement positively impact shopping behavior in 3D virtual
stores.
Virtual shopping mall creates stronger quality assurance and enjoyment than ordinary mall.
Virtual world increases telepresence and enjoyment with a positive effect on brand equity.
Using a Virtual Fitting Room on a website increases curiosity about the product, intention to
patronize (online and offline) and intention to purchase (online and offline).
AR has a positive effect on user experience that subsequently influences satisfaction and
willingness to buy.
AR has a positive influence on novelty, immersion, enjoyment, and usefulness, resulting in
positive attitudes and purchase intentions.
AR shopping app used at homes creates a close and intimate (rather than transactional)
relationship with the brand
Users experience food textures by using a device generating a force on their teeth.
Users virtually experience the sensations of drinking with straw trough pressure change in the
mouth, vibrations on the lips, and sound.
The sensor produces electrical stimulations on the user’s tongue with the hope of manipulating
the sourness.
t2:5AR environment Beck and Dominique Crié
2018
Poushneh & Vasquez-
Parraga 2017
Yim et al. (2017)
Scholz & Duffy (2018)
t2:6
Force feedback Iwata et al. (2004)
t2:7Audio-tactile
interface
Hashimoto et al. (2008)
t2:8Digital taste
interface
Ranasinghe et al. (2017)
t2:9Product
evaluation
Visual features Christian et al. (2016)
Cian et al. (2014)
Eelen et al. (2013)
Elder & Krishna (2012)
Gvili et al. (2017)
Shen & Sengupta (2012)
3
rd
(vs. 1
st
) person perspective decreased the mental representation, actual consumption, and
willingness to pay for unhealthy food.
Perceived movement evoked by pictures stimulate dynamic imagery that positively affects
consumer engagement.
Monitoring orientation cues affects product evaluation and choice
Product orientation (handle leftwards vs. rightwards) affect purchase intent.
Evoked motion in food pictures enhance projected taste and freshness
Occupying the dominant (vs. non-dominant) hand impairs the ease of simulation which leads
conumers to lower evaluations of the product.
Virtual product control has a positive impact on perceived diagnosticity and flow.
Virtual product experience increases telepresence with a positive impact on purchase intent.
Rotation in online product presentation impacts perceived information quantity and mood with
a positive effect on attitude, and purchase intent.
The quality of image used to construct a virtual mirror play an important role in product
evaluation.
Haptic imagery and sense of self-location during virtual try-on positively impact flow
experience.
Virtual try-on reduces product risk and increases the entertainment value of the online
shopping process.
Personalized (vs. non-personalized) virtual try-on elicits higher utilitarian value and purchase
intent.
Touch screen (vs. mouse interface) increases the number of alternatives searched, and leads the
consumer to more tangible attributes and internal sources of information in the choice process.
Touch screen (vs. mouse interface) enhances the choice of a hedonic option over a utilitarian
one.
Sound feedback (vs. no sound) from material products during virtual trial increase the
willingness to pay.
Ultrasound waves with modulation frequencies (16Hz, 250Hz) create textiles and wind/breeze
sensations.
Haptic interface allowing the user to manipulate objects remotely.
t2:10
3D product
visualization
Jiang & Benbasat (2004)
Li et al. (2002)
Park et al. (2008)
t2:11
Virtual try-on Cho & Schwarz (2012)
Huang & Lio (2017)
Kim & Forsythe (2008a, b)
Merle et al. (2012)
t2:12
Touch screen Brasel & Gips (2015)
Shen et al. (2016)
t2:13
Auditory features Ho et al. (2013)
t2:14
Mid-air haptic Obrist et al. (2013)
t2:15
Shapeshifting
display
Leithinger et al. (2014)
(continued on next page)
3O. Petit et al. / Journal of Interactive Marketing xx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
Please cite this article as: Olivia Petit, et al., Digital Sensory Marketing: Integrating New Technologies into Multisensory Online Experience, Journal of Interactive
Marketing (2018), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intmar.2018.07.004

UNCORRECTED PROOF
216 consumers' perceptual re-enactments, and help them to fill in
217 the missing sensory inputs (Spence & Deroy 2013). In the next
218 subsections, we discuss how these new forms of interaction
219 through visual-enabling are likely (or not) to improve the
220 experience and product evaluation.
221 Embodied Online Experience
222 Much of the research has demonstrated that carefully
223 considered visual features can make the online experience
224 more immersive, aesthetically pleasing, and enjoyable (Bölte et
225 al. 2017; Childers et al. 2001; Eroglu et al. 2001; Rose et al.
226 2012; Varadarajan et al. 2010). Li, Daugherty, and Biocca
227 (2001, p. 14) developed the concept of virtual experience to
228 represent “psychological and emotional states that consumers
229 undergo while interacting with products in a 3-D environ-
230 ment”.According to a recent review by Javornik (2016a),
231visual-enabling technologies have been used to improve web
232atmospheres. They may create a sensation of immersion (or
233telepresence), detaching people from the physical reality, thus
234absorbing them in their virtual experience (Animesh et al. 2011;
235Klein 2003; Li, Daugherty, & Biocca 2002; Nah,
236Eschenbrenner, and Dewester 2011; Yim, Chu, and Sauer
2372017). It has been argued that 3D environments might deliver
238higher levels of enjoyment than 2D or physical environments
239(Kim & Forsythe 2008b; Lee & Chung 2008; Nah et al. 2011).
240Crucially, this seemingly more enjoyable experience provided
241by virtual and augmented reality was found to have a positive
242impact on both purchase intentions and on the consumers'
243willingness to pay (Animesh et al. 2011; Beck and Crié 2018;
244Gabisch 2011; Jin 2009; Poushneh & Vasquez-Parraga 2017 Q7).
245Thus, the virtual environment seems to provide a fuller
246experience to the consumer. From the point of view of the
247theory of embodied cognition, this would lead to considering
t2:16 Table 2
(continued)
t2:17 Sensory design Relevant literature examples Key findings
t2:18 Need for touch 3D product
visualization
Choi & Taylor (2014) For geometric products: 3D product image have higher persuasive effects than 2D product
image for both high- and low-NFT consumers. For material products, 3D visualization only
have a positive effect for low-NFT consumers. Mental imagery mediates the persuasive effects
of the 3D versus 2D format.
Touch screen (vs. mouse interface) elicit stronger feelings of perceived product ownership,
with stronger effects for material products.
AR product manipulation result in higher levels of perceived ownership, with stronger effect
for material products.
Force feedback (vs. no force feedback) elicits more positive product evaluation, test-driving
experience, and brand-self connection for consumers high in instrumental NFT.
Product rotation and scrunch increase use engagement for material products, regardless their
NFT.
t2:19
Touch screen Brasel & Gips (2014)
t2:20
Augmented reality Brengman et al. (in press)
t2:21
Force feedback Jin (2011)
t2:22
Tactile features Cano et al. (2017)
t2:23 Midas touch
effect
Force feedback Sällnas (2000) Haptic force feedback increases perceived social presence.
Vibrotactile touch (vs. no touch) does not provide more helping behaviour.
Helping behaviour was higher in the vibrotacile (vs. no) touch condition when participants who
initiated the virtual touch knew the purpose of the study in advance.
Squeeze is better to communicate unpleasant and aroused emotion, while finger touch is better
for pleasant and relaxed emotion.
Vibrotactile feedback affects generosity (increasing an offer) but not direct compliance
(accepting an offer).
Conversations with a remote partner using huggable human-shaped device (vs. mobile phone)
reduces the cortisol levels (stress hormone).
t2:24 Vibrotactile
feedback
Haans & IJsselsteijn (2009)
Haans et al. (2014)
Rantala et al. (2013)
t2:25
Human-shaped
cushion
Spapé et al. (2015)
Sumioka et al. (2013)
t2:26 Sensory
congruency
Visual features Sunaga et al. (2016)
Velasco et al. (2015)
Velasco et al. (2016b.)
Woods & Spence (2016)
Visual search is facilitated when light (dark) coloured products are positioned in the upper
(lower) shelf positions.
Semantic congruence between colour (e.g., red) and flavour (e.g., tomato) facilitates visual
search.
Rounder designs are evaluated more often as sweeter than angular designs.
Specific colours (e.g., red, green, black, and white) can help to communicate basic tastes (e.g.,
sweet, sour, bitter, and salty).
Low (vs. high) sound frequency leads people to fixate on dark (vs. light) objects faster and
longer and increase purchase intent.
Semantic congruence between sound (e.g., popping sound) and product (e.g., bottle of
Champagne) facilitates visual search
Aerosol sprays are perceived as being more pleasant (but significantly less forceful) when the
high-frequency sounds is attenuated.
Potato chips are perceived as being both crisper and fresher when the high frequency sounds
are amplified.
Sight, sound and smell congruency in virtual environment do not impact liking, but
significantly affect the time spent evaluating product.
t2:27 Auditory features Hagtvedt and
Brasel 2016
Knoeferle et al.
(2016)
Spence & Zampini (2007)
Zampini & Spence (2004)
t2:28 Multisensory
features
Liu et al. (2018)
4O. Petit et al. / Journal of Interactive Marketing xx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
Please cite this article as: Olivia Petit, et al., Digital Sensory Marketing: Integrating New Technologies into Multisensory Online Experience, Journal of Interactive
Marketing (2018), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intmar.2018.07.004

UNCORRECTED PROOF
248 the online environment as a place of online embodiment, in
249 which the perceptual, motor, and introspective states across the
250 various senses should be considered in detail (Barsalou 2008;
251 Niedenthal et al. 2005).
252 It should, however, be noted that to date the research has
253 mainly highlighted the impact of visual-enabling technologies
254 on the affective reactions to the online experience (see Javornik
255 2016a). Their effects on the flow, a cognitive state experienced
256 during online navigation, in which consumers are completely
257 absorbed in their activity, are rather mixed (Animesh et al.
258 2011; Huang 2012, Huang and Liao 2017; Jiang & Benbasat
259 2004; Novak, Hoffman, and Yung 2000; Van Noort, Voorveld,
260 and Van Reijmersdal 2012). These mixed effects on the
261 consumer's cognitive state is all the more problematic because
262 that utilitarian value (i.e., functional benefit) is more strongly
263 related to preference toward the Internet retailer and online
264 buying than hedonic value (i.e., experiential benefits, Bridges
265 & Florsheim 2008; Overby & Lee 2006). However, this does
266 not necessarily mean that the impact of sensory marketing on
267 consumer behavior is limited in the online environment, but
268 that it does not necessarily go through the same channels as
269 those used in the physical environment. In the next subsection,
270 we show how visual-enabling technologies are likely to affect
271 online behavior by proposing new ways to interact with the
272 product.
273Embodied Online Product Evaluation
274As noted earlier, seeing a picture of an object reactivates, at
275least in part, the same brain areas that were mobilized during
276the previous perceptual episodes (Barsalou 2008; Simmons et
277al. 2005). Thus, simply by displaying a picture of a food on the
278screen, the wily marketer may be able to stimulate mental
279images of its texture, smell, and even flavor that can facilitate
280the customer's evaluation of the food (Elder & Krishna 2012;
281Krishna, Cian, and Sokolova 2016; Petit et al. 2017; Spence &
282Deroy 2013; Spence et al. 2016). In order to help consumers
283mentally simulate interactions with products during their online
284experiences, marketers can change the way in which the
285product image is presented (Krishna & Schwarz 2014). For
286example, they may want to favor the use of dynamic (over
287static) images of the product (Cian, Krishna, and Elder 2014;
288Gvili et al. 2017; see Spence et al. 2016, for a review).
289By using dynamic images, marketers can increase the
290consumer's ability to generate mental simulations of transfor-
291mation, rotation, and reorganizations of the imagined product
292with a positive effect on its evaluation (Cian et al. 2014). At the
293cerebral level, Basso et al. (2018) found that watching videos
294featuring a hand grasping food (vs. object) leads to an increase
295of activity in somatosensory-motor brain areas. Neural activity
296in these areas is often seen when grasping objects and could
Fig. 1. (a.) 3D product presentation, Algharabat et al. (2017); (b.) Spokes-avatars in a virtual retail store, Jin (2009); (c.) Personalized virtual try-on: Augmented-
reality interactive technology, Huang and Lio (2017).
5O. Petit et al. / Journal of Interactive Marketing xx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
Please cite this article as: Olivia Petit, et al., Digital Sensory Marketing: Integrating New Technologies into Multisensory Online Experience, Journal of Interactive
Marketing (2018), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intmar.2018.07.004

