The Different Roles of Product Appearance in Consumer Choice Marie¨lle E. H. Creusen and Jan P. L. Schoormans Product design has been recognized as an opportunity for differential advantage in the market place. The appearance of a product influences consumer product choice in several ways. To help product development managers in optimizing the appear- ance of products, the present study identified the different ways in which the ap- pearance of a product plays a role in consumer product evaluation and, hence, choice. In addition, the implications for product design of each role are listed, and managerial recommendations for optimizing the appearance of products are given. Based on a literature review, six different roles of product appearance for con- sumers are identified: (1) communication of aesthetic, (2) symbolic, (3) function- al, and (4) ergonomic information; (5) attention drawing; and (6) categorization. A product’s appearance can have aesthetic and symbolic value for consumers, can communicate functional characteristics and give a quality impression (functional value), and can communicate ease of use (ergonomic value). In addition, it can draw attention and can influence the ease of categorization of the product. In a large qualitative study (N 5 142) it was tested whether these roles indeed exist in con- sumers’ process of product choice and whether they are sufficient to describe the way in which product appearance plays a role for consumers. In addition, qualitative in- sight into these roles was gained. After making a choice between two answering ma- chines, subjects were interviewed about the reasons for their choice and the product information they used to form the judgments underlying their choice reasons. The six appearance roles indeed proved relevant for consumers and were sufficient to describe the influence of product appearance on product choice. The number of ways in which appearance played a role for consumers differed between 0 and 5; most subjects mentioned two different ways in which appearance influenced their product choice. The aesthetic and symbolic roles were mentioned most often. The preferred shape (e.g., rounded or angular), color, or size were found to differ depending on the way in which product appearance played a role for subjects. For example, bright colors may be valued from an aesthetic point of view but may di- minish the impression of quality (i.e., functional value). This makes it difficult to optimize all roles and illustrates that the product value that is most important for consumers when purchasing a specific kind of product should be the starting point in the design of the product appearance. Furthermore, the influence of shape, color, or size on a certain kind of product value—aesthetic, symbolic, ergonomic, or func- tional—differed between subjects. One person may like a rounded shape, while an- other may prefer a rectangular shape. This means that the value of guidelines indicating how the perception of a specific kind of product value can be engendered Address correspondence to: Marie¨lle E. H. Creusen, Delft University of Technology, Faculty of Industrial Design Engineering, Department of Product Innovation and Management, Landbergstraat 15, 2628 CE Delft, The Netherlands. Email: [email protected]. We are grateful to the editor of this article, Abbie Griffin, as her comments significantly changed and improved this article. J PROD INNOV MANAG 2005;22:63–81 r 2005 Product Development & Management Association
19
Embed
Different roles of_product_appearance_in_consumer_choice
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
The Different Roles of Product Appearance in Consumer Choice�
Marielle E. H. Creusen and Jan P. L. Schoormans
Product design has been recognized as an opportunity for differential advantage in
the market place. The appearance of a product influences consumer product choice
in several ways. To help product development managers in optimizing the appear-
ance of products, the present study identified the different ways in which the ap-
pearance of a product plays a role in consumer product evaluation and, hence,
choice. In addition, the implications for product design of each role are listed, and
managerial recommendations for optimizing the appearance of products are given.
Based on a literature review, six different roles of product appearance for con-
sumers are identified: (1) communication of aesthetic, (2) symbolic, (3) function-
al, and (4) ergonomic information; (5) attention drawing; and (6) categorization.
A product’s appearance can have aesthetic and symbolic value for consumers, can
communicate functional characteristics and give a quality impression (functional
value), and can communicate ease of use (ergonomic value). In addition, it can
draw attention and can influence the ease of categorization of the product. In a large
qualitative study (N5 142) it was tested whether these roles indeed exist in con-
sumers’ process of product choice and whether they are sufficient to describe the way
in which product appearance plays a role for consumers. In addition, qualitative in-
sight into these roles was gained. After making a choice between two answering ma-
chines, subjects were interviewed about the reasons for their choice and the product
information they used to form the judgments underlying their choice reasons.
The six appearance roles indeed proved relevant for consumers and were sufficient
to describe the influence of product appearance on product choice. The number of
ways in which appearance played a role for consumers differed between 0 and 5;
most subjects mentioned two different ways in which appearance influenced their
product choice. The aesthetic and symbolic roles were mentioned most often.
The preferred shape (e.g., rounded or angular), color, or size were found to differ
depending on the way in which product appearance played a role for subjects. For
example, bright colors may be valued from an aesthetic point of view but may di-
minish the impression of quality (i.e., functional value). This makes it difficult to
optimize all roles and illustrates that the product value that is most important for
consumers when purchasing a specific kind of product should be the starting point in
the design of the product appearance. Furthermore, the influence of shape, color, or
size on a certain kind of product value—aesthetic, symbolic, ergonomic, or func-
tional—differed between subjects. One person may like a rounded shape, while an-
other may prefer a rectangular shape. This means that the value of guidelines
indicating how the perception of a specific kind of product value can be engendered
Address correspondence to: Marielle E. H. Creusen, Delft University of Technology, Faculty of Industrial Design Engineering, Department ofProduct Innovation and Management, Landbergstraat 15, 2628 CE Delft, The Netherlands. Email: [email protected].�We are grateful to the editor of this article, Abbie Griffin, as her comments significantly changed and improved this article.
