Research Article
The Effect of Softness vs. Roughness Experience on Prosocial Behavior
1 Dankook University
Published: January 2017 · Vol. 46, No. 4 · pp. 985-1015
DOI: https://doi.org/10.17287/kmr.2017.46.4.985
Full Text
Abstract
Sensory experiences through the five senses influence thinking and behavior through metaphors—the figurative meanings embedded in those experiences. This study focused on the role of metaphors activated by soft tactile experiences, particularly in relation to the sense of touch, and examined their impact on information processing. When people perceive softness, positively valenced metaphors embedded in soft touch, such as "smoothness" and "easiness," are activated in the mental domain, and these metaphors help facilitate smooth and harmonious relationships with others in social relationship contexts. Based on this, the present study predicted that soft touch would lead to higher evaluations of social coordination levels, thereby positively influencing participation in prosocial activities for the public good. Meanwhile, the positive effect of softness experience on prosocial activity participation intention was expected to be moderated by need for touch. Need for touch refers to preferences and motivation for touching objects; because individuals with low need for touch have difficulty retrieving touch-related information, including tactile metaphors, even when they have tactile experiences, the positive effect of soft tactile experience was not expected to manifest among them. The results showed that participants who experienced soft touch had higher participation intentions for prosocial activities than those who experienced ordinary or rough tactile sensations, and the mediated moderation effect of need for touch through social coordination levels was significant. Specifically, for individuals with high or moderate levels of need for touch, the softness (vs. roughness) experience positively influenced social coordination levels, thereby inducing higher participation intentions for prosocial activities; however, for individuals with low need for touch, the effect on prosocial activity participation intention through social coordination levels was not significant.