UNCORRECTED PROOF
297 potentially facilitate the simulation of food consumption (Chen
298 et al. 2016; Vingerhoets 2014). Similar to dynamic images,
299 mental simulations might also be stimulated simply by
300 orienting a product on the screen in the direction of the hand
301 that is normally used when grasping (e.g., Eelen, Dewitte, and
302 Warlop 2013; Elder & Krishna 2012; Shen & Sengupta 2012),
303 or by changing the perspective from which a product is viewed
304 (Basso et al. 2018; Christian et al. 2016). Therefore, one might
305 expect that simply by capitalizing on such visual manipula-
306 tions, the marketer could make a customer's online product
307 evaluation more immersive, despite the separation necessarily
308 created by viewing a product on a screen.
309 The new visual-enabling technologies are likely to enhance
310 this sensation of immersion. 3D images give the user the
311 feeling of being able to interact with the product itself, and
312 thus stimulate mental simulations of product interaction (Li et
313 al. 2001). Such effects of 3D images on product evaluation
314 can be reinforced by allowing the user to spin/rotate the
315 product, thus enabling them to examine the product from all
316 possible angles. For instance, in one study, Park, Stoel, and
317 Lennon (2008) displayed two pairs of khaki trousers (rotating
318 vs. non-rotating) on a website. They found that the rotating
319 version increased perceived information quantity among the
320 participants with a knock-on positive effect on attitude and
321 purchase intentions.
322 Jai, O'Boyle, and Fang (2014) analyzed the effect of format
323 (static, zooming and rotate views) of pictures of dresses on
324 brain activity during the encoding (visual presentation period)
325 and decision processes. During the decision process, women
326 were instructed to create a mental image of the product and to
327 indicate how much money they wanted to bid for the dress.
328 They found that during the encoding period, image zooming
329 (vs. static images) led to higher activations in the primary visual
330 cortex, but did not lead to higher modulation in motor areas. As
331 such, these results suggest that image zooming provides more
332 detailed visual information than static images, but does not
333 stimulate mental simulations of grasping movements. They also
334 failed to find any difference between both images during the
335 decision process. By contrast, during this period, rotation
336 videos (vs. static images) led to higher activities in visual and
337 premotor cortices, suggesting that participants had more vivid
338 mental images of product interactions in their mind. In this
339 condition, participants also present more activity in those areas
340 known to code the reward value of stimuli (caudate nucleus and
341 putamen), and self-related mental processing (precuneus) areas
342 (Fransson & Marrelec 2008; Knutson et al. 2007). These results
343 suggest that rotation view might promote a better sense of self-
344 referencing with a higher level of product preference.
345 Self-referencing can also be improved by providing a more
346 personalized virtual experience. VTO allows the shopper to use
347 an avatar, create their own virtual models based on their facial
348 characteristics, or else even to use a “virtual mirror”(created
349 with their own digital photo uploaded to a retailer's Website,
350 Pantano & Naccarato 2010; or by using augmented-reality
351 interactive technology, see Fig. 1c, Huang and Liao 2017). The
352 research suggests that VTO can provide reliable information
353 regarding the fit and how a product might look on the potential
354consumer (Cho & Schwarz 2012; Javornik 2016b; Kim &
355Forsythe 2008b; Merle, Senecal, and St-Onge 2012). Cho and
356Schwartz highlighted that VTO positively impacts people's
357product evaluation, especially when the latter upload their
358favorite (rather than just a conveniently available) pictures of
359themselves. Similarly, Merle et al. (2012) reported that
360personalized (vs. non-personalized) VTO improves self-
361congruity and the confidence of consumers in their product
362choices. More recently, Huang and Liao (2017) also demon-
363strated that VTO can have a positive impact on flow
364experience, by affecting perceived ownership, and self-
365explorative engagement. Therefore, VTO might help reduce
366“bracketing,”a trend to buy multiple products, select the best
367one, and then returning the rest (Sharma 2017). However, while
368these new visual-enabling technologies offer a more direct
369interaction with the product than 2D visuals, it is not certain
370that this interaction is sufficient to allow consumers to evaluate
371all the products. Some products may have material properties
372difficult to evaluate without a real touch, this point is discussed
373in the next subsection.
374Need for Touch for Visual Evaluation
375Researchers have demonstrated that some people feel a need
376to touch the product (or imagine touching it) in order to be
377confident in their choices (Peck, Barger, and Webb 2013; Peck,
378& Childers 2003a, b; Peck & Shu 2009; Shu & Peck 2011).
379However, the need for touch (NFT) varies depending on the
380tactile properties of the products themselves. Some products,
381for instance, have more salient geometric (e.g., shape, size, and
382structure) and other material (e.g., texture, temperature, and
383weight) properties than do others (see Choi & Taylor 2014;
384Lederman 1974; Spence & Gallace 2008). An image and/or a
385written description of the haptic properties might therefore be
386sufficient to evaluate a product with more salient geometric
387properties (e.g., a smartphone). However, consumers might
388need to touch a product with more salient material properties
389(e.g., a sweater) in order to evaluate it, especially those
390consumers with a high NFT (McCabe & Nowlis 2003; Peck &
391Childers 2003a, b). Thus, some haptic dimensions might be
392easier to simulate than others in an online environment.
393Visual-enabling technologies have been shown to enhance
394the ability of consumers to imagine touching and trying-on
395products on a shopping website (Li et al. 2001 2002). Thus,
396these technologies appear interesting as far as addressing the
397NFT of consumers in virtual environments is concerned (Peck
398& Childers 2003a, b). For instance, Choi and Taylor (2014)
399demonstrated that 3D images can stimulate mental imagery
400with a knock-on positive impact on persuasion. In their study,
401websites with 2D and 3D formats were developed in order to
402advertise two products with different haptic properties: a watch
403(geometric properties) and a jacket (material properties). The
404results indicated that 3D advertising for the watch created more
405vivid mental images with a positive effect on attitude toward
406the brand, purchase intentions, and intention to revisit the
407website as compared to the 2D advertising. However, for the
408jacket, 3D advertising only exerted a positive effect on product
6O. Petit et al. / Journal of Interactive Marketing xx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
Please cite this article as: Olivia Petit, et al., Digital Sensory Marketing: Integrating New Technologies into Multisensory Online Experience, Journal of Interactive
Marketing (2018), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intmar.2018.07.004

UNCORRECTED PROOF
409 evaluation for those people with a lower NFT. Thus, consumers
410 with a high NFT might need to physically contact material
411 products online in order to facilitate their decision-making. This
412 physical contact could be provided by the new haptic-enabling
413 technologies, as discussed below.
414 Haptic-Enabling Technologies: A New Form of Physical
415 Contact
416 While consumers cannot literally touch the products that
417 they see online, they normally do interact haptically with
418 multiple interfaces already (e.g., mice and touch screens).
419 These haptic interfaces might compensate for the lack of actual
420 touch in those who feel a high NFT. Moreover, several devices
421 have already been developed (though are still not widespread)
422 to improve haptic interactions through the Internet, such as
423 vibrotactile interfaces (Kim et al. 2013), body-grounded tactile
424 actuators (tapping on, squeezing, and twisting, Stanley &
425 Kuchenbecker 2011), or even mid-air haptics (Ablart, Velasco,
426 and Obrist 2017; Obrist, Seah, and Subramanian 2013; Vi et al.
427 2017; see Huisman 2017, for a recent review). These
428 technological developments may prove useful as far as
429 improving physical interactions with both objects and people
430 are concerned (Brengman, Willems, and Van Kerrebroeck
431 2018; Chung, Kramer, and Wong 2018; Kerrebroeck, Helena,
432 and Brengman 2017). Below, we describe how such develop-
433 ments may impact product selection, the NFT, and even
434 interpersonal interactions.
435 Haptic Product Evaluation
436 Using a direct touch interface has consequences for how
437 people search for a product or service and make their choices
438online (see Brasel & Gips 2015; Shen, Zhang, and Krishna
4392016). For instance, the participants in one study by Brasel and
440Gips had to search for hotels on a travel review website using
441either a touch screen or a mouse interface. Interestingly, those
442who used the touch screen mentioned more tangible elements
443of the room (e.g., referring to its décor and furniture), and
444considered internal sources of information (e.g., gut feel and
445instinct) as being more important in their choice process. By
446contrast, those who used the mouse were more affected by
447external objective sources (user reviews and star ratings), and
448mentioned more intangible attributes as instrumental in making
449their decision (e.g., the availability of Wi-Fi and employee
450demeanor). Thus, touch-screen devices would appear more
451likely to bias the online purchase process than more traditional
452mouse interfaces.
453Using a haptic interface can also affect the consumer's
454preference. Shen et al. (2016) found that using a direct touch
455interface compared with a non-touch interface made people
456more likely to choose a hedonic option over a utilitarian one.
457They also demonstrated that mental interaction with the
458products mediates this direct-touch effect. These results suggest
459that similar to visual design, haptic design can be manipulated
460to enhance mental simulations of product interaction. Based on
461the available evidence, marketers should, whenever possible,
462therefore consider whether it is possible to use different
463interfaces as a function of the kind of product that they wish
464to promote.
465Need for Touch for Material Evaluation
466Visual-enabling technologies have proven unsuitable for the
467evaluation of products with material properties by individuals
468with a high NFT (Choi & Taylor 2014). However, the online
Fig. 2. Shoogleit multi-gesture interface on touch screen, Cano et al. (2017).
7O. Petit et al. / Journal of Interactive Marketing xx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
Please cite this article as: Olivia Petit, et al., Digital Sensory Marketing: Integrating New Technologies into Multisensory Online Experience, Journal of Interactive
Marketing (2018), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intmar.2018.07.004

UNCORRECTED PROOF
469 environment offers the consumer other ways in which to
470 interact with the products that they may happen to be
471 evaluating. For instance, Brasel and Gips (2014) demonstrated
472 that touch screens elicit stronger feelings of perceived product
473 ownership than touchpads or mice. In turn, this perceived
474 ownership increases what people are willing to pay in order to
475 acquire the products. They also found that the touch–
476 ownership link is stronger for those products that have high
477 material properties (e.g., a sweatshirt as compared to a city
478 tour). By providing a more direct interaction with the product
479 than visual interfaces, haptic interfaces have no doubt
480 stimulated mental imagery and thus increased the perception
481 of ownership for material products. However, these techniques
482 have not been successful in compensating for the NFT of
483 material products, something that might potentially be
484 addressed by certain of the new haptic interfaces (Cano et al.
485 2017; Jin 2011). For example, Cano et al. used a digital tool
486 called Shoogleit which allows the user to virtually pinch and
487 scrunch a section of the clothing fabric with their fingertips on
488 a tablet during product evaluation (see Fig. 2). This
489 technology contributed to a higher level of user engagement,
490 regardless of participants' NFT. Thus, further studies should be
491conducted in order to see whether this type of technology
492could be used to improve the assessment of people with high
493NFT for other material properties such as flexibility or
494elasticity of clothing.
495Recent progress in HCI suggests that it will soon be possible
496to imitate the feel of different textures by means of tactile
497interfaces. For instance, Obrist et al. (2013) created different
498non-contact tactile sensations using ultrasound waves with
499modulation frequencies (16 Hz, 250 Hz). They found that
500participants associated the 16 Hz stimulation frequency with
501physical materials, such as thin textiles, whereas the experience
502on being stimulated by 250 Hz was related to wind/breeze, such
503as air-conditioning in the car instead. These haptic stimulations
504might one day, perhaps, help to communicate different material
505properties concerning the products via the Internet, and by so
506doing compensate for the customer's NFT. These new haptic-
507enabling technologies can also help the consumer to understand
508how the product works, by interacting physically with it at a
509distance. Leithinger and his colleagues (2014) developed
510inFORM, a shape-shifting display, with an operation that,
511similar to the Pinscreen, creates rough 3D models of objects by
512pressing them into flattened pins. The “pins”of inFORM are
513connected to a laptop, and can be manipulated to make physical
514representations of digital contents, and also to interact with
515real-life objects (e.g., playing with a ball, Fig. 3). The idea is
516that consumers would benefit from such a technology in that
517it would enable them to manipulate products with salient
518material properties before buying them remotely (e.g., to feel
519the delicacy of a fabric or the robustness of a chair, say). Thus,
520they will not need to go through mental imagery to fill in the
521missing sensations in the online environment (Spence & Deroy
5222013).
523Midas Online Touch Effect
524In the future, marketers will likely also want to promote
525interpersonal relationships in the online environment in order to
526make their website appear more trustworthy, or even promote
527word of mouth on social media. Kreijns et al. (2007) suggest
528that improving the perceived sociability of a website is likely to
529facilitate a consumer's trust, belongingness, and sense of
530community. Animesh et al. (2011) also highlighted that
531perceived sociability in the virtual environment is positively
532related to the experience of flow. Haptic-enabling technologies
533might help to improve interpersonal relationships when
534communication is over the Internet. Touch is very important
535when it comes to establishing secure attachments and
536interpersonal connections between people (see Gallace &
537Spence 2014, for a review; Guerrero & Andersen 1994).
538Touching someone can result in prosocial behavior, a
539phenomenon known as the “Midas touch effect”(Crusco &
540Wetzel 1984). For instance, Crusco and Wetzel found that
541when a server physically touches a customer, it leads to an
542increase in the size of the tip. Similarly, being touched by a
543salesperson can give rise to a feeling of social attachment,
544which can then enhance the evaluation of products and services
545(Hornik 1992). Social touch also has the power to communicate
Fig. 3. InFORM shapeshifting display, Leithinger et al. (2014).
8O. Petit et al. / Journal of Interactive Marketing xx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
Please cite this article as: Olivia Petit, et al., Digital Sensory Marketing: Integrating New Technologies into Multisensory Online Experience, Journal of Interactive
Marketing (2018), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intmar.2018.07.004