J PROD INNOV MANAG 2005;22:63–81r 2005 Product Development & Management Association
by means of shape, color, and size is limited. This is especially the case for aesthetic
and symbolic product value, which are very personal. Therefore it is recommended
to test the performance of the appearance of a newly developed product on these six
roles with the target group of consumers.
Insight into the different ways in which appearance characteristics, such as form
and color, may influence consumer choice will increase managers’ awareness about
how to use product appearance as a marketing tool. In addition, distinguishing these
six appearance roles will help product development managers to optimize the prod-
uct appearance better to market needs, as the roles have different and sometimes
even conflicting implications for the design of the product appearance.
Introduction
Product design is an opportunity for differential
advantage in the marketplace (e.g., Hammer,
1995; Kotler and Rath, 1984; Lobach, 1976;
Lorenz, 1986; Pilditch, 1976; Veryzer, 1995). A num-
ber of companies successfully focus on product design
as a competitive tool (see, e.g., Dumaine, 1991;
Nussbaum, 1993; Smith, 1994). Several studies indi-
cate the influence of good product design on com-
mercial success (e.g., Black and Baker, 1987; Bruce
and Whitehead, 1988; Gemser and Leenders, 2001;
Roy, 1994; Thackara, 1997). Yamamoto and Lambert
(1994) showed that even for industrial products, ap-
pearance has an influence on product preference.
But what does this mean in practice? Which prod-
uct design will lead to commercial success? To be able
to define some guidelines that can be used in new
product development (NPD), it is necessary to look at
the role of product design in consumer evaluation.
First, it must be recognized that this role is com-
plex and diverse. There are a number of ways in
which product design influences consumer preference
(Bloch, 1995). The design of a product determines
consumers’ first impression of the product and quick-
ly can communicate product advantage. In addition,
the design of a product will generate consumer infer-
ences regarding several product attributes (Berkowitz,
1987; Bloch, 1995; Pilditch, 1976). Furthermore,
product appearance can provide value in itself;
many people like to buy a product that looks aesthet-
ically pleasing. As the influence of product design on
consumer evaluation is often complex, it is difficult to
decide upon during the product development process.
For example, a product with bright colors may be
valued aesthetically, but these same colors may give
consumers the idea that the product is of low quality.
To be able to give guidelines for design following
from its influence on consumer product evaluations, it
is necessary first to answer the question of what ex-
actly constitutes the value of a product design for
consumers. In order to answer this question, the
present article begins with an overview of the differ-
ent roles of the product design in the purchase deci-
sion of consumers. More precisely, the influence of
what consumers see of the product—that is, its exte-
rior—in making a purchase decision will be described.
Therefore, the term product appearance instead of
product design will be used, as the design of a prod-
uct also refers to product parts that consumers cannot
see (i.e., the interior of the product). On the basis of a
literature review and a large qualitative study, the im-
plications of these roles for product design and prod-
uct development are described.
Product Appearance and Consumer Product
Evaluation: A Literature Review
This section describes the roles of product appearance
in the process of consumer evaluation and choice.
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCHES
Dr. Marielle E. H. Creusen is assistant professor of consumer re-
search with the Faculty of Industrial Design Engineering at Delft
University of Technology in The Netherlands. She received an
M.Sc. in economic psychology from Tilburg University and a
Ph.D. from Delft University of Technology. She has published in
journals such as the International Journal of Research in Marketing
and Advances in Consumer Research. Her current research interests
include consumer research methods in product development and
the influence of product appearance factors on consumer product
preference.
Dr. Jan P. L. Schoormans is professor of consumer research with
the Faculty of Industrial Design Engineering at Delft University of
Technology in The Netherlands. He received an M.Sc. and Ph.D. in
economic psychology from Tilburg University. He has published in
journals such as the Journal of Product Innovation Management,
Design Studies, International Journal of Research in Marketing,
Journal of Economic Psychology, and Advances in Consumer Re-
search. His current research interests include consumer research
methods in the product development process.
64 J PROD INNOV MANAG2005;22:63–81
M. E. H. CREUSEN AND J. P. L. SCHOORMANS
For this aim, literature in the fields of product
development, product design, consumer behavior,
marketing, and human factors has been searched.
The literature shows that the visual appearance of a
product can influence consumer product evaluations
and choice in several ways. Several authors considered
the role of product or package appearance in con-
sumer product evaluation or choice (Bloch, 1995;
Garber, 1995; Garber et al., 2000; Veryzer, 1993;
Veryzer, 1995). However, they did not discuss explic-
itly the different ways in which appearance influences
consumer choice and their respective implications for
product design. In addition to these more recent con-
tributions to the literature, the functions of a product
in consumer–product interaction are described in ear-
lier industrial design literature (Lobach, 1976; Pil-
ditch, 1976; Schurer, 1971). Several of these functions
concern product appearance. There are differences
between authors in the number of roles (i.e., func-
tions) of product appearance they distinguish and the
terms they use. For example, communication of ease
of use was mentioned by Bloch (1995) and was de-
scribed as part of the aesthetic function by Lobach
(1976), while Veryzer (1995) called it the communica-
tive function of a product appearance. If all the roles
mentioned in the literature are considered as a whole,
the following six roles of product appearance for con-
sumers can be distinguished: (1) communication of
aesthetic, (2) symbolic, (3) functional, and (4) ergo-
nomic product information; (5) attention drawing;
and (6) categorization. A description of these six roles
and their implications for product design follows.
