Understanding the role of physical trial for good shopping decisions

As e-commerce continues to expand, so does omnichannel distribution. The success of this distribution model can be explained by the fact that it allows consumers to adopt hybrid behaviors, such as webrooming or showrooming (Srivastava et al., 2022; Verhoef, 2021). Through these practices, they can physically interact with a product and thus overcome one of the main limitations of online sales: the lack of a physical trial (Mandal et al., 2021). However, offering the possibility to try products out generates significant costs (land, personnel) and presenting an entire offer in a store is often impossible. Therefore, this issue is crucial for retailers (who want to enhance sales) and consumers (who want to be satisfied with their purchases).

New forms of try-on have recently been developed, such as try-at-home or the so-called “virtual try-on,” using augmented reality (Rejeb et al., 2021; Sharma & Dutta, 2023). However, these are niche solutions only used by a few retailers, and the classic physical trial in stores remains dominant. Therefore, it seems vital to understand whether the physical trial is essential for consumers and why. Building on Kempf & Smith (1998) definition of brand trial, we define product trial as the “consumer’s first experience with a product, before buying it” (in this research, the word “trial” always refers to a physical trial).

The trial is significant for some product categories, such as experience goods (Nelson, 1970; 1974). Weathers et al. (2007) explain that a product can be considered an experience good when “consumers feel they need to experience goods to evaluate quality directly”. Many goods, such as clothes, furniture or cosmetics, fall into this category. For these items, the information collected by a consumer is crucial in the formation of a good purchase decision, i.e. a decision that generates satisfaction without feeling regret (neither immediately nor in the long term) and does not result in a product’s return (Bui et al., 2011; Seeger et al., 2019).

Marketing literature does not allow us to properly understand the link between product trials and good purchase decisions. Several visions, sometimes contradictory, co-exist. This raises the following research question: How and why can the physical trial of an experience good lead a consumer to make a good purchase decision?

To answer this question, we adopt a mixed methodology involving one experiment and two qualitative studies. The results we obtained allow us to propose a comprehensive understanding of how consumers try and explain why trying out can enhance the quality of their final decision.

It is still difficult to understand the link between product trial and purchase decisions (Kempf & Smith, 1998). According to Engel et al. (1968), the buying process is divided into five stages. In this process, a trial can be a means of acquiring information and forming an opinion (Goering, 1985) and, thus, is part of the second step (the information search). It is accepted that the information collected allows a consumer to narrow down a range of choices and to form a consideration set, i.e. a set of brands or products considered acceptable a priori, among which the final choice will be made (Hauser, 2014). Consumers usually seek information when perceiving uncertainty or risk (Haridasan et al., 2021). In other words, the trial can be a tool for building the consideration set and, therefore, influences the purchase decision of a specific product.

Another view is that a trial confirms or invalidates the consumer’s expectations (Olson & Dover, 1979). The information collected during the second phase of a purchasing process (information search) generates expectations toward a product, and the trial makes it possible for a consumer to judge whether these expectations are met. In this case, the trial can be linked to a prepurchase evaluation (the third phase of the purchasing process), and its role is no longer to construct a set of considerations but to validate a choice from the already formed set. Therefore, the literature suggests two types of product trials: an “exploratory” one, during the information search phase, and a “confirmatory” one to make a purchase or non-purchase decision. In both situations, trial seems closely related to the quantity and the nature of the information available to the consumer. Moreover, researchers recently pointed out the need to explore the link between consumers’ knowledge and the purchase process, especially in an omnichannel context (Haridasan et al., 2021).

The integrated information response model (Smith & Swinyard, 1983) argues that a direct experience, such as a purchase, a trial or the use of a sample, leads to a higher-order belief than an indirect experience, such as exposure to advertising, packaging, or word-of-mouth. A higher-order belief is more difficult to change and is more confidently held. More recent research builds on this model to show that using a product sample leads to higher-order beliefs than advertising, in the specific case of a ballpoint pen, which can be considered an experience product (Mahardika et al., 2020). Both try-outs and samples offer a direct experience with the product by allowing one to see and touch it, but they differ because the sample is mostly used during the launching phase of the product, is directly pushed to the consumer and sometimes offers only a limited version (e.g. a single-use dose is not enough to evaluate the product over time).