UNCORRECTED PROOF
546 specific emotions. So, for example, Hertenstein et al. (2006)
547 showed that hitting, squeezing, or shaking the forearm of
548 another person can be used to communicate anger, whereas
549 love is mostly communicated by stroking, finger interlocking,
550 and rubbing.
551 Similar to real touch, haptic devices allow people to induce
552 affective reactions over the Internet (Sumioka et al. 2013, see
553 Gallace & Spence 2014; Huisman 2017, for reviews). For
554 example, by producing specific patterns of vibrotactile
555 feedback, Rantala et al. (2013) were able to induce emotions
556 in users. Thus, unpleasant and high-arousal emotions were
557 found to be better transmitted by means of squeeze-like
558 gestures, whereas the finger-touch gesture was more suitable
559 for pleasant and low aroused emotions. Other studies have also
560 showed that digital haptic input can be used to increase feelings
561 of telepresence (Sallnäs, Rassmus-Gröhn, and Sjöström 2000;
562 see Gallace et al. 2012, for a review). Interestingly, though, the
563 Midas touch effect has proved difficult to reproduce using
564 haptic-enabling technologies. For instance, Haans and
565 IJsselsteijn (2009) failed to find a virtual “Midas touch effect”
566 when people were touched by a haptic device. More recently,
567 though, Haans, de Bruijn, and IJsselsteijn (2014) succeeded in
568 demonstrating a virtual Midas touch effect, but only when the
569 confederate (i.e., the person who initiated the virtual touch)
570 knew in which experimental condition (virtual touch vs. no
571 touch) was the participant who had to exhibit signs of prosocial
572 behavior. They may have been biased to elicit helping behavior
573 in the touch condition. Thus, it is possible that only specific
574 prosocial behaviors might be affected by the virtual “Midas
575 touch effect”. Consistent with such a view, Spapé et al. (2015)
576 reported that vibrotactile feedback affected generosity (i.e.,
577 increasing the size of an offer) but not direct compliance (i.e.,
578 accepting an offer).
579 Without going as far as prosocial behavior, these technol-
580 ogies can simply improve the felt closeness between people
581 (and between people and brands). For instance, Mueller et al.
582 (2005) developed a device that allows one person to send a hug
583 to another by rubbing the belly of a stuffed animal. Similarly,
584 the inFORM display allows the users to touch their hands
585 remotely, to extend the physical embodiment in the online
586 environment (see Fig. 3,Leithinger et al. 2014). Developing
587 this kind of interaction for use while on the Internet may be of
588 interest to marketers, given that online consumer socialization
589 through peer communication plays a key role in purchase
590 decisions (Wang, Yu, and Wei 2012). However, to facilitate
591 haptic communication online, cheaper and more convenient
592 interfaces, adaptable to computers and mobile phones, will
593 likely need to be developed. For example, Park and Nam
594 (2013) created a device to share haptic “pokes”during phone
595 calls. Pokes are sent through an inflatable surface on the front
596 of a mobile phone, while another person receives finger
597 pressure inputs on the back of another phone. It is easy to
598 imagine how such a device might one day be used on social
599 media, to poke friends, followers, and even potential customers.
600 However, it is worth noting that such a Poke might still be very
601 similar to a notification signaled by vibration of the mobile
602 phone that can be turned off.
603Multisensory-Enabling Technologies: The Future of the
604Internet
605The majority of life's most enjoyable experiences are
606inherently multisensory (Spence 2002). In the real world, the
607more store atmospherics are multisensorially congruent, the
608more pleasant and interesting they will likely be evaluated
609(Mattila & Wirtz 2001; see Spence et al. 2014, for a review).
610The same is likely to be true for online environments (Dinh et
611al. 1999; Feng, Dey, and Lindeman 2016; Liu, Hannum, and
612Simons 2018; Obrist et al. 2016; Spence et al. 2017). Previous
613research has shown that multisensory integration increases the
614likelihood that the brain detects a stimulus and/or initiates a
615response to this stimulus (see Stein & Stanford 2008 for a
616review). Furthermore, multisensory integration (and other
617forms of crossmodal interaction) might be facilitated by
618semantic congruency and cross-modal correspondences (Chen
619& Spence 2018; Spence 2011).
620Semantic congruency refers to those situations in which
621pairs of stimuli in different sensory modalities share common
622identity or meaning (e.g., woofing sound paired with a static
623picture of a dog). Cross-modal correspondences describe a
624more general tendency for a feature, or attribute (e.g., larger/
625smaller objects), in one sensory modality to be matched (or
626associated) with a sensory feature, or attribute (e.g., lower/
627higher-pitched sounds), in another (Spence 2011). Based on
628cross-modal correspondences, mental imagery occurring in one
629sensory modality (not only visual) might result from the
630presentation of a physical stimulus in another. Cross-modal
631mental imagery has been considered as a form of perceptual
632completion and might thus be used to fill in the missing features
633through the Internet (Spence & Deroy 2013).
634Cross-modal correspondences and semantic congruency
635have been shown to influence performance across a range of
636different tasks (e.g., speed of detection, perceptual discrimina-
637tion) that can be relevant to make decisions in the online
638environment (Spence 2011). Specifically, in the following
639subsections, we show how visual and auditory designs can be
640used/combined in order to improve information search and
641sensory expectations, and how new multisensory-enabling
642technologies can lead marketers to rethink consumer's online
643experience.
644Sensory Congruency in Product Search
645During online purchases on a retailer's websites (e.g., shoes,
646digital cameras, or food), it is often necessary to display a large
647number of images representing relatively similar products. The
648choice between items can be difficult to make. In this context,
649brands have to attract customers' attention on their product
650images in order to increase their chances of selection (Armel,
651Beaumel, and Rangel 2008; Milosavljevic et al. 2012). In order
652to improve product saliency, marketers might want to ensure
653that the visual features used to promote the products are
654congruent with their other sensory attributes.
655Sunaga, Park, and Spence (2016) highlighted that lighter
656colored objects tend to be perceived as lighter (in weight), and
9O. Petit et al. / Journal of Interactive Marketing xx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
Please cite this article as: Olivia Petit, et al., Digital Sensory Marketing: Integrating New Technologies into Multisensory Online Experience, Journal of Interactive
Marketing (2018), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intmar.2018.07.004

UNCORRECTED PROOF
657 objects appear lighter when they are presented at the upper part
658 of the visual field. Based on these associations, they were able
659 to facilitate their participants' visual search by using a display
660 on the screen with light (dark) colored products positioned in
661 the upper (lower) shelf positions. Here, the cross-modal
662 correspondence between the lightness of product colors and
663 their location increased the speed and accuracy with which
664 products were detected, facilitating visual search and product
665 selection. Similar correspondences also exist between light
666 (dark) color and high (low) sound frequency (Marks 1987Q8 ).
667 Relevant here, Hagtvedt and Brasel (2016)Q9 recently found that
668 low (vs. high) sound frequency leads people to fixate on dark
669 (vs. light) objects faster and for longer.
670 Semantic congruency can also affect visual search. For
671 example, Velasco et al. (2015) reported that people search for,
672 and find, target products in online displays significantly faster
673 when the color of the packaging happens to be (semantically)
674 congruent with the flavor of the product (e.g., red/tomato) than
675 when it is less congruent (e.g., yellow/tomato). Similarly,
676 Knoeferle et al. (2016) demonstrated that using sounds that are
677 semantically associated with particular brands/product catego-
678 ries reduces the amount of time used to search on a virtual
679 shelf, whether this sound is made by the packaging (e.g., the
680 popping sound of the cork when a bottle of Champagne is
681 opened), or a product-related jingle (e.g., the slogan of a
682 laundry brand). Thus, congruent sounds may be used to help
683 the consumer find the products that they are looking for on a
684 cluttered website more rapidly, even if this product does not
685 itself have any particularly salient sound associated with it.
686 However, since certain cross-modal associations can be
687 contextually and culturally determined (e.g., flavor expecta-
688 tions of colored beverage, Spence 2011; Wan et al. 2014), it is
689 important for marketers to adapt the visual and auditory
690 features not only to the products but also to the targeted
691 customers.
692Sensory Congruency in Product Evaluation
693Once the customers' attention has been captured, they will
694need to analyze the attributes of the product to know whether or
695not it meets their expectations (Dawar & Parker 1994). Similar
696to visual search, visual and auditory features can communicate
697sensory expectations by considering semantic congruency and
698cross-modal correspondences. For instance, round shapes (e.g.,
699logos, labels, figures, typefaces) have been shown to be more
700appropriate when it comes to communicating sweetness, while
701bitter, salty, and sour tastes might be better promoted through
702the use of more angular shapes instead (see Velasco et al.
7032016b, for a review). Similarly, pink, white, green, and black
704foreground colors should be used to enhance people's
705expectations that a product is going to taste sweet, salty, sour,
706and bitter, respectively (see Favre & November 1979; Spence et
707al., 2015; Woods & Spence 2016 Q10).
708At this stage, auditory features can be used to convey, or
709accentuate, the sensory features of a product online through
710semantic congruency (e.g., the crack of the chocolate of an ice-
711cream bar, or even the sound of a vacuum cleaner or coffee
712machine, see Minsky & Fahey 2017). For example, Zampini
713and Spence (2004) demonstrated that simply by manipulating
714the sounds made while biting into crisps (potato chips), the
715perceived crispness and freshness of crisps can be enhanced.
716Similarly, Spence and Zampini (2007) found that the level and
717frequency of sounds can also affect a consumer's perception of
718the forcefulness (and hence efficacy) of aerosol sprays.
719Meanwhile, Ho et al. (2013) were able to improve the virtual
720experience associated with trying on new clothing (a product
721with more salient material properties) based on semantic
722congruency, by adding synchronized naturalistic auditory
723feedback. Immersed in the virtual clothing environment,
724participants imagined that they were out shopping for a winter
725jacket and had to try on two options in two conditions (with the
726sound made by the clothes when the wearer moves were
727synchronized vs. silence). The authors found that in the
728presence of sound during the virtual trial, the users were
729willing to pay more for the jacket than when they tried it on in
730silence. Thus, by playing on the semantic congruency between
731sounds and material properties in virtual environments,
732marketers might help those consumers with a high NFT to be
733more confident in their choices.
734Care should, however, be taken not to bore the customer or
735to assault their ears with too much auditory stimulation (what is
736often referred to as “noise”; see Malhotra 1984; Spence 2014).
737Consumers may prefer to shop on the Internet for the peace of
738mind it provides, and the possibility of turning-off the sound
739(interestingly, some bricks-and-mortar stores have now started
740offering silent chill-out spaces: e.g., Selfridges, the London
741department store offered this back in 2013; see Mardin 2013).
742Nevertheless, while consumers may sometimes find back-
743ground sound to be distracting, it is important to remember that
744product sounds can provide an essential source of information
745in terms of product evaluation (see Spence and Zampini 2006 Q11,
746for a review). Moreover, marketers should be able to benefit
747from new multisensory-enabling technologies to stimulate
Fig. 4. MetaCookie+, Narumi et al. (2011).
10 O. Petit et al. / Journal of Interactive Marketing xx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
Please cite this article as: Olivia Petit, et al., Digital Sensory Marketing: Integrating New Technologies into Multisensory Online Experience, Journal of Interactive
Marketing (2018), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intmar.2018.07.004