Product Appearance and Aesthetic Product Value
The aesthetic value of a product pertains to the pleas-
ure derived from seeing the product, without consid-
eration of utility (Holbrook, 1980). A consumer can
value the ‘‘look’’ of a product purely for its own sake,
as looking at something beautiful is rewarding in it-
self. When product alternatives are similar in func-
tioning and price, consumers will prefer the one that
appeals the most to them aesthetically (see, for exam-
ple, Figure 1). Aesthetic responses are primarily emo-
tional or feeling responses, and as such they are very
personal (Bamossy et al., 1983).
Several researchers have tried to determine prop-
erties of products that are related to aesthetic appre-
ciation. Innate preferences are proposed for visual
organization principles, such as unity (i.e., congruence
in elements), proportion (e.g., ‘‘the Golden Section’’),
and symmetry (Hekkert, 1995; Muller, 2001; Veryzer,
1993; Veryzer and Hutchinson, 1998), and an inverted
U-shaped relation is proposed between aesthetic
preference and complexity (Berlyne, 1971). Another
property influencing aesthetic judgments is color. The
desirability of a color will change according to the
object to which it is applied (e.g., a car or a table) and
with the style of the object (e.g., modern or Georgian)
(Whitfield and Wiltshire, 1983).
In addition to (innate) preferences for certain prop-
erties of stimuli, prototypicality is found to influence
the aesthetic response. Prototypicality is the degree to
which something is representative of a category (see
also the section about categorization). In several stud-
ies, evidence is found for a positive influence of vis-
ual prototypicality on aesthetic preference (Hekkert,
1995; Veryzer and Hutchinson, 1998; Whitfield and
Slatter, 1979). According to Hekkert et al. (2003),
products with an optimal combination of prototypi-
cality and novelty are preferred aesthetically.
As well as the product-related characteristics pre-
viously mentioned, there are cultural, social, and per-
sonal influences on design taste. For example, color
preferences differ between cultures and in time (Whit-
field and Wiltshire, 1983). In addition, personal fac-
tors, such as design acumen, prior experience, and
personality influence the design taste of consumers
(Bloch, 1995).
The influence of an aesthetic judgment on product
preference can be moderated by the perceived aes-
thetic fit of the product with other products the con-
sumer owns, or his or her home interior (Bloch, 1995).
Figure 1. Mobile Phones Differing in Their Aesthetic Appear-
ance (reprinted with permission from Nokia Corporation)
PRODUCT APPEARANCE AND CONSUMER CHOICE J PROD INNOV MANAG2005;22:63–81
65
Consumers may like a product’s appearance but may
not buy it because it does not fit aesthetically with
their home interior.
Product Appearance and Symbolic Product Value
Consumer goods carry and communicate symbolic
meaning (McCracken, 1986). Symbolic value even can
be the key determinant for product selection (Hirsch-
man and Holbrook, 1982) and can account for the
selection of products that clearly are inferior in their
tangible characteristics (Levy, 1959). An example of
the latter is Philippe Starck’s Juicy Salif lemon squeezer
(Lloyd and Snelders, 2003). The choice for a specific
product or brand may convey the kind of person
someone is or wants to be; consumers use products to
express their (ideal) self-image to themselves and to
and specific details as a basis for their aesthetic judg-
ment, although some subjects found it difficult to ver-
balize precisely why a specific product alternative
looked more attractive to them. In general, a small,
rounded answering machine in one neutral, dark color
was preferred aesthetically, although some subjects
had different preferences. The fact that only very few
Table 1. The Six Roles of Product Appearance forConsumers
Appearance Role Influence on Consumers
AttentionDrawing
Draw consumer attention in-store
Categorization Influence ease of categorizationOffer possibility for differentiationfrom the product category
Functional Show features/functionalitiesServe as a cue for features/functionalitiesServe as a cue for technical quality
Ergonomic Show parts for consumer-productinteractionShow consequences of use ofoverall appearance aspects(e.g., size, roundedness)
Aesthetic Serve as a basis for aesthetic appreciationFit with home interior and otherproducts owned
Symbolic Serve as a basis for symbolic productassociationsCommunicate brand image
PRODUCT APPEARANCE AND CONSUMER CHOICE J PROD INNOV MANAG2005;22:63–81
75
subjects mentioned visual organization principles as
causing their aesthetic preference is not surprising,
as the influence of such principles largely will be
unconscious (Veryzer, 1999). Although prototypical-
ity was not mentioned explicitly, many subjects pre-
ferred a rounded product because it suits the
contemporary design trend and as such is prototypi-
cal for contemporary products.
Symbolic value was mentioned as a choice reason
by almost one-half of the sample. Subjects mentioned
several associations, such as expensive, friendly, or
businesslike. A modern or contemporary look was
important to more than one-quarter of the subjects.