In the omnichannel context, consumers have developed hybrid behaviors, enabling them to interact physically with products at some stage in their shopping journey. Webrooming refers to online searching for information before going to the store to buy the product. Showrooming refers to the opposite: going in-store and buying online later (Flavián et al., 2020; Srivastava et al., 2022). Webrooming increases consumers’ confidence in their choice and overall satisfaction (Flavián et al., 2019), whereas showrooming is more about saving time and money by searching for the lowest prices (Gensler et al., 2017). Thus, further research is needed about the influence of the try-out on the purchase decision, especially in a context where several channels co-exist.

Another body of literature approaches trials through the lens of unfamiliar product adoption: the literature on adopting innovations (Rogers, 1995; Wright & Stern, 2015). Rogers indicates that the adoption process is divided into four phases: knowledge, persuasion, decision and confirmation. The persuasion phase (i.e. the individual takes a position concerning the innovation) is the most important. To be adopted, an innovation must have five characteristics, including trialability, which consists of the possibility for a consumer to try a product before it is adopted. Innovations that can be tested will generally be adopted more easily because testing makes them less uncertain and more concrete for consumers. Trialability is especially important for early adopters because they have no benchmarks for adoption. Conversely, late adopters will have less need to try out because they will be surrounded by peers who have already adopted an innovation and can tell them about it. For experience goods, a trial is driven, among other factors, by the information available that will allow consumers to assess the potential match with their preferences (Pyo et al., 2022).

As we can see, there are different understandings of product trials in different streams of literature, but there is not yet an aggregated view that would help figure out what a trial is, why consumers need it and its consequences. Our research aims to provide this more comprehensive vision.

As literature about product trials is uncertain and scarce, we used mixed methods in this research. By applying both quantitative and qualitative studies, mixed methods are suitable to complement previous research (Pozzebon & De Souza Bido, 2019; Tashakkori et al., 1998) and are particularly relevant to provide a comprehensive understanding of a phenomenon, which was our goal (Davis et al., 2011; Gomes et al., 2023). Results are recognized as more precise, realistic and generalizable (Davis et al., 2013). We are not studying a new phenomenon here, which justifies starting with a quantitative study (in this case, an experiment). Indeed, we wish to confirm a causal link that has not been clearly demonstrated yet. Once this link is established, we want to fully understand it, which leads us to implement two qualitative studies. Our second study consists of in-depth interviews with consumers because we wanted to understand why they consider trial helpful when making a purchase decision. It showed that, when trying a product, people want to assess how it will fit. Thus, our third study consists of in-store observations and aims to identify how, concretely, people assess the fit. The overall research design is presented in Figure 1.

Even if we do not know precisely how a trial impacts the purchase process, it will likely help consumers decide to buy. Indeed, it provides consumers with information about the product and is likely to reduce uncertainty and risk associated with the purchase (Derbaix, 1983; Jacoby & Kaplan, 1972). However, this relationship has not been statistically established, even though researchers call for further exploration (Haridasan et al., 2021). We believe trial completion makes people feel more confident about their final decision, increasing purchase intention. Therefore, we posit the following hypothesis:

However, consumers have different levels of need for sensory information. Some of them might be able to make decisions only with visual information. For them, the online setting works perfectly. Others need to interact directly with the product by touching and sensing it and are likely to prefer the offline setting. This depends on people’s need for touch. The need for touch is part of the process of acquiring information through the senses. It helps people judge a product’s quality by combining intrinsic information (appearance, taste, texture) and extrinsic information (brand, price, reputation). In this context, everyone has their own “need for touch”: individuals with a strong need for touch are likely to have a higher purchase intention if they can physically be in contact with the product. For individuals who do not have this need, the impossibility of touching will not be a problem (Peck & Childers, 2003a; 2003b). Therefore, we believe the individual level of need for touch can mediate the relationship between trial and purchase intention. Thus, the following hypothesis is proposed:

To test these hypotheses, we conducted a lab experiment (Field, 2012; Hair, 2019) using lipsticks as a reference product category. Lipsticks belong to the experience goods family, according to Nelson’s typology (1970). Indeed, the actual color and texture can only be assessed by using the product. We manipulated two experimental conditions (the physical try-out of the product/its visual representation in pictures). We recruited 162 students from a French university (female only, at the bachelor’s and master’s levels) and alternatively assigned them to one condition or the other. Table 1 presents the instructions given to the participants, and the construct measurement is detailed in  Appendix 1.

We first checked the reliability of the scales used and the normality of the distributions (Peterson, 1994), which were satisfactory (see  Appendix 2). We tested H1 with a regression (using SPSS). Results show a significant direct effect of trying out on purchase intention (coeff. = 0.3626; t = 2.1839; p = 0.0308), meaning that H1 is validated. We then used the PROCESS macro (Model 1) developed by Preacher & Hayes (2008) to test H2. All analyses were performed with 5000 bootstraps, and we used the Johnson–Neymar method to identify the transition point within the observed range. Results show no moderation effect of the need for touch. Therefore, H2 is rejected.

Study 1 confirms the link between trial and purchase intention (H1), which was suggested in previous literature but that had not been demonstrated. In a context where commerce is increasingly dematerialized (notably recently, with the advent of Web3), this result reminds us that trying remains useful for many consumers, particularly for experience goods. However, contrary to what was expected, the results show no moderation effect on the level of need for touch (H2). This second result is also interesting because it calls for more research to explain the abovementioned direct effect. Indeed, we still do not know what underlies this link.

Moreover, interestingly, respondents tried an average of 4.76 references (among a total of 30 in the product range). It would be interesting to understand why: a single trial may not be enough to make a decision, and consumers may need to try other products to validate their choice. This could be studied in future research, and it suggests that even when the first product tried is satisfactory, consumers need to try others out to confirm their choice.

Given these results, more empirical evidence is needed to fully understand why trying products leads people to make good shopping decisions, i.e. to explain this direct link between trial and purchase intention. It calls for a more qualitative approach.

Study 2 aims to fully understand why trial is useful for consumers when making shopping decisions (that is, to answer the first part of our research question). To this end, we conducted 16 semi-directive interviews.

In this study, we focused on clothing, another category of experience goods (Nelson, 1970, 1974; Weathers et al., 2007). The interviews were conducted in two phases. The first phase was devoted to respondents’ accounts of their most recent clothing purchases that involved trials. During the second phase, we reevaluated some aspects of the recounted experiences to delve more specifically into product trials, generalizing beyond the single product category of clothing. The interview guide was structured around the following themes: consumers’ buying and try-out habits, their relationship to trials and the place of the trial in their purchasing processes. The sample comprised 16 French people with an average age of 34 years. Most of the respondents were recruited via an advertisement on social networks, and the interviews were conducted in person (average duration: 42 min). The interviews were then transcribed, and we conducted a thematic content analysis through NVivo software. A first reading of the corpus allowed us to identify the main orientations, and then a second reading led to the division of the corpus and the grouping of the verbatims by theme.

This study provides insight into why consumers try products out and, more interestingly, why trying helps them make a purchase decision. Our main finding is that a physical trial aims to assess the fit of a product. This idea of fit is particularly important for clothes because each physique has its particularities (“It’s really important for me when I buy a garment[…] I do not necessarily have a very standardized size. And so, I have to try it on first, especially pants, for example” – Antoine, 28; “When I see, for example, a garment and I say to myself, ‘this is pretty’, it is not necessarily on me” – Sandrine, 54). Trying out allows the validation of a set of characteristics, which then allows a consumer to evaluate a product’s potential fit:

• The size (“Do the pants zip, for example? Or, on the contrary, they’re too big, and it would be necessary to wear the size below” – Marie, 26).