UNCORRECTED PROOF
748 several senses at once, which should further facilitate sensory
749 integration (Spence 2011; Stein & Stanford 2008). Some of
750 these technologies are presented in the following section.
751 Multisensory Online Experience
752 New multisensory devices are emerging, offering the
753 opportunity to stimulate more of the customer's senses over
754 the Internet. While these technologies are not yet fully
755 commercialized, they let us dream of an online environment
756 more connected to the senses. For example, Ranasinghe et al.
757 (2018) recently developed “Season Traveler,”a customized
758 wearable Head Mounted Display (HMD) system that features
759 smells, thermal, and wind stimuli to simulate real-world
760 environmental conditions when users explore (virtually)
761 different landscapes. Similarly, an AR device called
762 MetaCookie+ allow the user to change the perceived flavor of
763 food (e.g., a plain cookie) by virtually manipulating its
764 appearance and diffusing additional smell (e.g., chocolate,
765 strawberry; see Fig. 4,Narumi et al. 2011; see also Okajima &
766 Spence 2011).
767 New adaptations of sensory marketing strategies in online
768 environments may be possible based on these multisensory
769 interfaces. One day odors might be diffused while people are
770 online in order to stimulate perceptual re-enactment and
771 facilitate memorization and recall of information in the online
772 environment (Braun et al. 2016; Krishna, Lwin, and Morrin
773 2010; Morrin & Ratneshwar 2003). For instance, one could
774 imagine the Doubletree chain of hotels diffusing the same scent
775 of the cookies offered to customers at the reception desk, via
776 smell devices, during online booking, say, to set up an
777 anticipation of what's to come (though see Spence 2015).
778 However, this requires that the devices have enough odors in
779 stock to be able to diffuse the one corresponding to the brand,
780 and that consumers also think of reloading the odor diffusers
781(and that they are available for refill), which seems unrealistic
782at this stage.
783One can also dream that it would be possible to share the
784taste of products on the Internet (see Velasco et al. 2018, for a
785review on multisensory technologies for online and mixed
786reality food experiences). However, only a few SETs have
787succeeded in simulating the sense of taste (and mostly, only
788within the confines of the technology labs; Straw-like User
789Interface, Hashimoto, Inami, and Kajimoto 2008; food
790simulator, Iwata et al. 2004; Spence et al. 2017; Velasco et al.
7912016a). Recently, Ranasinghe et al. (2017) presented a new
792method by which to potentially share drinking experiences
793digitally over the Internet. First, they presented a device that is
794able to capture the color and pH value of a lemonade (among
795other liquids) and explained that these data might be digitally
796transmitted to a special tumbler filled with plain water in
797another location. On receiving the information from the device,
798the tumbler changes the color of the liquid in the glass using
799LEDs and produced electrical stimulations on the user's tongue
800(note that the user has to stick their tongue out and touch it on
801the glass) with the hope of manipulating the experienced
802sourness of the ensuing taste sensation (see Fig. 5).
803On reading about the aforementioned techniques, marketers
804might imagine a future in which people could upload the flavor
805(including taste and smell) before making their product choice
806in a supermarket or pizza home-delivery website. However,
807before jumping straight into such futuristic scenarios, it is worth
808noting that there are many biological (e.g., individual
809differences in gustatory perception on the basis of thermal
810stimulation of the tongue) and technical challenges (e.g., sweet
811taste sensations are more difficult to elicit than sour or salty
812sensations) that need to be addressed before such systems
813become viable (see Spence et al. 2017). Such technologies are,
814then, not necessarily all that interesting to marketers in their
815current form. That said, they do perhaps suggest new ways of
Fig. 5. Virtual Lemonade, Ranasinghe et al. (2017).
11O. Petit et al. / Journal of Interactive Marketing xx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
Please cite this article as: Olivia Petit, et al., Digital Sensory Marketing: Integrating New Technologies into Multisensory Online Experience, Journal of Interactive
Marketing (2018), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intmar.2018.07.004

UNCORRECTED PROOF
816 interacting with consumers online in the (near) future. Next, we
817 discuss opportunities for research.
818 Need for Research
819 There have been many efforts in HCI directed at integrating
820 different sensory modalities online. However, further research
821 is still needed in order to create more enjoyable and informative
822 multisensory experiences for the consumer by means of SETs.
823 Marketing and HCI researchers should therefore think about
824 what kind of experiences they wish to offer to consumers and
825 both capitalize on those new tools and develop others that
826 facilitate the delivery of multisensory experiences. We try to
827 provide some answers to a series of outstanding relevant
828 questions, by suggesting some lines of research.
829 How Do Offline and Online Environments Differ in Terms of
830 Multisensory Information Processing?
831 Although the new SETs bring online and in-store environ-
832 ments closer together, the consumer's experiences are still not
833 comparable. For instance, when consumers browse a retailer's
834 website, the interaction is mainly through the screen of the
835 computer or the mobile phone, while in-store the consumer is
836 completely immersed. Even if VR makes the online experience
837 more immersive (Animesh et al. 2011; Li et al. 2002), people
838 are not totally separated from their offline environment (at
839 home, at the office, at a terrace of a cafe). Additionally,
840 although these technologies provide sensory interactions with
841 products (Cano et al. 2017; Jin 2011), their effects on the online
842 experience might not necessarily be identical to those in-store.
843 Therefore, comparative studies between the online and offline
844 environments are still needed (see Javornik 2016a, for a
845 review). Further research might also investigate the effects in
846 terms of information processing (visual attention, visual search,
847 memorization, preferences, e.g., Knoeferle et al. 2016; Shen et
848 al. 2016; Sunaga et al. 2016; Velasco et al. 2015), aspects of
849 communication (e.g., connectivity, Calder, Malthouse, and
850 Schaedel 2009; hyper-textuality, Su 2008; interactivity, Song &
851 Zinkhan 2008; and mobility, Sultan, Rohm, and Gao 2009),
852 and also informativeness and entertainment (Childers et al.
853 2001; Eroglu et al. 2001; Hsieh et al. 2014; Kim & Forsythe
854 2008a, b; Novak et al. 2000; Rose et al. 2012).
855 It might also be interesting to evaluate the extent to which
856 SETs stimulate mental imagery by facilitating the perceptual re-
857 enactments of previous experiences, or otherwise reduce their
858 relevance for consumers in the online purchase process. If
859 consumers can (virtually) touch, feel, or taste the products by
860 means of SETs, mental imagery might not be necessary
861 anymore. Moreover, it would be (virtually) possible to taste a
862 product before (or without) smelling or touching it, which
863 could potentially change the psychological distance (i.e., make
864 the subjective experience that it is close regardless of the actual
865 physical distance), with products on the Internet (Elder et al.
866 2017).
867How to Decide Whether Information Should Be Communicated
868Through Visual, Haptic, Auditory, or Multisensory-Enabling
869Technologies?
870Depending on their objectives, marketers should consider
871what kind of experience they wish to provide to consumers and
872make a choice between different SETs. For instance, we
873highlighted that visual-enabling technologies might serve to
874make the online experience more immersive and enjoyable
875(Animesh et al. 2011; Li et al. 2002), and that haptic interfaces
876are useful when it comes to affecting the generosity of
877individuals (Spapé et al. 2015). Both technologies also appear
878helpful in terms of facilitating product evaluation and purchase
879behavior, and might potentially one day be combined (Cano et
880al. 2017; Choi & Taylor 2014; Jin 2011). Other applications
881may undoubtedly be developed in order to improve the
882interaction between online retailers and their customers (e.g.,
883transaction uncertainty, Pavlou, Liang, and Xue 2007; engage-
884ment with the retailer, Shah & Murtaza 2005), or other
885interlocutors (e.g., trust, satisfaction, and commitment between
886buyer and seller, Comer, Mehta, and Holmes 1998; see
887Varadarajan et al. 2010).
888Marketers should think carefully about their online sensory
889needs and work jointly with HCI researchers on new interfaces
890that are more suited to consumers. For instance, Obrist et al.
891(2013) used ultrasound (mid-air haptics) in order to create non-
892contact tactile sensations (associated by users with wind/breeze,
893textiles). At this stage, the interface has not been integrated into
894consumer experiences. Who knows, future versions might be
895developed in order to provide different textile qualities (e.g.,
896roughness, softness, elasticity), and might thus help consumers
897to evaluate the clothes during online shopping.
898How can One Assess the Optimal Personalized Multisensory
899Balance?
900Further research is needed in order to determine the right
901balance in terms of the involvement of each sense in consumers'
902experiences. Too much sensory stimulation, and one is in
903danger of creating “sensory overload”(Malhotra 1984; Raju
9041980; Richard & Chebat 2016). It is not necessarily desirable to
905always engage each and every one of the user's sense in order to
906make an effective multisensory virtual display (Gallace et al.
9072012). Ultimately, the level of stimulation of each sense should
908perhaps be adapted to the “sensotype”of the individual (e.g.,
909liking Lush/A&F-like olfactory rich environments vs. feeling
910sensory overload) and determined by the context, which could
911encourage consumer acceptance of SETs (Dunn 2007; Wober
9121991). For example, vision might dominate when the geometric
913aspects (size, orientation) of the products are relevant for its
914evaluation, and haptic/smell/taste might be considered when it
915comes to a product's material properties (Gallace et al. 2012).
916Personalizing online information can be expensive for
917brands. Therefore, the latter should question what individual
918differences in multisensory perception might be interesting to
919consider, and when and how multisensory experiences should
920be personalized in online environments. For example, it may
12 O. Petit et al. / Journal of Interactive Marketing xx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
Please cite this article as: Olivia Petit, et al., Digital Sensory Marketing: Integrating New Technologies into Multisensory Online Experience, Journal of Interactive
Marketing (2018), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intmar.2018.07.004

UNCORRECTED PROOF
921 not be necessary to customize the interaction of consumers with
922 a watch (i.e., a product with salient geometric properties) based
923 on their NFT. It should also be noted that consumers are
924 currently not used to manipulate the new SETs on the Internet.
925 Therefore, further studies should also be conducted to
926 understand any novelty effects, as well as how to facilitate the
927 acceptance these new technologies.
928 How to Better Connect the Online and the Offline
929 Environments?
930 In a traditional retail context, the atmospherics created
931 notably by sensory environmental cues (e.g., color, lighting,
932 music, scent) have been shown to influence the behavior of
933 customers through their emotional reactions (Baker, Levy, and
934 Grewal 1992; Kotler, 1973; Turley & Milliman, 2000).
935Diffusing a pleasant odor, color, or music can contribute to
936the positive evaluation of the store and influences the time and
937the money that consumers spend there (Chebat & Michon,
9382003; Sherman, Mathur, and Smith 1997; Spangenberg,
939Crowley, and Pamela 1996). In addition, the more store
940atmospherics are multisensory and congruent through the
941senses, the more pleasant and interesting for consumers they
942are evaluated (see Spence et al. 2014, for a review).
943Several interactive technologies, such as shopping assistant
944systems and smart mirrors, are already modifying the
945traditional store experience (Brasel & Gips 2014; Cano et al.
9462017; see Pantano & Naccarato 2010, for a review). For
947instance, touch screens can facilitate the interaction with the
948product and create stronger perceived ownership, enabling
949extended use both in-store and out to the store (Brasel & Gips,
9502014; Cano et al., 2017). Technologies are becoming an
Fig. 6. (a.) Tesco virtual supermarket in a subway station created by Cheil (b.) Factual augmented supermarket created by Keiichi MATSUDA.
13O. Petit et al. / Journal of Interactive Marketing xx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
Please cite this article as: Olivia Petit, et al., Digital Sensory Marketing: Integrating New Technologies into Multisensory Online Experience, Journal of Interactive
Marketing (2018), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intmar.2018.07.004