Aesthetic and symbolic values often were intertwined.
For example, many subjects liked a rounded appear-
ance because it looks modern and friendly. It however
may be good to acknowledge the difference between
these two kinds of product value. Someone might like
a certain appearance but might not purchase it because
the symbolic associations are not suited to her or his
person (e.g., a childlike appearance for an adult) or to
the occasion (think of use at home versus at work).
A few subjects derived functionalities from the
product appearance. In addition, several subjects de-
rived an impression about the functional quality of
the product from its appearance. They chose the prod-
uct alternative that looked the most reliable or solid
but found it difficult to indicate the characteristics re-
sponsible for this impression. This agrees with the lit-
erature, where it is noted that the global impression of
the product appearance can communicate quality
(Srinivasan et al., 1997; Yamamoto and Lambert,
1994). Whether and what inferences are formed on
the basis of the product appearance will differ be-
tween consumers. A knowledgeable and interested
consumer will be able and be willing to assess the val-
ue of most technical product functions. However,
other consumers may use heuristics such as ‘‘more
buttons mean more functions.’’ Information about
how subjects form judgments about functional prod-
uct value on the basis of product appearance can be
used proactively to attune product appearance to con-
sumer perception. This increases the likelihood that
consumers will make accurate judgments about the
functional product value, for ‘‘it is not enough to bury
quality in a product, it must be seen and experienced
to be recognized and believed’’ (Dickson, 1994, p. 263).
More than one-third of the sample mentioned
choice reasons concerning usability. Two-thirds of
them mentioned operational aspects, of which one-
half referred to the number or size of the buttons.
Almost one-third of the subjects that mentioned usa-
bility wanted a small number of buttons on an an-
swering machine, because they believed this made it
simpler to operate. They considered more buttons
simply to be confusing. This agrees with the notion
that simplicity of operation will be a more dominant
sales argument than variety of functional characteris-
tics (Hammer, 1995; Nussbaum, 1988). Clear opera-
tion will be especially important for technologically
complex products. Many electronic products are so
complex that they are almost unusable, and many
consumers even find high-tech products intimidating
(Feldman, 1995). In addition to parts for consumer–
product interaction, such as buttons and displays, this
study revealed that overall aspects of the appearance,
such as size, roundedness, and material, influence the
(perceived) ergonomic product value. These aspects
influence more indirect consequences of use, such
as the space needed by the product (e.g., whether it
fits on a table), the ease of handling the product, or
the ease of cleaning. So in investigating the usability
of a product, attention should be given not only
to (the perception of ) operational aspects but also
to these more indirect consequences of use, as these
also play a role in product choice.
In contrast to food products, where a positive rela-
tion is found between the ability of a package to draw
attention and product choice, all but one of the sub-
jects in this study that mentioned attention drawing as
playing a role in their product choice chose the less at-
tention-drawing product alternative—the reason being
that they did not want the product to be conspicuous in
their home. Indeed, products that draw attention in
store often are conspicuous and may not be the same
ones that are found to be aesthetically attractive. Aes-
thetic considerations will be more important to con-
sumers for durable products than for fast-moving
consumer goods, as durable products are used for a
longer period and often are visible in one’s home and
for other people. So although an atypical product ap-
pearance can be a suitable way of attracting attention
for durable products, care has to be taken to ensure
that this atypical look is acceptable aesthetically for
consumers.
Concerning visual categorization, several subjects
preferred the most typical looking answering machine
but found it difficult to explain why. Others preferred
an atypical, and thereby less common and ordinary,
answering machine. This confirms that the preference
for typicality (or lack thereof) differs between con-
sumers. The choice whether to develop a typical, a
76 J PROD INNOV MANAG2005;22:63–81
M. E. H. CREUSEN AND J. P. L. SCHOORMANS
slightly atypical, or a very atypical appearance will
depend on the target group of consumers and the kind
of product. In the literature review section, cases are
listed in which it is beneficial to develop a very typical
or an atypical appearance.
The aesthetic and symbolic appearance roles were
far more salient to consumers, and the appearance
influenced perceived ergonomic value for one-third of
the subjects (see Figure 10). The functional role of the
appearance is mentioned less. This does not mean that
functionalities were not important: 57.7% of the sam-
ple based their choice on functionalities. However,
most of these were derived from the textual informa-
tion presented with the products themselves, and only
12.7% of the subjects mentioned the appearance as a
basis for a judgment about the functional product
value. The attention-drawing and categorization roles
were mentioned less often. It may be that consumers
are not always conscious of their influence (see the
section about future research). The relative impor-
tance of the appearance roles was not the focus of the
present study. Since a small number of product alter-
natives was used, the influence of the appearance roles
in this study may not be indicative for answering ma-
chines in general. For example, the answering ma-
chines in this study had one or two buttons and a
volume slider; an alternative with more buttons would
have increased the incidence with which subjects men-
tion ease of operation as a choice reason. However, it
is striking that aesthetic value played a role for so
many subjects, while the answering machines used in
this study do not differ that much in their appearance
(they are all dark-colored, flat shapes). There were
more subjects that partly based their choice on aes-
thetics than on functionalities. This may indicate the
importance of aesthetics in consumers’ product selec-
tion. However, the relative importance of the appear-
ance roles will differ between product categories and
consumers (see the section about future research).