• The material (“I find that you get a better sense of the material by trying it on” – Anne-Claire, 27).

• The color (“It also allows me to validate uh[…] the[…] the color, sometimes. If I ever try colors that are not black” – Marie, 26).

• Comfort (“The first thing is whether it’s comfortable or not” – Jordan, 30).

Thus, the reason why a trial has direct consequences on the decision-making process is that it allows one to assess the fit. A convincing trial allows the consumer to make an immediate decision: to buy or not (“Try-outs can lead to several things for me. Either deciding not to buy, or deciding to buy” – Marie, 26). Decision-making is, therefore, linked to the success of a trial. A successful trial also increases the level of confidence in a purchase decision. It leads to greater satisfaction (“I am more satisfied when I try something out. Because of this, I have more confidence in what I buy” – Diane, 18) and reduces returns (“Generally, I do not return what I try on in-store” – Johanna, 26). Thus, within the category of experience goods, we can distinguish subcategories in which try-outs are indispensable (because they allow not only for the verification of the characteristics of a product but also for the validation of an expected fit between a product and an individual). As a result, trial results in a better purchase decision, i.e. a more informed decision with fewer areas of uncertainty.

First, we note that a trial is an essential stage in forming an opinion and that it is difficult to forgo it, especially for “nonstandard” products. This concerns a very specific type of experience goods, which we propose to call “adequacy goods”, as opposed to “acceptance goods” – i.e. experience goods that do not imply a physical fit (televisions, radios, boats, etc.). This verification of fit requires physical contact with a product to evaluate it through the different senses of the customer, notably sight and touch.

We also note the desire to make a good decision, that is, not to regret the purchase. Trying out seems to be a way of avoiding mistakes or “bad choices”. Owing to the confrontation with a product, trials enable the verification of its sensory characteristics as well as the verification of the product’s fit. At this stage of the research, we know that trial leads to making shopping decisions (Study 1), and we also explain the reason behind this, namely the fact that trial allows one to evaluate the fit (Study 2). The fit is, ultimately, the most important information to check when buying experience goods, and it must occur physically.

At this step of our research, we had a much better understanding of why people try products out and how trying helps them to make a good purchase decision (i.e. by evaluating the fit with the product). However, we still did not know how they evaluate this fit in a real environment. This third study allowed us to develop our analysis by studying how trials occur in-store (answering the second part of our research question).

We conducted observations in a furniture showroom located in Paris, France (see  Appendix 3 for the store layout). Furniture is another category of experience goods, for which it is also important to verify fit. Studying a new category of products allows us to increase the external validity of our results and to explore another type of goods, one that is related to an individual’s environment and not only to their body. We chose a nonparticipant format to avoid influencing the behaviors of the individuals observed (Boote & Mathews, 1999). The study had two main stages. First, the customers were observed during their entire journey, i.e. from when they entered the store to the moment they left it (without selection criteria). Then, some people observed were randomly asked to participate in a short interview when they left the store. These exchanges at the end of the visits made it possible to clarify the observations.

The clients were observed through an observation grid to record significant facts and attitudes. This grid was developed based on the literature review and the results of our two first studies (see  Appendix 4). The more unexpected elements (exchanges between clients and socialization, for example) and the researchers’ observations were recorded in a logbook. We stopped the observation when it did not provide any new element that could enrich our analysis and understanding of the trial. In total, we observed 202 clients, and 27 were interviewed after their visit. The nonverbal elements were coded manually in a grid, and the speech elements were coded using NVivo software.