UNCORRECTED PROOF
951 increasingly important part of store atmosphere and an effective
952 means of luring consumers in to the store. In this way, Poncin
953 and Mimoun (2014) highlighted that using magic mirrors with
954 augmented reality and interactive game terminals in a physical
955 store has a positive effect on the perception of store
956 atmospherics.
957 The SETs offer the customer the opportunity to browse
958 online from the store, getting more information about products,
959 in addition to having a positive effect on the perception of a
960 store's atmosphere (Kent et al. 2015). However, SETs should
961 not simply be seen as tools with which to connect the online
962 environment with the physical store, but also as a means to
963 create new environments in which physical and virtual objects/
964 products coexist and potentially interact (Milgram & Kishino
965 1994). For instance, Pokemon Go revealed a bright new future
966 in which the borders between the real and imaginary world are
967 no longer so clearly delineated (Milgram & Kishino 1994). In a
968 mixed reality environment, people might be more easily
969 detached from reality than from a simple in-store experience
970 (Javornik 2016a).
971 Marketers should think about building new spaces for
972 interaction with consumers through mixed reality and propos-
973 ing new modes of experiential consumption (see Petit, Velasco,
974 and Spence 2018, for a review on digital multisensory
975 packaging). The virtual grocery store opened by Tesco in a
976 South Korean subway station provides a good example of
977 mixed reality. The glass walls of certain subway stations were
978 covered with images of supermarket shelfs (including products,
979 prices, and bare codes), and commuters were able to shop using
980 their smartphones (see Fig. 6a). Another example comes from
981 Keiichi Matsuda, who proposes a glimpse of a world in which
982 all the elements of everyday life are enhanced through the eyes
983 of a woman (e.g., a supermarket, in which an avatar pet on a
984 shopping trolley offers discounts, see Fig. 6b). Through mixed
985 reality, people might share the same physical space and have
986 different AR contents. They might also view the same AR layer
987 while dispersed across different locations (Scholz & Smith
988 2016). Therefore, it is important to understand whether these
989 situations are similar in terms of embodiment (Wilson 2002).
990 To finish, it remains to be determined what level of hyper-
991 connectivity and realism would be acceptable and beneficial to
992 consumers. According to Belk (1988), persons, places, and
993 things to which one feels attached are part of the extended self.
994 If the SETs offer new opportunities for people to extend their
995 self through the possession of digital objects, above all, they
996 highlight a disappearance of the boundaries between con-
997 sumers, products, and brands (Belk 2013). The objects of the
998 mixed reality will become more embodied, invisible, to
999 constitute a natural part of the self (Belk 2014). Therefore,
1000 further studies should explore how digital products can match
1001 consumers' expectations of themselves (Scholz & Duffy 2018).
1002 Conclusions
1003 In this review, we have highlighted the key role that
1004 multisensory information has in mediating consumer experi-
1005 ence not only in “the real world,”but also in a range of online
1006environments. Including sensory information via websites is all
1007the more important given that it results in consumers being
1008more confident in their choices and increases the likelihood that
1009a liked product will be purchased. However, consumers do not
1010necessarily need to touch or smell the products in order to get
1011the relevant sensory information. They can also imagine the
1012expected sensory properties of the products based on their
1013previous product experiences, with the support of basic digital
1014interfaces (e.g., screen, mouse, and headphones). Moreover,
1015recent progress in HCI suggests that at least new visual- and
1016haptic-enabling technologies should be available on the Internet
1017soon. Hopefully, these technologies will go beyond simply
1018reinforcing the effects of sensory marketing strategies on
1019consumer's online behavior, but also create new forms of
1020interaction taking place not only in virtual or in the real places
1021but in mixed reality environments too.
1022We have presented a selective list of potential sensory
1023technological developments for digital environments. We have
1024also raised some of their limits (distractive, untrustworthy, and
1025sensory overload). We have highlighted some of the ways in
1026which marketers can use these innovations to better transfer
1027sensory information to consumers in the online environment.
1028Here, it is worth remembering that many SETs currently only
1029exist as prototypes (and hence people are not necessarily
1030accustomed to them), while others are still to be invented! For
1031this reason, the objective was not to describe and delimited
1032what is exactly digital sensory marketing, but rather to provide
1033a greater understanding of its interests for the future of
1034marketing research. Many challenges and questions await
1035marketers and researchers in the integration of sensory
1036marketing in the digital world. For us, these challenges mainly
1037revolve around finding the right balance between the different
1038sensory inputs that might be stimulated online and/or offline in
1039mixed reality, and potentially adapted to an individual's
1040preferences, and location (e.g., at home, at the office, in a
1041physical store). We believe that it is important that marketers
1042become aware of this new evolution to anticipate and analyze
1043how new technologies will impact market attitudes and
1044behaviors through the “sensorialization”of digital
1045environments.
1046References
1047Ablart, Damien, Carlos Velasco, and Marianna Obrist (2017, June), “Integrat-
1048ing Mid-Air Haptics Into Movie Experiences,”paper presented at
1049International Conference on Interactive Experiences for Television and
1050Online Video, Netherlands: Hilversum.
1051Algharabat, Raed, Ali Abdallah Alalwan, Nripendra P. Rana, and Yogesh K.
1052Dwivedi (2017), “Three Dimensional Product Presentation Quality
1053Antecedents and Their Consequences for Online Retailers: The Moderating
1054Role of Virtual Product Experience,”Journal of Retailing and Consumer
1055Services, 36, 203–17.
1056Animesh, Animesh, Alain Pinsonneault, Sung-Byung Yang, and Oh. Wonseok
1057(2011), “An Odyssey into Virtual Worlds: Exploring the Impacts of
1058Technological and Spatial Environments on Intention to Purchase Virtual
1059Products,”MIS Quarterly, 35, 3, 789–810.
1060Armel, K. Carrie, Aurelie Beaumel, and Antonio Rangel (2008), “Biasing
1061Simple Choices by Manipulating Relative Visual Attention,”Judgment and
1062Decision Making, 3, 5, 396–403.
14 O. Petit et al. / Journal of Interactive Marketing xx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
Please cite this article as: Olivia Petit, et al., Digital Sensory Marketing: Integrating New Technologies into Multisensory Online Experience, Journal of Interactive
Marketing (2018), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intmar.2018.07.004

UNCORRECTED PROOF
1063 Baker, Julie, Michael Levy, and Dhruv Grewal (1992), “An Experimental
1064 Approach to Making Retail Store Environmental Decisions,”Journal of
1065 Retailing, 68, 4, 445–60.
1066 Barsalou, Lawrence W. (2008), “Grounded Cognition,”Annual Review of
1067 Psychology, 59, 617–45.
1068 Basso, Frédéric, Olivia Petit, Sophie Le Bellu, Saadi Lahlou, A. Aïda
1069 Cancel, and Jean-Luc Anton (2018), “Taste at First (Person) Sight:
1070 Visual Perspective Modulates BMI-Dependent Brain Activity Associ-
1071 ated With Viewing Unhealthy but not Healthy Foods,”Appetite, 128,
1072 242–54.
1073 Beck, Marie and D. Crié (2018), “I Virtually Try It…I Want It! Virtual Fitting
1074 Room: A Tool to Increase On-Line and Off-Line Exploratory Behavior,
1075 Patronage and Purchase Intentions,”Journal of Retailing and Consumer
1076 Services, 40, 279–86.
1077 Belk, Russell W. (1988), “Possessions and the Extended Self,”Journal of
1078 Consumer Research, 15, 2, 139–68.
1079 ——— (2013), “Extended Self in a Digital World,”Journal of Consumer
1080 Research, 40, 3, 477–500.
1081 ——— (2014), “Digital Consumption and the Extended Self,”Journal of
1082 Marketing Management, 30, 11–12, 1101–18.
1083 Bölte, Jens, Thomas M. Hösker, Gerrit Hirschfeld, and Meinald Thielsch
1084 (2017), “Electrophysiological Correlates of Aesthetic Processing of
1085 Webpages: A Comparison of Experts and Laypersons,”PeerJ, 5e3440.
1086 Brasel, S. Adam and James Gips (2014), “Tablets, Touchscreens, and
1087 Touchpads: How Varying Touch Interfaces Trigger Psychological Owner-
1088 ship and Endowment,”Journal of Consumer Psychology, 24, 2, 226–33.
1089 ——— and ——— (2015), “Interface Psychology: Touchscreens Change
1090 Attribute Importance, Decision Criteria, and Behavior in Online Choice,”
1091 Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 18, 9, 534–8.
1092 Braun, Marius H., Gilang Andi Pradana, George Buchanan, Adrian D. Cheok,
1093 Carlos Velasco, Charles Spence, Andoni Luis Aduriz, Jade Gross, and
1094 Dani Lasa (2016), “Emotional Priming of Digital Images Through Mobile
1095 Tele-Smell and Virtual Food,”International Journal of Food Design,1,
1096 29–45.
1097 Brengman, Malaika, Kim Willems, and Helena Van Kerrebroeck (2018), “Can't
1098 Touch This: The Impact of Augmented Reality Versus Touch and Non-
1099 Touch Interfaces on Perceived Ownership,”Virtual Reality,1–12 (in press)Q12 .
1100 Bridges, Eileen and Renée Florsheim (2008), “Hedonic and Utilitarian
1101 Shopping Goals: The Online Experience,”Journal of Business Research,
1102 61, 4, 309–14.
1103 Calder, Bobby J., Edward C. Malthouse, and Ute Schaedel (2009), “An
1104 Experimental Study of the Relationship Between Online Engagement and
1105 Advertising Effectiveness,”Journal of Interactive Marketing, 23, 4,
1106 321–31.
1107 Calvert, Gemma A., Edward T. Bullmore, Michael J. Brammer, Ruth Campbell,
1108 Steven C.R. Williams, Philip K. McGuire, Peter W.R. Woodruff, Susan
1109 Iversen, and Anthony S. David (1997), “Activation of Auditory Cortex
1110 During Silent Lipreading,”Science, 276, 5312, 593–6.
1111 Cano, Marta Blazquez, Patsy Perry, Rachel Ashman, and Kathryn Waite
1112 (2017), “The Influence of Image Interactivity Upon User Engagement
1113 When Using Mobile Touch Screens,”Computers in Human Behavior, 77,
1114 406–12.
1115 Chebat, Jean-Charles and Richard Michon (2003), “Impact of Ambient Odors on
1116 Mall Shoppers' Emotions, Cognition, and Spending: A Test of Competitive
1117 Causal Theories,”Journal of Business Research, 56, 7, 529–39.
1118 Chen, Jing, Esther K. Papies, and Lawrence W. Barsalou (2016), “A Core
1119 Eating Network and Its Modulations Underlie Diverse Eating Phenomena,”
1120 Brain and Cognition, 110, 20–42.
1121 Chen, Yi-Chuan and Charles Spence (2018), “Audiovisual Semantic Interac-
1122 tions Between Linguistic and Non-Linguistic Stimuli: The Time-Courses
1123 and Categorical Specificity,”Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human
1124 Perception and Performance (in press)Q16Q13 .
1125 Childers, Terry L., Christopher L. Carr, Joann Peck, and Stephen Carson
1126 (2001), “Hedonic and Utilitarian Motivations for Online Retail Shopping
1127 Behaviour,”Journal of Retailing, 77, 4, 511–35.
1128 Cho, Hyejeung and Norbert Schwarz (2012), “I Like Your Product When I Like
1129 My Photo: Misattribution Using Interactive Virtual Mirrors,”Journal of
1130 Interactive Marketing, 26, 4, 235–43.
1131Choi, Yung Kyun and Charles R. Taylor (2014), “How do 3-Dimensional
1132Images Promote Products on the Internet?”Journal of Business Research,
113367, 10, 2164–70.
1134Christian, Brittany M., Lynden K. Miles, Sophie T. Kenyeri, Jennifer
1135Mattschey, and C. Neil Macrae (2016), “Taming Temptation: Visual
1136Perspective Impacts Consumption and Willingness to Pay for Unhealthy
1137Foods,”Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 22, 1, 85–94.
1138Chung, Sorim, Thomas Kramer, and Elaine M. Wong. (2018), "Do Touch
1139Interface Users Feel More Engaged? The Impact of Input Device Type on
1140Online Shoppers’Engagement, Affect, and Purchase Decisions," Psychol-
1141ogy & Marketing, (in press)
1142Cian, Luca, Aradhna Krishna, and Ryan S. Elder (2014), “This Logo Moves
1143Me: Dynamic Imagery From Static Images,”Journal of Marketing
1144Research, 51, 2, 184–97.
1145Comer, James M., Raj Mehta, and Terence L. Holmes (1998), “Information
1146Technology: Retail Users Versus Nonusers,”Journal of Interactive
1147Marketing, 12, 2, 49–62.
1148Crusco, April H. and Christopher G. Wetzel (1984), “The Midas Touch the
1149Effects of Interpersonal Touch on Restaurant Tipping,”Personality and
1150Social Psychology Bulletin, 10, 4, 512–7.
1151Dawar, Niraj and Philip Parker (1994), “Marketing Universals: Consumers' Use
1152of Brand Name, Price, Physical Appearance, and Retailer Reputation as
1153Signals of Product Quality,”Journal of Marketing, 58, 2, 81–95.
1154De Volder, Anne G., Hinako Toyama, Yuichi Kimura, Motohiro Kiyosawa,
1155Hideki Nakano, Annick Vanlierde, Marie-Chantal Wanet-Defalque,
1156Masahiro Mishina, Keiichi Oda, Kiichi Ishiwata, and Michio Senda
1157(2001), “Auditory Triggered Mental Imagery of Shape Involves Visual
1158Association Areas in Early Blind Humans,”NeuroImage, 14, 1, 129–39.
1159Dinh, Huong Q., Neff Walker, Chang Song, Akira Kobayashi, and Larry F.
1160Hodges (1999, March), “Evaluating the Importance of Multi-Sensory Input
1161on Memory and the Sense of Presence in Virtual Environments,”Virtual
1162Reality, IEEE, 222–8.
1163Dunn, Winnie (2007), Living Sensationally: Understanding Your Senses.
1164London, UK: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.
1165Eelen, Jiska, Siegfried Dewitte, and Luk Warlop (2013), “Situated Embodied
1166Cognition: Monitoring Orientation Cues Affects Product Evaluation and
1167Choice,”Journal of Consumer Psychology, 23, 4, 424–33.
1168Elder, Ryan S. and Aradhna Krishna (2012), “The “Visual Depiction Effect”in
1169Advertising: Facilitating Embodied Mental Simulation Through Product
1170Orientation,”Journal of Consumer Research, 38, 6, 988–1003.
1171———, Anne E. Schlosser, Morgan Poor, and L. Lidan Xu (2017), “So Close I
1172Can Almost Sense It: The Interplay Between Sensory Imagery and
1173Psychological Distance,”Journal of Consumer Research, 44, 4, 877–94.
1174Eroglu, Sevgin A., Karen A. Machleit, and Lenita M. Davis (2001),
1175“Atmospheric Qualities of Online Retailing: A Conceptual Model and
1176Implications,”Journal of Business Research, 54, 2, 177–84.
1177Favre, Jean Paul and André November (1979), Color and Communication.
1178Zurich: ABC-Verlag.
1179Feng, Mi, Arindam Dey, and Robert W. Lindeman (2016, March), “An Initial
1180Exploration of a Multi-Sensory Design Space: Tactile Support for Walking
1181in Immersive Virtual Environments,”3D User Interfaces (3DUI), IEEE,
118295–104.
1183Fransson, Peter and Guillaume Marrelec (2008), “The Precuneus/Posterior
1184Cingulate Cortex Plays a Pivotal Role in the Default Mode Network:
1185Evidence from a Partial Correlation Network Analysis,”NeuroImage, 42, 3,
11861178–84.
1187Gabisch, Jason A. (2011), “Virtual World Brand Experience and its Impact on
1188Real World Purchasing Behaviour,”Journal of Brand Management, 19, 1,
118918–32.
1190Gallace, Alberto, Mary K. Ngo, John Sulaitis, and Charles Spence (2012),
1191“Multisensory Presence in Virtual Reality: Possibilities & Limitations,”
1192Multiple Sensorial Media Advances and Applications: New Developments
1193in MulSeMedia, Hershey, PA: IGI Global, 1–38.
1194——— and Charles Spence (2014), In Touch with the Future: The Sense of
1195Touch from Cognitive Neuroscience to Virtual Reality. Oxford, UK: Oxford
1196University Press.
1197González, Julio, Alfonso Barros-Loscertales, Friedemann Pulvermüller,
1198Vanessa Meseguer, A. Ana Sanjuán, Vicente Belloch, and César Ávila
15O. Petit et al. / Journal of Interactive Marketing xx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
Please cite this article as: Olivia Petit, et al., Digital Sensory Marketing: Integrating New Technologies into Multisensory Online Experience, Journal of Interactive
Marketing (2018), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intmar.2018.07.004

