Please cite this article in press as: Orth, Ulrich R., et al, Trust during retail encounters: A touchy proposition, Journal of Retailing (xxx, 2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jretai.2013.02.002 ARTICLE IN PRESS +Model RETAIL-478; No. of Pages 14 Journal of Retailing xxx (xxx, 2013) xxx–xxx Trust during retail encounters: A touchy proposition  Ulrich R. Orth a,c,∗,1 , Tatiana Bouzdine-Chameeva b,1,2 , Kathrin Brand a,1,3 a A&F Marketing, Christian-Albrechts-Universität Kiel, Wilhelm-Seelig-Platz 6/7, 24098 Kiel, Germany b Information and Decision Sciences, BEM-Bordeaux Management School, 680 cours de la Libération, 33405 Talence Cedex, France c Ehrenberg-Bass Institute of Marketing Science, University of South Australia, Adelaide, Australia Abstract Adopting an interpersonal communication perspective, this study examines the propositions that a salesperson’s touch increases trust, which increases product evaluations and purchase intention. These relationships are evaluated in a contact and non-contact culture, with need for touch (NFT) examined as an additional moderator. An exploratory series of in-depth interviews provides an initial understanding of these relationships, followed by a 2 (touch/no touch condition) × 2 (consumers in France/Germany) experiment with wine serving as the example category. The findings indicate that touch does not uniformly instill trust in customers. Instead a salesperson’s touch relates to greater trust only when consumers have an inherent NFT or when they are from a culture where personal touching behavior is less prevalent. Trust, in turn, relates positively to evaluations of product attractiveness, quality, and to purchase intention. © 2013 New York University. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. Keywords: France; Germany; Salesperson; Quality; Trust; Touch; Wine Introduction Face-to-face retail encounters are among the most important elements in marketing communications (Jap, Manolis, and Weitz 1999). In face-to-face interactions exchange typically is initi- ated, maintained, and terminated interpersonally (Beatty et al. 1996; Reynolds and Arnold 2000; Van Dolen et al., 2002) as cus- tomers and salespersons engage in communication processes that can impact their attitudes, intentions, and behaviors (Jap, Manolis, and Weitz 1999). Successful retailing, therefore, hinges upon effective interpersonal communication (Bitner, Booms, and Tetreault 1990; Williams, Spiro, and Fine 1990; Winsted 1997). Scholars have focused considerable attention on inter- personal communication behavior between customers and  The authors thank Gregory Rose for providing valuable feedback on earlier versions of this research. We are grateful to the editor and three anonymous reviewers whose comments helped to improve the quality of this paper. ∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +49 0431 880 4417; fax: +49 0431 880 2044. E-mail addresses: uorth@ae.uni-kiel.de (U.R. Orth), tatiana.chameeva@bem.edu (T. Bouzdine-Chameeva), kbrand@ae.uni-kiel.de (K. Brand). 1 The authors are listed in reverse alphabetical order and have contributed equally. 2 Tel.: +33 05 56 84 22 35; fax: +33 05 56 84 55 00. 3 Tel.: +49 0431 880 4417; fax: +49 0431 880 2044. salespeople (e.g., Reynolds and Beatty 1999; Williams, Spiro, and Fine 1990; Winsted 1997). Drivers of successful retail com- munication include salesperson characteristics such as physical attractiveness, credibility, and expertise (Ahearne, Gruen, and Jarvis 1999; Reinhard, Messner, and Sporer 2006). Con- sequences include trust (Ahearne, Gruen, and Jarvis 1999; Reynolds and Beatty 1999), satisfaction (Menon and Dubé 2000), loyalty (Beatty et al. 1996), and positive shopping expe- riences (Verhoef et al. 2009). Despite the importance of understanding communication in retail encounters, there is very little research that empirically examines nonverbal aspects of the interactions between sales- people and customers (Sundaram and Webster 2000). Nonverbal communication is a fundamental aspect of any kind of interper- sonal exchange (Hulbert and Capon 1972), and touch is possibly the most powerful means of nonverbal communication (Levav and Argo 2010). However, research in this area has been limited to investigations of customers touching other customers (e.g., Martin 2012), crowding (i.e., customers inadvertently brush- ing each other: Baker and Wakefield 2011), market researchers touching respondents (e.g., Hornik 1992b), service personnel touching customers in hospitality contexts (e.g., Crusco and Wetzel 1984; Fisher, Rytting, and Heslin 1976), and customers touching products (e.g., Baker and Wakefield 2011; Marlow and Jansson-Boyd 2011). Important to note individual variation in touching behavior correlates with differences between cultures (Hertenstein et al. 2006). 0022-4359/$ – see front matter © 2013 New York University. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jretai.2013.02.002