This study revealed several examples of interrela-
tions between appearance roles. Significant correla-
tions exist between aesthetic and symbolic product
value, aesthetic value and attention drawing, and cat-
egorization and aesthetic as well as symbolic value.
No correlations of functional or ergonomic value with
other appearance roles were significant. However, for
some subjects symbolic and functional value were
linked, and some relations between roles might not
have surfaced in this research (e.g., because of the
small number of product alternatives used). Consum-
ers may derive, for example, an impression about the
functional or ergonomic product value from catego-
rization of the product appearance; similarity to a
well-known product category exemplar of high-tech-
nical quality may lead consumers to infer that the
product at hand is also of good quality.
As some roles can be interrelated, changes in one
role may influence other roles. In addition, the pre-
ferred shape (e.g., rounded or angular), color, or size
were found to differ depending on the way in which
product appearance played a role for subjects. For
example, a small size is valued from an aesthetic point
of view, but a larger size is chosen by some subjects
because it looks more solid and reliable (i.e., func-
tional value). So when something is changed in the
product appearance in order to improve its perform-
ance on one role, this has implications for the per-
formance on other roles.
Managerial Implications
The appearance of a product can influence consumer
choice in different ways. Distinguishing these different
appearance roles will help managers to make better
use of product appearance as a marketing tool.
Focus on the Most Important Appearance Roles
To use the potential of product appearance fully in
influencing consumer choice, the appearance should
communicate the central consumer advantage to con-
sumers and should fit the product’s market position-
ing (see also Just and Salvador, 2003). To make
optimal use of product appearance, the marketing
department or product development team should con-
sider explicitly the impression they want the appear-
ance to communicate. The most important value to
consumers in purchasing a specific kind of product
should be the starting point in the design of the prod-
uct appearance (Bruce and Whitehead, 1988). There-
fore, it is recommended that product designers know
in an early stage whether aesthetics, ease of use, tech-
nical quality, or features are most important in the
brand choice for the target group of consumers. For
the product shape, colors, materials, and configura-
tion that are preferred—or that engender positive
product perceptions—depend on the product value
that is important to the consumer. For example, a
larger size may make a product look more old-fash-
ioned and crude, more solid and stable, less easy to
PRODUCT APPEARANCE AND CONSUMER CHOICE J PROD INNOV MANAG2005;22:63–81
77
store, easier to operate (as buttons are bigger or far-
ther apart), and heavier in weight. Whether a larger
size is preferable therefore will depend on whether
aesthetic value, technical quality, or ease of use is
more important to consumers.
Different appearances can be made for groups of
consumers that differ in the product value that is most
important in their choice. For example, people who
need glasses may prefer an alarm clock with buttons
that have a bright contrasting color as opposed to the
casing, so they can locate the buttons better in a dark
room. Other people may dismiss such a product on
aesthetic grounds.
Are Design Guidelines Valuable?
Several influences of appearance characteristics, such
as color and form, on the perception of certain kinds
of product value have been mentioned in the literature
or are intuitive. Subjects in the present study also
mentioned such influences. For example, a bigger
product looks more solid, bright colors may diminish
a quality impression, and a large number of buttons
decreases the impression of ease of use (Norman,
1988). What is the value of such design guidelines?
Is it useful to investigate such influences?
Although product designers intuitively will feel
how to engender a certain impression, the present au-
thors think that research into the influence of specific
appearance elements on the perception of certain
kinds of product value may help them in this. How-
ever, the intuition of the designer remains essential, as
the effect of combining separate characteristics into a
whole cannot be predicted. Furthermore, the value of
such guidelines differs for different kinds of product
values. The influence of appearance characteristics on
the perception of utilitarian aspects, such as quality,
ease of use, and functionality, probably will be similar
over product categories, persons, and countries. Peo-
ple will agree that larger buttons are easier to operate
and that a product with a display looks more func-
tionally complex than one without a display. So for
functional and ergonomic value, such guidelines are
reliable, and general research into the influence of
specific appearance characteristics on their perception
will be useful. However, there will be more difference
between consumers in aesthetic and symbolic percep-
tion, since such matters of taste and experience are
more subjective. A large size makes a certain product
look modern according to one consumer and old-
fashioned according to another. In the present study,
many subjects mentioned that roundedness looks
modern and friendly and that angularity looks old-
fashioned and cheap. However, this may be specific
for the product category, the year, or the country in
which the study is conducted. One should keep in
mind that the aesthetic and symbolic value of a prod-
uct may differ between cultures and in time and even
may depend on the context (the available product al-
ternatives or the store surroundings). General design
guidelines therefore will be less reliable for the aes-
thetic and symbolic roles of the product appearance.
Testing with consumers therefore is even more im-
portant for aesthetic and symbolic value, especially as
these roles seemed to be the most influential—at least
in the present study.