UNCORRECTED PROOF
1199 (2006), “Reading Cinnamon Activates Olfactory Brain Regions,”
1200 NeuroImage, 32, 2, 906–12.
1201 Guerrero, Laura K. and Peter A. Andersen (1994), “Patterns of Matching and
1202 Initiation: Touch Behavior and Touch Avoidance Across Romantic
1203 Relationship Stages,”Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 18, 2, 137–53.
1204 Gvili, Yaniv, Aner Tal, Moty Amar, and Brian Wansink (2017), “Moving up in
1205 Taste: Enhanced Projected Taste and Freshness of Moving Food Products,”
1206 Psychology & Marketing, 34, 7, 671–83.
1207 Haans, Antal and Wijnand A. IJsselsteijn (2009), “The Virtual Midas Touch:
1208 Helping Behavior After a Mediated Social Touch,”IEEE Transactions on
1209 Haptics, 2, 3, 136–40.
1210 ———, Renske de Bruijn, and Wijnand A. IJsselsteijn (2014), “A Virtual
1211 Midas touch? Touch, Compliance, and Confederate Bias in Mediated
1212 Communication,”Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 38, 3, 301–11.
1213 Hagtvedt, Henrik and S.A. Brasel (2016), “Cross-Modal Communication:
1214 Sound Frequency Influences Consumer Responses to Color Lightness,”
1215 Journal of Marketing Research, 53, 4, 551–62.
1216 Hashimoto, Yuki, Masahiko Inami, and Hiroyuki Kajimoto (2008, June),
1217 “Straw-Like User Interface (Ii): A New Method of Presenting Auditory
1218 Sensations for a More Natural Experience,”.paper presented at Interna-
1219 tional Conference on Human Haptic Sensing and Touch Enabled Computer
1220 Applications, Berlin: Springer, 484–93.
1221 Hertenstein, Matthew J., Dacher Keltner, Betsy App, Brittany Bulleit, and
1222 Ariane R. Jaskolka (2006), “Touch Communicates Distinct Emotions,”
1223 Emotion,6,3,528–33.
1224 Ho, Cristy, Russ Jones, Scott King, Lynne Murray, and Charles Spence (2013),
1225 “Multisensory Augmented Reality in the Context of a Retail Clothing
1226 Application,”in (((ABA))) Audio Branding Academy Yearbook 2012/2013.
1227 K. Bronner, R. Hirt, C. Ringe, editors. Baden-Baden: Nomos, 167–75.
1228 Hornik, Jacob (1992), “Tactile Stimulation And Consumer Response,”Journal
1229 of Consumer Research, 19, 3, 449–58.
1230 Hsieh, Jung-Kuei, Yi-Ching Hsieh, Hung-Chang Chiu, and Ya-Ru Yang
1231 (2014), “Customer Response to Web Site Atmospherics: Task-Relevant
1232 Cues, Situational Involvement and PAD,”Journal of Interactive Marketing,
1233 28, 3, 225–36.
1234 Huang, Echo (2012), “Online Experiences and Virtual Goods Purchase
1235 Intention,”Internet Research, 22, 3, 252–74.
1236 Huang, Tseng-Lung and Shu-Ling Liao (2017), “Creating e-Shopping
1237 Multisensory Flow Experience Through Augmented-Reality Interactive
1238 Technology,”Internet Research, 27, 2, 449–75.
1239 Huisman, Gijs (2017), “Social Touch Technology: A Survey of Haptic
1240 Technology for Social Touch,”IEEE Transactions on Haptics,99
1241 1939–1412.
1242 Huxley, Aldous (1932), Brave New World. London, UK: Chatto & Windus.
1243 Iwata, Hiroo, Hiroaki Yano, Takahiro Uemura, and Tetsuro Moriya (2004,
1244 March), “Food Simulator: A Haptic Interface for Biting,”Virtual Reality,
1245 IEEE, 51–7.
1246 Jai, Tun-Min, Michael W. O'Boyle, and Dan Fang (2014), “Neural Correlates of
1247 Sensory-Enabling Presentation: An fMRI Study of Image Zooming and
1248 Rotation Video Effects on Online Apparel Shopping,”Journal of Consumer
1249 Behaviour, 13, 5, 342–50.
1250 Javornik, Ana (2016a), “Augmented Reality: Research Agenda for Studying the
1251 Impact of its Media Characteristics on Consumer Behaviour,”Journal of
1252 Retailing and Consumer Services, 30, 252–61.
1253 ——— (2016b), “‘It's an Illusion, But it Looks Real!’Consumer Affective,
1254 Cognitive and Behavioural Responses to Augmented Reality Applications,”
1255 Journal of Marketing Management, 32, 9–10, 987–1011.
1256 Jiang, Zhenhui and Izak Benbasat (2004), “Virtual Product Experience: Effects
1257 of Visual and Functional Control of Products on Perceived Diagnosticity
1258 and Flow in Electronic Shopping,”Journal of Management Information
1259 Systems, 21, 3, 111–47.
1260 Jin, Seung-A Annie (2009), “The Roles of Modality Richness and Involvement
1261 in Shopping Behavior in 3D Virtual Stores,”Journal of Interactive
1262 Marketing, 23, 3, 234–46.
1263 ——— (2011), “The Impact of 3D Virtual Haptics in Marketing,”Psychology
1264 & Marketing, 28, 3, 240–55.
1265 Kent, Anthony, Charles Dennis, Marta Blazquez Cano, Schwarz Eva, J. Joško
1266 Brakus, and Eleftherios Alamanos (2015), “Branding, Marketing, and
1267Design: Experiential In-Store Digital Environments,”in Successful
1268Technological Integration for Competitive Advantage in Retail Settings.
1269E. Pantano, editor. Hershey, PA: Business Science Reference, 1–22.
1270Kim, Jiyeon and Sandra Forsythe (2008a), “Sensory Enabling Technology
1271Acceptance Model (SE-TAM): A Multiple-Group Structural Model
1272Comparison,”Psychology & Marketing, 25, 9, 901–22.
1273——— and ——— (2008b), “Adoption of Virtual Try-On Technology for
1274Online Apparel Shopping,”Journal of Interactive Marketing, 22, 2, 45–59.
1275Kim, Sang-Youn, Ki-baek Kim, Jaehwan Kim, and Ki-uk Kyung (2013), “A
1276Film-Type Vibrotactile Actuator for Hand-Held Devices,”in Haptic and
1277Audio Interaction Design, 7989. I. Oakley, S. Brewster, editors. LNCS,
1278Berlin: Springer, 109–16.
1279Kitagawa, Norimichi and Yuka Igarashi (2005), “Tickle Sensation Induced by
1280Hearing a Sound (Summary of Awarded Presentation at the 23rd Annual
1281Meeting),”The Japanese Journal of Psychonomic Science, 24, 1, 121–2.
1282Klein, Lisa R. (2003), “Creating Virtual Product Experiences: The Role of
1283Telepresence,”Journal of Interactive Marketing, 17, 1, 41–55.
1284Knoeferle, Klemens M., Pia Knoeferle, Carlos Velasco, and Charles Spence
1285(2016), “Multisensory Brand Search: How the Meaning of Sounds Guides
1286Consumers' Visual Attention,”Journal of Experimental Psychology:
1287Applied, 22, 2, 196–210.
1288Knutson, Brian, Rick Scott, G. Elliott Wimmer, Drazen Prelec, and George
1289Loewenstein (2007), “Neural Predictors of Purchases,”Neuron, 53, 1,
1290147–56.
1291Kotler, Philip (1973), “Atmospherics as a Marketing Tool,”Journal of
1292Retailing, 49, 4, 48–64.
1293Kreijns, Karel, Paul A. Kirschner, Wim Jochems, and Hansvan Buurenc (2007),
1294“Measuring Perceived Sociability of Computer-Supported Collaborative
1295Learning Environments,”Computers & Education, 49, 2, 176–92.
1296Krishna, Aradhna, May O. Lwin, and Maureen Morrin (2010), “Product Scent
1297and Memory,”Journal of Consumer Research, 37, 1, 57–67.
1298——— (2012), “An Integrative Review of Sensory Marketing: Engaging the
1299Senses to Affect Perception, Judgment and Behaviour,”Journal of
1300Consumer Psychology, 22, 3, 332–51.
1301——— and Norbert Schwarz (2014), “Sensory Marketing, Embodiment, and
1302Grounded Cognition: A Review and Introduction,”Journal of Consumer
1303Psychology, 24, 2, 159–68.
1304———, Luca Cian, and Tatiana Sokolova (2016), “The Power of Sensory
1305Marketing in Advertising,”Current Opinion in Psychology, 10, 142–7.
1306———,———, and Nilüfer Z. Aydınoğlu (2017), “Sensory Aspects of
1307Package Design,”Journal of Retailing, 93, 1, 43–54.
1308Lacey, Simon, Peter Flueckiger, Randall Stilla, Lava Michael, and K. Sathiana
1309(2010), “Object Familiarity Modulates the Relationship Between Visual
1310Object Imagery and Haptic Shape Perception,”NeuroImage, 49, 3,
13111977–90.
1312Lederman, Susan J. (1974), “Tactile Roughness of Grooved Surfaces: The
1313Touching Process and Effects of Macro- and Microsurface Structure,”
1314Perception & Psychophysics, 16, 385–95.
1315Lee, Kun Chang and Namho Chung (2008), “Empirical Analysis of Consumer
1316Reaction to the Virtual Reality Shopping Mall,”Computers in Human
1317Behavior, 24, 1, 88–104.
1318Leithinger, Daniel, Sean Follmer, Alex Olwal, and Hiroshi Ishii (2014,
1319October), “Physical Telepresence: Shape Capture and Display for
1320Embodied, Computer-Mediated Remote Collaboration,”Proceedings of
1321the 27th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and
1322Technology, ACM, 461–70.
1323Li, Hairong, Terry Daugherty, and Frank Biocca (2001), “Characteristics of
1324Virtual Experience in Electronic Commerce: A Protocol Analysis,”Journal
1325of Interactive Marketing, 15, 3, 13–30.
1326———,———, and ——— (2002), “Impact of 3-D Advertising on Product
1327Knowledge, Brand Attitude, and Purchase Intention: The Mediating Role of
1328Presence,”Journal of Advertising, 31, 3, 43–57.
1329Liu, Rebecca, Mackenzie Hannum, and Christopher T. Simons (2018), Using
1330Immersive Technologies to Explore the Effects of Congruent and
1331Incongruent Contextual Cues on Context Recall, Product Evaluation
1332Time, and Preference and Liking During Consumer Hedonic Testing.
1333Food Research International (in press) Q14.
16 O. Petit et al. / Journal of Interactive Marketing xx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
Please cite this article as: Olivia Petit, et al., Digital Sensory Marketing: Integrating New Technologies into Multisensory Online Experience, Journal of Interactive
Marketing (2018), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intmar.2018.07.004