The results of this study shed light on the findings of the interviews. First, we confirm once again that a physical trial allows consumers to collect more information about the product, compared to a picture on a website, and it is a way to reconcile the Internet to reality (“It allows us to see a little bit; we will say, the seat, the comfort, the rendering. Because it’s true that between[…] we’ll say, an image on a computer, and coming to touch, to test, it’s different” – Couple n°6, 50 years old). We also found the coexistence of the two situations mentioned in the literature: in the first one, which we can call confirmatory, the trial allows us to validate a decision already formed (“We wanted to confirm or reject the product we had seen on the Internet” – Couple n°2, 30 years old), while in the second one, which we can call exploratory, the trial allows us to discover a product (“There, we are really in the process of discovery” – Couple n°3, 30 years old; “As we want to renew our interior a little, we look for styles, furniture” – Family, 40 years old).

Finally, we confirm that try-outs help to evaluate fit, and, more importantly, we understand that this fit can concern different elements:

• Oneself (“You have to feel good about it” – Single man in his 30s).

• Product environment (“That it corresponds well to our home, let’s say” – Couple n°4, 30 years old; “There is first the visual, the comfort. And the adaptation to the[…] to the place. Does it fit in our home?” – Family in their 40s).

• One’s lifestyle/habits (“You have to imagine the feeling of everyday life” – Single man in his 30s).

The main objective of this study was to understand how consumers evaluate fit. Trying out a tangible good at the point of sale mobilizes the senses, particularly sight and touch. The observation phase allowed us to identify a three-step process:

1. First, the customer looks at the product from different angles (top, bottom, turning around).

2. They then touch it while keeping a certain distance from the object. This will consist, for example, of passing the hand over the back of a chair or the top of a table or opening a door and closing it.

3. Finally, they interact physically with the product, for example, by sitting or lying down on a piece of furniture.

We observed a recurrence of this three-step process carried out by most visitors (68% of the sample, i.e. 138 people). We also observed a back-and-forth logic among showroom visitors. A “reference” product was often chosen (generally, the first product tried), and the ones tried out afterward seemed to be judged in relation to this reference product. Thus, the products tried out afterward were not evaluated in absolute terms but according to this reference product (“You are better wrapped up in this armchair than in the other one”, Couple n°1, in their 30 s).

The results of Study 3 reinforce the idea that a trial leads to a better purchase decision. We confirm that physical interaction is decisive, as it allows the consumer to project them with the object. These findings help to understand that verifying the fit involves different phases of interaction with a product. Trying out consists not only of “sensing” a product (in this case, touching it), which we could assume based on the interviews but also of interacting physically with it (see Figure 3). The importance of the senses relates to many characteristics of a product: the material, the texture, the color, the comfort, the proportion, the fit of a fabric, its thickness, etc. In other words, a “complete” trial covers all three steps. This explains why an online representation, even the most accurate, does not compensate for a product trial in-store.

These results also help to understand what we observed in Study 1, where respondents tried an average of more than four products: we assume they were also in this logic of going back and forth with a “reference” product.

The purpose of this article was to answer the following question: How and why can the physical trial of an experience good lead a consumer to make a good purchase decision?

Using mixed methods, we show that consumers try products by carrying out a three-stage process and by mobilizing different senses (“how”), which allows them to evaluate the fit (“why”). In addition, trying leads to better and more efficient decisions, which is positive for both consumers and retailers.

From a theoretical point of view, our research enriches different fields of literature. In line with the integrated information response model (Marks & Kamins, 1988), we confirm that a direct experience with a product through a trial can increase the intention to purchase (Study 1). However, we go one step further by identifying the critical role of perceived fit in this process (Study 2). This idea of fit is essential because it explains why trials are so important for specific categories of products, even within the category of experience goods. We choose to call them adequacy goods. For these adequacy goods, seeing and touching the real product is not enough (Table 2 presents a non-exhaustive list of adequacy goods). To evaluate their fit with the consumer, they need to interact with it (Study 3). This step is highly personal and cannot be delegated to a third party. This helps to understand the result of recent research, which showed that consumers do not trust AI recommendations when seeking experience goods (Xie et al., 2022).