Testing the Appearance with Consumers
To make sure that the appearance of a new product
has a positive influence on product choice, this should
be tested with consumers. One should assess whether
consumer perceptions of the functional, ergonomic,
aesthetic, and symbolic value of a new product on the
basis of its appearance are positive and correct. This
can be done by asking consumers to judge the func-
tionalities, quality, ease of use, and aesthetic and
symbolic value of the product on the basis of its ap-
pearance only. Because there are cultural, social, and
personal influences on design taste (Bloch, 1995), it is
important to use the correct target group in such
a test.
If a design does not engender the right impression
on one of these aspects, one might ask consumers how
to improve it (e.g., ‘‘why do you think the quality of
this product is low?’’). Consumers are able to do this
for functional and ergonomic aspects; they are able to
indicate that a display is too small, that buttons are
too close together, or that certain features are un-
wanted. But consumers have more difficulty in indi-
cating how aspects such as quality impression and
aesthetic and symbolic value can be improved, as
these aspects concern the overall impression of the
appearance. The effect of changes in appearance char-
acteristics on the whole product impression is difficult
to imagine for consumers. For a consumer, the value
of certain characteristics, such as color, may change
when the rest of the product changes (cf. Holbrook
and Moore, 1981). With one product style, blue may
be the most attractive color, while with another style,
78 J PROD INNOV MANAG2005;22:63–81
M. E. H. CREUSEN AND J. P. L. SCHOORMANS
green may work better, so consumers have to see a
change in appearance in order to judge it adequately.
Furthermore, a consumer often will be unable to spec-
ify why she or he likes or dislikes a certain appear-
ance, which is descriptive of holistic judgments (see
Kemler Nelson, 1989; Mittal, 1988). For example,
most people probably are unaware of the influence of
visual organization principles on their judgments (see
Veryzer, 1993; Veryzer, 1999). A possible solution to
this problem is showing consumers a great deal of
pictures of products they can use to point out what
they mean or which products fit an intended impres-
sion. This may give the design team clues about how
to better engender a specific impression.
Future Research
The research method used in the present study only
gave insight into the conscious use of information by
consumers. The influence of attention drawing and
categorization, and perhaps the impression of quality,
also may take place subconsciously. This may explain
why only few subjects mentioned these appearance
roles. The influence of these roles on consumer prod-
uct choice may therefore have been underestimated.
Future research may give a more accurate insight
into the influence of these roles in consumer prod-
uct choice.
In addition, it will be interesting to investigate the
relative importance of the appearance roles in differ-
ent product categories. Aesthetics will be relatively
important for some types of products such as lamps
and furniture, while for other types of products such
as appliances, ease of use will be more important. But
for appliances that are visible in one’s home, aesthet-
ics probably also are important to consumers, as was
illustrated for the answering machines in this study.
Attention drawing and categorization (i.e., visual typ-
icality) probably are more influential for food prod-
ucts than for durables. Future research may give more
insight into this issue.
It was mentioned earlier that the value that is most
important to consumers should be the starting point
in the design of the product appearance. It may be
possible to distinguish groups of consumers that differ
in the importance they attach to each kind of product
value in general. Although this study was not focused
especially on this, it was found that females pay more
attention to whether the product fits into their home
than males. This might not only be the case for
answering machines but also for other product
categories. In addition, it often is assumed that old-
er people pay more attention to ease of use. The
present authors could not find any research that sup-
ports this assumption, and the question remains from
what age on people start paying more attention to
ease of use.
Also, the question remains to what extent the per-
ceptions that subjects mentioned on the basis of prod-
uct appearance generalize to other products (which
may differ for utilitarian and expressive product val-
ue, see above). Examples are that a rounded product
looks more modern, a square product looks more
solid but also old-fashioned, a larger product looks
more solid, and a modern rounded shape looks tech-
nologically superior (i.e., newer). The same goes for
consumers’ preferences. Many want a small number
of buttons, as many buttons are confusing. Further-
more, subjects liked a product in one color as opposed
to more colors and liked integrated buttons, which
make it a unified whole. As mentioned already, these
perceptions and preferences may differ in time be-
tween groups of consumers and between countries.
The extent to which this is the case is also an issue for
further research.
References
Alba, Joseph W. and Hutchinson, J. Wesley (1987). Dimensions ofConsumer Expertise. Journal of Consumer Research 13(4):411–454.
Bamossy, Gary, Scammon, Debra L. and Johnston, Marilyn (1983). APreliminary Investigation of the Reliability and Validity of an Aes-thetic Judgment Test. In: Advances in Consumer Research. RichardP. Bagozzi and Alice M. Tybout (eds.). Ann Arbor, MI: Associa-tion for Consumer Research, 685–690.
Belk, Russell W. (1988). Possessions and the Extended Self. Journal ofConsumer Research 15(2):139–168.
Berkowitz, Marvin (1987). Product Shape as a Design InnovationStrategy. Journal of Product Innovation Management 4(4):274–283.
Berlyne, David E. (1971). Aesthetics and Psychobiology. New York:Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Black, Caroline D. and Baker, Michael J. (1987). Success throughDesign. Design Studies 8(4):207–215.
Bloch, Peter H. (1995). Seeking the Ideal Form: Product Design andConsumer Response. Journal of Marketing 59(3):16–29.