UNCORRECTED PROOF
1334 Malhotra, Naresh K. (1984), “Reflections on the Information Overload
1335 Paradigm in Consumer Decision Making,”Journal of Consumer Research,
1336 10, 4, 436–40.
1337 Mardin, Sandra (2013), “How Selfridges Made Noise About Being Quiet,”
1338 Canvas, 8Downloaded from http://www.canvas8.com/public/2013/01/18/
1339 no-noise-selfridges.html.
1340 Marks, Lawrence E. (1987), “On Cross-Modal Similarity: Auditory–Visual
1341 Interactions in Speeded Discrimination,”Journal of Experimental Psychol-
1342 ogy: Human Perception and Performance, 13, 3, 384.
1343 Mattila, Anna S. and Jochen Wirtz (2001), “Congruency of Scent and Music as
1344 a Driver of In-Store Evaluations and Behavior,”Journal of Retailing, 77, 2,
1345 273–89.
1346 McCabe, Deborah Brown and Stephen M. Nowlis (2003), “The Effect of
1347 Examining Actual Products or Product Descriptions on Consumer
1348 Preference,”Journal of Consumer Psychology, 13, 4, 431–9.
1349 Merle, Aurélie, Sylvain Senecal, and Anik St-Onge (2012), “Whether and How
1350 Virtual Try-On Influences Consumer Responses to an Apparel Web Site,”
1351 International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 16, 3, 41–64.
1352 Milgram, Paul and Fumio Kishino (1994), “A Taxonomy of Mixed Reality
1353 Visual Displays,”IEICE Transactions on Information and Systems, 77, 12,
1354 1321–9.
1355 Milosavljevic, Milica, Vidhya Navalpakkam, Christof Koch, and Antonio
1356 Rangel (2012), “Relative Visual Saliency Differences Induce Sizable Bias
1357 in Consumer Choice,”Journal of Consumer Psychology, 22, 67–74.
1358 Minsky, Laurence and Colleen Fahey (2017), Audio Branding: Using Sound to
1359 Build Your Brand. London, UK: Kogan Page.
1360 Morrin, Maureen and Srinivasan Ratneshwar (2003), “Does it Make Sense to
1361 Use Scents to Enhance Brand Memory?”Journal of Marketing Research,
1362 40, 1, 10–25.
1363 Mueller, Florian F., Frank Vetere, Martin R. Gibbs, Jesper Kjeldskov, Sonja
1364 Pedell, and Steve Howard (2005), “Hug Over a Distance,”CHI 05, ACM,
1365 1673–6.
1366 Nah, Fiona Fui-Hoon, Brenda Eschenbrenner, and Davis Dewester (2011),
1367 “Enhancing Brand Equity Through Flow and Telepresence: A Comparison
1368 of 2D and 3D Virtual Worlds,”MIS Quarterly, 35, 3, 731–47.
1369 Narumi, Takuji, Shinya Nishizaka, Takashi Kajinami, Tomohiro Tanikawa, and
1370 Michitaka Hirose (2011, May), “Augmented Reality Flavors: Gustatory
1371 Display Based on Edible Marker and Cross-Modal Interaction,”.paper
1372 presented at SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems,
1373 ACM, 93–102.
1374 Niedenthal, Paula M., Lawrence W. Barsalou, Piotr Winkielman, Silvia Krauth-
1375 Gruber, and François Ric (2005), “Embodiment in Attitudes, Social
1376 Perception, and Emotion,”Personality and Social Psychology Review,9,
1377 3, 184–211.
1378 Novak, Thomas P., Donna Hoffman, and Yiu-Fai Yung (2000), “Measuring the
1379 Customer Experience in Online Environments: A Structural Modeling
1380 Approach,”Marketing Science, 19, 1, 22–42.
1381 Obrist, Marianna, Sue Ann Seah, and Sriram Subramanian (2013, April),
1382 “Talking About Tactile Experiences,”.paper presented at SIGCHI
1383 Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, ACM, 1659–68.
1384 ———, Carlos Velasco, Chi Vi, Nimesha Ranasinghe, Ali Israr, Adrian D.
1385 Cheok, Charles Spence, and Ponnampalam Gopalakrishnakone (2016,
1386 May), “Touch, Taste, & Smell User Interfaces: The Future of Multisensory
1387 HCI,”.paper presented at CHI Conference Extended Abstracts on Human
1388 Factors in Computing Systems, ACM, 3285–92.
1389 Okajima, Katsunori and Charles Spence (2011), “Effects of Visual Food
1390 Texture on Taste Perception,”i-Perception,2,8http://i-perception.
1391 perceptionweb.com/journal/I/article/ic966.
1392 Overby, Jeffrey W. and Eun-Ju Lee (2006), “The Effects of Utilitarian and
1393 Hedonic Online Shopping Value on Consumer Preference and Intentions,”
1394 Journal of Business Research, 59, 10–11, 1160–6.
1395 Pantano, Eleonora and Giuseppe Naccarato (2010), “Entertainment in Retailing:
1396 The Influences of Advanced Technologies,”Journal of Retailing and
1397 Consumer Services, 17, 3, 200–4.
1398 Papies, Esther K. and Lawrence Barsalou (2015), “Grounding Desire and
1399 Motivated Behavior: A Theoretical Framework and Review of Empirical
1400 Evidence,”in The Psychology of Desire. W. Hofmann, L. Nordgren,
1401 editors. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
1402Park, Jihye, Leslie Stoel, and Sharron J. Lennon (2008), “Cognitive, Affective
1403and Conative Responses to Visual Simulation: The Effects of Rotation in
1404Online Product Presentation,”Journal of Consumer Behaviour,7,1,72–87.
1405Park, Young-Woo and Tek-Jin Nam (2013), “Poke: A New Way of Sharing
1406Emotional Touches During Phone Conversations,”CHI’13 Extended
1407Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems, ACM, 2859–60.
1408Pavlou, Paul A., Huigang Liang, and Yajiong Xue (2007), “Understanding and
1409Mitigating Uncertainty in Online Exchange Relationships: A Principal-
1410Agent Perspective,”MIS Quarterly, 31, 1, 105–36.
1411Peck, Joann and Terry L. Childers (2003a), “To Have and to Hold: The
1412Influence of Haptic Information on Product Judgments,”Journal of
1413Marketing, 67, 2, 35–48.
1414——— and ——— (2003b), “Individual Differences in Haptic Information
1415Processing: The “Need for Touch”Scale,”Journal of Consumer Research,
141630, 3, 430–42.
1417——— and Suzanne B. Shu (2009), “The Effect of Mere Touch on Perceived
1418Ownership,”Journal of Consumer Research, 36, 3, 434–47.
1419———, Victor A. Barger, and Andrea Webb (2013), “In Search of a Surrogate
1420for Touch: The Effect of Haptic Imagery on Perceived Ownership,”Journal
1421of Consumer Psychology, 23, 2, 189–96.
1422Pessoa, Luiz and Peter De Weerd (2003), Filling-In: From Perceptual
1423Completion to Cortical Reorganization. Oxford University Press.
1424Petit, Olivia, Adrian D. Cheok, Charles Spence, Carlos Velasco, and Kasun T.
1425Karunanayaka (2015, November), “Sensory Marketing in Light of New
1426Technologies,”.proceedings from International Conference on Advances in
1427Computer Entertainment Technology, ACM, 53.
1428———, Frédéric Basso, Dwight Merunka, Charles Spence, Adrian D. Cheok,
1429and Olivier Oullier (2016), “Pleasure and the Control of Food Intake: An
1430Embodied Cognition Approach to Consumer Self-Regulation,”Psychology
1431& Marketing, 33, 8, 608–19.
1432———, Charles Spence, Carlos Velasco, Andy T. Woods, and A.D. Cheok
1433(2017), “Changing the Influence of Portion Size on Consumer Behavior Via
1434Imagined Consumption,”Journal of Business Research, 75, 240–8.
1435———, Carlos Velasco, and Charles Spence (2018), “Multisensory Consumer-
1436Packaging Interaction (CPI): The Role of New Technologies,”in
1437Multisensory Packaging: Designing New Product Experiences. Carlos
1438Velasco, Spence Charles, editors. New York, NY: Palgrave MacMillan .(in
1439press) Q15.
1440Poncin, Ingrid and Mohamed Slim Ben Mimoun (2014), “The Impact of “e-
1441Atmospherics”on Physical Stores,”Journal of Retailing and Consumer
1442Services, 21, 5, 851–9.
1443Poushneh, Atieh and Arturo Z. Vasquez-Parraga (2017), “Discernible Impact of
1444Augmented Reality on Retail Customer's Experience, Satisfaction and
1445Willingness to Buy,”Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 34,
1446229–34.
1447Raju, Puthankurissi S. (1980), “Optimum Stimulation Level: Its Relationship to
1448Personality, Demographics, and Exploratory Behaviour,”Journal of
1449Consumer Research,7,3,272–82.
1450Ranasinghe, Nimesha, Pravar Jain, Shienny Karwita, and Ellen Yi-Luen Do
1451(2017, March), “Virtual Lemonade: Let's Teleport Your Lemonade!”, paper
1452presented at International Conference on Tangible, Embedded, and
1453Embodied Interaction (pp. 183–190), ACM.
1454Ranasinghe, Nimesha, Pravar Jain, Nguyen Thi Ngoc Tram, Koon C.R. Koh,
1455David Tolley, Shienny Karwita, and Ellen Yi-Luen Do (2018, April),
1456“Season Traveller: Multisensory Narration for Enhancing the Virtual
1457Reality Experience,”.paper presented at CHI Conference on Human
1458Factors in Computing Systems, ACM, 577.
1459Rantala, Jussi, Katri Salminen, Roope Raisamo, and Veikko Surakka (2013),
1460“TouchGesturesinCommunicatingEmotional Intention via Vibrotactile
1461Stimulation,”International Journal of Human-Compute r Studies, 71, 6, 679–90.
1462Richard, Marie-Odile and Jean-Charles Chebat (2016), “Modeling Online
1463Consumer Behavior: Preeminence of Emotions and Moderating Influences
1464of Need for Cognition and Optimal Stimulation Level,”Journal of Business
1465Research, 69, 2, 541–53.
1466Rose, Susan, Moira Clark, Phillip Samouel, and Neil Hair (2012), “Online
1467Customer Experience in e-Retailing: An Empirical Model of Antecedents
1468and Outcomes,”Journal of Retailing, 88, 2, 308–22.
17O. Petit et al. / Journal of Interactive Marketing xx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
Please cite this article as: Olivia Petit, et al., Digital Sensory Marketing: Integrating New Technologies into Multisensory Online Experience, Journal of Interactive
Marketing (2018), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intmar.2018.07.004