Second, this research reconciles the two visions of trial presented in previous literature by showing that different trial forms co-exist during the same shopping journey (Goering, 1985; Olson & Dover, 1979). It is quite possible for a consumer to first explore the offer by trying products out and then try them again to choose between different options. Thus, we propose a comprehensive framework for product trials.

Third, these findings enrich our understanding of hybrid omnichannel behavior. Most people surveyed and observed (Studies 2 and 3) went to the store after exploring the online offer, intending to try out the product before buying it. It shows a webrooming logic, in which trial is the final stage in forming the decision. This confirms that trial contributes to making “good decisions” in the context of experience goods (Flavián et al., 2019). For these goods, the offline channel provides consumers with sensory information that cannot be conveyed through a digital channel.

Furthermore, the few respondents who were more into showrooming explained that discovering the product through the trial was a source of inspiration. Once they find this inspiration, they want to explore the online offer. This logic seems to be driven more by exploring the range of products than by pursuing the best value for money (Fernández et al., 2018; Gensler et al., 2017). In other words, product trial would also explain hybrid behavior. In addition, we show the key role of an offline action (trying) in the context of the growing dematerialization of commerce. This confirms that the omnichannel distribution model is the most comprehensive and efficient (Sharma & Dutta, 2023) and calls for a cautious approach to “trial replacement” solutions. Tools such as augmented reality can positively impact the online experience, but they will not compensate for the absence of a trial.

From a managerial point of view, our results should encourage companies to emphasize trials, particularly if they sell adequacy goods. Promoting trials is in their interest since they lead consumers to make better purchase decisions. In practice, encouraging a good trial means setting up trial conditions that allow for precise fit assessments, as shown in Studies 2 and 3. We recommend allowing the customers who desire to do so to project themselves into usage situations. Concretely, encouraging good trials is an affordable and easy-to-implement solution (compared to augmented reality or try-at-home), with a strong potential for sales (since trying increases the purchase intention, as shown in Study 1). We also recommend strengthening synergies between channels to encourage hybrid omnichannel behavior. For example, by proposing trial paths, consumers can make a pre-selection online and then find this selection directly in the store, ready to be tried. This would help consumers make the most of each channel (Sharma & Dutta, 2023).

Our research also has societal implications since it can lead to more sustainable consumption patterns (Thøgersen, 2022). Indeed, the fact that a “good” trial leads to better decisions means that consumers will buy products that they will be satisfied with, will not return and will retain for longer periods (Abdulla et al., 2019; Seeger et al., 2019). A good trial will, therefore, ultimately assist in reducing waste. Conversely, if a product is not used because it is not suitable, it can be set aside, disposed of or replaced, which can generate frustration for the consumer. Physical wear and tear can even be caused unconsciously, as some research has shown that we take less care of objects we wish to replace (Ackermann et al., 2018). More generally, returning a product (whether sending it back or returning it in-store) generates costs and efforts for both consumers and companies.

Finally, this research has some limitations. First, we only studied three categories of experience goods (clothing, furniture and make-up). It would be interesting for future research to consider other types of goods belonging to the “adequacy goods” family. Similarly, our observation was conducted within a single space. Conducting a similar study in another type of outlet would allow us to analyze the extent to which locations and product category characteristics impact how consumers conduct product trials. Beyond these limitations, we believe this work may pave the way for further research. It would be interesting to measure confidence levels in one’s choice before and after a trial to better understand its weight in purchasing decision formation. More broadly, we think it would be useful to study what a “good” hybrid buying process is in the context of omnichannel distribution. Finally, future research could investigate if and how new trial forms, such as augmented reality or try-at-home, can fulfill the three functions of trial that we identify in this paper. It would help to understand whether they are likely to completely replace a physical trial.

Table A1 

Table A2 

Figure A1 

Table A3 

Authors’ contributions: Philippine Loupiac, Literature review, Methodology, Data collection, Analysis, Writing – Original draft. Emmanuelle Le Nagard, Literature review, Methodology, Analysis, Writing – Original draft.