Bruce, Margaret and Whitehead, Maureen (1988). Putting Design intothe Picture: the Role of Product Design in Consumer PurchaseBehavior. Journal of the Market Research Society 30(2):147–162.
Cohen, Joel B. and Basu, Kunal (1987). Alternative Models of Cate-gorization: Toward a Contingent Processing Framework. Journalof Consumer Research 13(4):455–472.
Dawar, Niraj and Parker, Philip (1994). Marketing Universals: Con-sumers’ Use of Brand Name, Price, Physical Appearance, andRetailer Reputation as Signals of Product Quality. Journal of Mar-keting 58(2):81–95.
PRODUCT APPEARANCE AND CONSUMER CHOICE J PROD INNOV MANAG2005;22:63–81
79
Dickson, Peter R. (1994). Marketing Management. Orlando: TheDryden Press.
Dumaine, Brian (1991). Design that Sells and Sells and . . . . Fortune11:56–61 (March).
Engel, James F., Blackwell, Roger D. and Miniard, Paul W. (1995).Consumer Behavior. Orlando: The Dryden Press.
Feldman, Laurence P. (1995). Increasing the Usability of High-TechProducts through Design Research. Design Management Journal6(4):27–33 (Fall).
Garber, Lawrence L., Jr. (1995). The Package Appearance in Choice.In: Advances in Consumer Research. Frank R. Kardes and MitaSujan (eds.). Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research,653–660.
Garber, Lawrence L., Jr., Burke, Richard R. and Jones, J. Morgan(2000). The Role of Package Color in Consumer Purchase Consid-eration and Choice. Cambridge, MA: Marketing Science Institute,(Working Paper Series, Rep. No. 00-104).
Gemser, Gerda and Leenders, Mark A.A.M. (2001). How IntegratingIndustrial Design in the Product Development Process Impacts onCompany Performance. Journal of Product Innovation Management18(1):28–38.
Hammer, Norbert (1995). Testing Design via Eye-Movement Analy-sis—Perspectives and Problems. In: Successful Product Engineering:Testing for Optimal Design and Function. Berlin: ESOMAR,155–172.
Hekkert, Paul P.M. (1995). Artful Judgments: A Psychological Inquiryinto Aesthetic Preference for Visual Patterns. Delft: Delft Universityof Technology.
Hekkert, Paul, Snelders, Dirk and van Wieringen, Piet C.W. (2003).‘‘Most Advanced Yet Acceptable’’: Typicality and Novelty as JointPredictors of Aesthetic Preference in Industrial Design. BritishJournal of Psychology, 94(1):111–124.
Hirschman, Elizabeth C. and Holbrook, Morris B. (1982). HedonicConsumption: Emerging Concepts, Methods and Propositions.Journal of Marketing 46(3):92–101.
Holbrook, Morris B. (1980). Some Preliminary Notes on Research inConsumer Esthetics. In: Advances in Consumer Research. Jerry C.Olson (ed.). Ann Arbor, MI: Association for Consumer Research,104–108.
Holbrook, Morris B. and Moore, William L. (1981). Feature Interac-tions in Consumer Judgments of Verbal versus Pictorial Presenta-tions. Journal of Consumer Research 8(1):103–113.
Hoyer, Wayne D. (1984). An Examination of Consumer DecisionMaking for a Common Repeat Purchase Product. Journal of Con-sumer Research 11(3):822–829.
Just, Lily A. and Salvador, Rommel (2003). Conference Summary:Marketing Meets Design. Cambridge, MA: Marketing Science In-stitute (Working Paper Series, Rep. No. 03-001).
Kemler Nelson and Deborah G. (1989). The Nature and Occurrence ofHolistic Categorization. In: Object Perception: Structure and Proc-ess. Bryan E. Shepp and Soledad Ballesteros (eds.). Hillsdale, NJ:Erlbaum, 357–386.
Kotler, Philip and Rath, G. Alexander (1984). Design: A Powerfulbut Neglected Strategic Tool. Journal of Business Strategy 5(2):16–21.
Landon, E. Laird (1974). Self Concept, Ideal Self Concept, and Con-sumer Purchase Intentions. Journal of Consumer Research 1(2):44–51.
Levy, Sidney J. (1959). Symbols for Sale. Harvard Business Review37:117–119 (July–August).
Lloyd, Peter and Snelders, Dirk (2003). What Was Philippe StarckThinking of? Design Studies 24(3):237–253.
Lobach, Bernd (1976). Industrial Design: Grundlagen der Indus-trieproduktgestaltung. Muenchen: Verlag Karl Thiemig.
Loken, Barbara and Ward, James (1990). Alternative Approaches toUnderstanding the Determinants of Typicality. Journal of Consum-er Research 17(2):111–126.
Lorenz, Christopher (1986). The Design Dimension. Oxford: BasilBlackwell.
March, Artemis (1994). Usability: The New Dimension of ProductDesign. Harvard Business Review 72:144–149 (September–October).
McCracken, Grant (1986). Culture and Consumption: A Theo-retical Account of the Structure and Movement of the CulturalMeaning of Consumer Goods. Journal of Consumer Research13(1):71–84.