UNCORRECTED PROOF
1469 Sallnäs, Eva-Lotta, Kirsten Rassmus-Gröhn, and Calle Sjöström (2000), “Supporting
1470 Presence in Collaborative Environments by Haptic Force Feedback,”ACM
1471 Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction (TOCHI),7,4,461–76.
1472 Scholz, Joachim and Andrew N. Smith (2016), “Augmented Reality: Designing
1473 Immersive Experiences that Maximize Consumer Engagement,”Business
1474 Horizons, 59, 2, 149–61.
1475 ——— and Katherine Duffy (2018), “We ARe at Home: How Augmented
1476 Reality Reshapes Mobile Marketing And Consumer-Brand Relationships,”
1477 Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 44, 11–23.
1478 Shah, Jaymeen R. and Mirza B. Murtaza (2005), “Effective Customer
1479 Relationship Management Through Web Services,”Journal of Computer
1480 Information Systems, 46, 1, 98–109.
1481 Sharma, Amit (2017), “How Retail can Thrive in a World Without Stores,”
1482 Harvard Business Review,2–5July 17. Retrieved from https://hbr.org/2017/
1483 07/how-retail-can-thrive-in-a-world-without-storesQ17 .
1484 Shen, Hao and Jaideep Sengupta (2012), “If You Can't Grab It, It Won't Grab
1485 You: The Effect of Restricting The Dominant Hand on Target Evaluations,”
1486 Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48, 2, 525–9.
1487 ———, Meng Zhang, and Aradhna Krishna (2016), “Computer Interfaces and
1488 the “Direct-Touch”Effect: Can iPads Increase the Choice of Hedonic
1489 Food?”Journal of Marketing Research, 53, 5, 745–58.
1490 Sherman, Elaine, Anil Mathur, and Ruth Belk Smith (1997), “Store
1491 Environment and Consumer Purchase Behavior: Mediating Role of
1492 Consumer Emotions,”Psychology and Marketing, 14, 4, 361–78.
1493 Shu, Suzanne B. and Joann Peck (2011), “Psychological Ownership and
1494 Affective Reaction: Emotional Attachment Process Variables and The
1495 Endowment Effect,”Journal of Consumer Psychology, 21, 4, 439–52.
1496 Simmons, W. Kyle, Alex Martin, and Lawrence W. Barsalou (2005), “Pictures
1497 of Appetizing Foods Activate Gustatory Cortices for Taste and Reward,”
1498 Cerebral Cortex, 15, 1602–8.
1499 Song, Ji Hee and George M. Zinkhan (2008), “Determinants of Perceived Web
1500 Site Interactivity,”Journal of Marketing, 72, 2, 99–113.
1501 Spangenberg, Eric R., Ayn E. Crowley, and W. Pamela (1996), “Improving the
1502 Store Environment: Do Olfactory Cues Affect Evaluations and Behaviors?”
1503 Journal of Marketing, 60, 2, 67–80.
1504 Spapé, Michiel M., Eve E. Hoggan, Giulio Jacucci, and Niklas Ravaja (2015),
1505 “The Meaning of the Virtual Midas Touch: An ERP Study in Economic
1506 Decision Making,”Psychophysiology, 52, 3, 378–87.
1507 Spence, Charles (2002), The ICI Report on the Secret of the Senses. London,
1508 UK: The Communication Group.
1509 ——— and Massimiliano Zampini (2006), “Auditory contributions to
1510 multisensory product perception.,”Acta Acustica united with Acustica,
1511 92, 1009–25.
1512 ——— and Alberto Gallace (2008), “Making Sense of Touch,”in Touch in
1513 Museums: Policy and Practice in Object Handling. H. Chatterjee, editor.
1514 Oxford, UK: Berg Publications, 21–40.
1515 ——— (2011), “Crossmodal Correspondences: A Tutorial Review,”Attention,
1516 Perception, & Psychophysics, 73, 4, 971–95.
1517 ——— (2012), “Managing Sensory Expectations Concerning Products and
1518 Brands: Capitalizing on the Potential of Sound and Shape Symbolism,”
1519 Journal of Consumer Psychology, 22, 1, 37–54.
1520 ——— and Ophelia Deroy (2013), “Crossmodal Mental Imagery,”Multisen-
1521 sory Imagery, New York, NY: Springer, 157–83.
1522 ——— (2014), “Noise and its Impact on the Perception of Food and Drink,”
1523 Flavour,3,9.
1524 ———, Nancy M. Puccinelli, Dhruv Grewal, and Anne L. Roggeveen (2014),
1525 “Store Atmospherics: A Multisensory Perspective,”Psychology & Market-
1526 ing, 31, 7, 472–88.
1527 Spence, C., X. Wan, A. Woods, C. Velasco, J. Deng, J. Youssef, and O. Deroy
1528 (2015), “On tasty colours and colourful tastes? Assessing, explaining, and
1529 utilizing crossmodal correspondences between colours and basic tastes,”
1530 Flavour,4, 23.
1531 Spence, Charles, Katsunori Okajima, Adrian D. Cheok, O. Olivia Petit, and
1532 Charles Michel (2016), “Eating with Our Eyes: From Visual Hunger to
1533 Digital Satiation,”Brain and Cognition, 110, 53–63.
1534 ———, Marianna Obrist, Carlos Velasco, and Nimesha Ranasinghe (2017),
1535 “Digitizing the Chemical Senses: Possibilities & Pitfalls,”International
1536 Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 107, 62–74.
1537Stanley, Andrew A. and Katherine J. Kuchenbecker (2011), “Design of Body-
1538Grounded Tactile Actuators for Playback of Human Physical Contact,”.
1539paper presented at World Haptics Conference, IEEE, 563–8.
1540Statista (2016), “North America Daily Time with Internet 2016,”Retrieved
1541from https://www.statista.com/statistics/645644/north-america-daily-time-
1542per-capita-internet/.
1543Stein, Barry E. and Terrence R. Stanford (2008), “Multisensory Integration:
1544Current Issues from the Perspective of the Single Neuron,”Nature Reviews
1545Neuroscience, 9, 4, 255.
1546Su, Bo-Chiuan (2008), “Characteristics of Consumer Search On-Line: How
1547Much do We Search?”International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 13,
15481, 109–29.
1549Sultan, Fareena, Andrew J. Rohm, and Tao Tony Gao (2009), “Factors
1550Influencing Consumer Acceptance of Mobile Marketing: A Two-Country
1551Study of Youth Markets,”Journal of Interactive Marketing, 23, 4, 308–20.
1552Sumioka, Hidenobu, Aya Nakae, Ryota Kanai, and Hiroshi Ishiguro (2013),
1553“Huggable Communication Medium Decreases Cortisol Levels,”Scientific
1554Reports, 3, 3034.
1555Sunaga, Tsutomu, Jaewoo Park, and Charles Spence (2016), “Effects of
1556Lightness-Location Consumers' Purchase Decision-Making,”Psychology &
1557Marketing, 33, 934–50.
1558Turley, Lou W. and Ronald E. Milliman (2000), “Atmospheric Effects on
1559Shopping Behavior: A Review of the Experimental Evidence,”Journal of
1560Business Research, 49, 2, 193–211.
1561Kerrebroeck, Van, Kim Willems Helena, and Malaika Brengman (2017),
1562“Touching the Void: Exploring Consumer Perspectives on Touch-Enabling
1563Technologies in Online Retailing,”International Journal of Retail &
1564Distribution Management, 45, 7/8, 892–909.
1565Van Noort, Guda, Hilde A.M. Voorveld, and Eva A. Van Reijmersdal (2012),
1566“Interactivity in Brand Web Sites: Cognitive, Affective, and Behavioral
1567Responses Explained by Consumers' Online Flow Experience,”Journal of
1568Interactive Marketing, 26, 4, 223–34.
1569Varadarajan, Rajan, RajiSrinivasan Gautham Gopal Vadakkepatt, Manjit S.
1570Yadav, Paul A. Pavlou, Sandeep Krishnamurthy, and Tom Krause (2010),
1571“Interactive Technologies and Retailing Strategy: A Review, Conceptual
1572Framework and Future Research Directions,”Journal of Interactive
1573Marketing, 24, 2, 96–110.
1574Velasco, Carlos, Xiaoang Wan, Klemens Knoeferle, Xi Zhou, Alejandro
1575Salgado-Montejo, and Charles Spence (2015), “Searching for Flavor Labels
1576in Food Products: The Influence of Color-Flavor Congruence and
1577Association Strength,”Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 301.
1578———, Marianna Obrist, Olivia Petit, Kasun Karunanayaka, Adrian D. Cheok,
1579and ——— (2016a), “Crossmodal Correspondences in the Context of
1580Digital Taste and Flavor Communications,”paper presented at CHI
1581Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CA, USA, San Jose.
1582———, Andy T. Woods, ———, Adrian D. Cheok, and Charles Spence
1583(2016b), “Crossmodal Correspondences Between Taste and Shape, and
1584Their Implications for Product Packaging: A Review,”Food Quality and
1585Preference, 52, 17–26.
1586———, Marianna Obrist, ———, and Charles Spence (2018), “Multisensory
1587Technology for Flavor Augmentation: A Mini Review,”Frontiers in
1588Psychology, 9, 26.
1589Vi, Chi T., Damien Ablart, Elia Gatti, Carlos Velasco, and Marianna Obrist
1590(2017), “Not Just Seeing, But Also Feeling Art: Mid-Air Haptic
1591Experiences Integrated in a Multisensory Art Exhibition,”International
1592Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 108, 1–14.
1593Vingerhoets, Guy (2014), “Contribution of the Posterior Parietal Cortex in
1594Reaching, Grasping, and Using Objects and Tools,”Frontiers in
1595Psychology, 5, 151.
1596Wan, Xiaoang, Carlos Velasco, Charles Michel, Mu BingBing, Andy T.
1597Woods, and Charles Spence (2014), “Does the Type of Receptacle
1598Influence the Crossmodal Association Between Colour And Flavour? A
1599Cross-Cultural Comparison,”Flavour,3,3.
1600Wang, Xia, Chunling Yu, and Yujie Wei (2012), “Social Media Peer
1601Communication and Impacts on Purchase Intentions: A Consumer Social-
1602ization Framework,”Journal of Interactive Marketing, 26, 4, 198–208.
1603Wilson, Margaret (2002), “Six Views of Embodied Cognition,”Psychonomic
1604Bulletin & Review, 9, 4, 625–36.
18 O. Petit et al. / Journal of Interactive Marketing xx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
Please cite this article as: Olivia Petit, et al., Digital Sensory Marketing: Integrating New Technologies into Multisensory Online Experience, Journal of Interactive
Marketing (2018), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intmar.2018.07.004

UNCORRECTED PROOF
1605 Wober, Mallory (1991), “The Sensotype Hypothesis,”in The Varieties of
1606 Sensory Experience: A Sourcebook in the Anthropology of the Senses. D.
1607 Howes, editor. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 31–42.
1608 Woods, Andy T. and Charles Spence (2016), “Using Single Colors and Color
1609 Pairs to Communicate Basic Tastes,”i-Perception, 7, 4 2041669516658817.
1610 Yim, Mark Yi-Cheon, Shu-Chuan Chu, and Paul L. Sauer (2017), “Is
1611 Augmented Reality Technology an Effective Tool for e-Commerce? An
1612Interactivity and Vividness Perspective,”Journal of Interactive Marketing,
161339, 89–103.
1614Zampini, Massimiliano and Charles Spence (2004), “The Role of Auditory
1615Cues in Modulating the Perceived Crispness and Staleness of Potato Chips,”
1616Journal of Sensory Studies, 19, 5, 347–63.
1617
1618
19O. Petit et al. / Journal of Interactive Marketing xx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
Please cite this article as: Olivia Petit, et al., Digital Sensory Marketing: Integrating New Technologies into Multisensory Online Experience, Journal of Interactive
Marketing (2018), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intmar.2018.07.004