Meyers-Levy, Joan and Tybout, Alice M. (1989). Schema Congruity asa Basis for Product Evaluation. Journal of Consumer Research16(1):39–54.
Mittal, Banwari (1988). The Role of Affective Choice Mode in theConsumer Purchase of Expressive Products. Journal of EconomicPsychology 9(4):499–524.
Muller, Wim (2001). Order and Meaning in Design. Utrecht: Lemma.
Murdoch, Peter and Flurscheim, Charles H. (1983). Form. In: Indus-trial Design in Engineering. Charles H. Flurscheim (ed.). Worcester,UK: The Design Council, 105–131.
Norman, Donald A. (1988). The Psychology of Everyday Things. NewYork: Basic Books.
Nussbaum, Bruce (1988). Smart Design: Quality is the New Style.Business Week April 11:80–86.
Nussbaum, Bruce (1993). Hot Products: How Good Design Pays Off.Business Week June 7:40–43.
Olshavsky, Richard W. and Spreng, Richard A. (1996). An Explora-tory Study of the Innovation Evaluation Process. Journal of Prod-uct Innovation Management 13(6):512–529.
Pilditch, James (1976). Talk about Design. London: Barrie and Jenkins.
Rosch, Eleanor, Mervis, Carolyn B., Gray, Wayne D., Johnson, DavidM. and Boyes-Braem, Penny (1976). Basic Objects in Natural Cat-egories. Cognitive Psychology 8(3):382–439.
Roy, Robin (1994). Can the Benefits of Good Design Be Quantified?Design Management Journal 5(2):9–17 (Spring).
Schmitt, Bernd H. and Simonson, Alex (1997). Marketing Aesthetics:The Strategic Management of Brands, Identity, and Image. NewYork: The Free Press.
Schoormans, Jan P.L. and Robben, Henry S.J. (1997). The Effect ofNew Package Design on Product Attention, Categorization, andEvaluation. Journal of Economic Psychology 18(2–3):271–287.
Schurer, Arnold (1971). Der Einfluss Produktbestimmender Faktorenauf die Gestaltung. Clausthal-Zellerfeld: Boenecke-Druck.
Sirgy, M. Joseph (1982). Self-Concept in Consumer Behavior: A Crit-ical Review. Journal of Consumer Research 9(3):287–300.
Smith, Eric (1994). Good Design Is indeed Good Business. DesignManagement Journal 5(2):18–23 (Spring).
Solomon, Michael R. (1983). The Role of Products as Social Stimuli: ASymbolic Interactionism Perspective. Journal of Consumer Research10(3):319–329.
Srinivasan, V., Lovejoy, William S. and Beach, David. (1997). Inte-grated Product Design for Marketability and Manufacturing. Jour-nal of Marketing Research 34(1):154–163.
Sujan, Mita and Bettman, James R. (1989). The Effect of Brand Po-sitioning Strategies on Consumers’ Brand and Category Percep-tions: Some Insights from Schema Research. Journal of MarketingResearch 26(4):454–67.
Thackara, John (1997). Winners: How Successful Companies Innovateby Design. Amsterdam: BIS.
Veryzer, Robert W. (1999). A Nonconscious Processing Explanation ofConsumer Response to Product Design. Psychology & Marketing16(6):497–522.
Veryzer, Robert W., Jr. (1993). Aesthetic Response and the Influenceof Design Principles on Product Preferences. In: Advances in Con-sumer Research. Leigh McAlister and Michael L. Rothschild (eds.).Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research, 224–229.
80 J PROD INNOV MANAG2005;22:63–81
M. E. H. CREUSEN AND J. P. L. SCHOORMANS
Veryzer, Robert W., Jr. (1995). The Place of Product Design and Aes-thetics in Consumer Research. In: Advances in Consumer Research.Frank R. Kardes and Mita Sujan (eds.). Provo, UT: Associationfor Consumer Research, 641–645.
Veryzer, Robert W., Jr. and Hutchinson, J. Wesley (1998). The Influ-ence of Unity and Prototypicality on Aesthetic Responses to NewProduct Designs. Journal of Consumer Research 24(4):374–394.
Vihma, Susann (1995). Products as Representations: A Semiotic and Aes-thetic Study of Design Products. Helsinki: University of Art and Design.
Ward, James and Loken, Barbara (1988). The Generality of TypicalityEffects on Preference and Comparison: An Exploratory Test. In:
Advances in Consumer Research. Michael J. Houston (ed.). Provo,UT: Association for Consumer Research, 55–61.
Whitfield, Allan and Wiltshire, Tom (1983). Color. In: Industrial De-sign in Engineering. Charles H. Flurscheim (ed.). Worcester, UK:The Design Council, 133–157.
Whitfield, T.W.A. and Slatter, P.E. (1979). The Effects of Categoriza-tion and Prototypicality on Aesthetic Choice in a Furniture Selec-tion Task. British Journal of Psychology 70(1):65–75.
Yamamoto, Mel and Lambert, David R. (1994). The Impact of Prod-uct Aesthetics on the Evaluation of Industrial Products. Journal ofProduct Innovation Management 11(4):309–324.
PRODUCT APPEARANCE AND CONSUMER CHOICE J PROD INNOV MANAG2005;22:63–81