Symbolic meaning integration in design and its influence on product and brand evaluation

International Journal of Design

Volumn 3, Issue 2, 2009, Pages 19-26

  van Rompay, Thomas J L ^a   Pruyn, Ad T H ^a   Tieke, Peter ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TWENTE   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Congruence; Consumer needs; Impression formation; Processing fluency; Symbolic meaning

Indexed keywords

EID: 76449108719     PISSN: 19913761     EISSN: 1994036X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (37)

1. Aaker, J. L. (1997). Dimensions of brand personality. Journal of Marketing Research, 34(3), 347-356.
2. Arnheim, R. (1974). Art and visual perception: A psychology of the creative eye. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
3. Bar, M., & Neta, M. (2006). Humans prefer curved visual objects. Psychological Science, 17(8), 645-648.
4. Belk, R. W. (1988). Possessions and the extended self. Journal of Consumer Research, 15(2), 139-167.
5. Blank, P., Massey, C., Gardner, H., & Winner, E. (1984). Perceiving what paintings express. In W. R. Crozier & A. J. Chapman (Eds.), Cognitive processes in the perception of art (pp. 127-143). Amsterdam: North Holland.
6. Bloch, P. H. (1995). Seeking the ideal form: Product design and consumer response. Journal of Marketing, 59(3), 16-29.
7. Cacioppo, J. T., & Petty, R. E. (1982). The need for cognition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42(1), 116-131.
8. Childers, T. L., & Jass, J. F. (2002). All dressed up with something to say: Effects of typeface semantic associations on brand perceptions and consumer memory. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 12(2), 93-106.
9. Creusen, M. E. H., & Schoormans, J. P. L. (2005). The different roles of product appearance in consumer choice. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 22(1), 63-81.
10. Heckler, S. E., & Childers, T. L. (1992). The role of expectancy and relevancy in memory for verbal and visual information: What is incongruency? Journal of Consumer Research, 18(4), 475-492.
11. Hekkert, P. (2006). Design aesthetics: Principles of pleasure in design. Psychology Science, 48(2), 157-172.
12. Hekkert, P., & Van Wieringen, P. C. W. (1996). Beauty in the eye of expert and nonexpert beholders: A study in the appraisal of art. American Journal of Psychology, 109(3), 389-407.
13. Kandinsky, V. (1926). Point and line to plane. New York: Dover Publications.
14. Karjalainen, T. (2007). It looks like a Toyota: Educational approaches to designing for visual brand recognition. International Journal of Design, 1(1), 67-81.
15. Lakoff, G., & Turner, M. (1989). More than cool reason: A field guide to poetic metaphor. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
16. Leder, H., Belke, B., Oeberst, A., & Augustin, D. (2004). A model of aesthetic appreciation and aesthetic judgments. British Journal of Psychology, 95(4), 489-508.
17. Leder, H., Carbon, C. C., & Ripsas, A. (2006). Entitling art: Influence of title information on understanding and appreciation of paintings. Acta Psychologica, 121(2), 176-198.
18. Lee, A. Y., & Labroo, A. A. (2004). The effect of conceptual and perceptual fluency on brand evaluation. Journal of Marketing Research, 41(2), 151-165.
19. Lee, Y. H., & Mason, C. (1999). Responses to information incongruence in advertising: The role of expectancy, relevancy, and humor. Journal of Consumer Research, 26(2), 156-169.
20. Lightfoot, C., & Bullock, M. (1990). Interpreting contradictory communications: Age and context effects. Developmental Psychology, 26(5), 830-836.
21. Ludden, G. D. S., Schifferstein, H. N. J., & Hekkert, P. (2008). Surprise as a design strategy. Design Issues, 24(2), 28-38.
22. Maheswaran, D., & Chaiken, S. (1991). Promoting systematic processing in low-motivation settings: Effect of incongruent information on processing and judgment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61(1), 13-25.
23. Meyers-Levy, J. M., Louie, T. A., & Curren, M. T. (1994). How does the congruity of brand names affect evaluations of brand name extensions? Journal of Applied Psychology, 79(1), 46-53.
24. Neuberg, S. L., & Newsom, J. Y. (1993). Personal need for structure: Individual differences in the desire for simple structure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65(1), 113-131.
25. Osgood, C. E. (1957). The measurement of meaning. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.
26. Pan, Y., & Schmitt, B. (1996). Language and brand attitudes: Impact of script and sound matching in Chinese and English. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 5(3), 263-277.
27. Peracchio, L. A., & Meyers-Levy, J. (2005). Using stylistic properties of ad pictures to communicate with consumers. Journal of Consumer Research, 32(1), 29-40.
28. Reber, R., Schwarz, N., & Winkielman, P. (2004). Processing fluency and aesthetic pleasure: Is beauty in the perceiver's processing experience? Personality and Social Psychology Review, 8(4), 364-382.
29. Silvia, P. (2006). What is interesting? Exploring the appraisal structure of interest. Emotion, 5(1), 89-102.
30. Van Rompay, T. J. L. (2008). Product expression: Bridging the gap between the symbolic and the concrete. In: H. N. J. Schifferstein & P. Hekkert (Eds.), Product experience (pp. 333-351). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
31. Van Rompay, T. J. L., De Vries, P. W., & Van Venrooij, X. G. (2008). Effects of picture-text congruence in online commerce on consumer response: A processing fluency account. Manuscript submitted for publication.
32. Van Rompay, T. J. L., Hekkert, P., Saakes, D., & Russo, B. (2005). Grounding abstract object characteristics in embodied interactions. Acta Psychologica, 119(3), 315-351.
33. Van Rompay, T. J. L., & Pruyn, A. T. H. (in press). When visual product features speak the same language: Effects of shape-typeface congruence on brand perception and price expectations. Journal of Product Innovation Management. In press.
34. Veryzer, R. W. (1993). Aesthetic response and the influence of design principles on product preferences. Advances in Consumer Research, 20(1), 224-229.
35. Winkielman, P., & Cacioppo, J. T. (2001). Mind at ease puts a smile on the face: Psychophysiological evidence that processing facilitation elicits positive affect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81(6), 989-1000.
36. Zajonc, R. B. (1968). Attitudinal effects of mere exposure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 9(2), 1-27.
37. Zhang, Y., Feick, L., & Price, L. J. (2006). The impact of self-construal on aesthetic preference for angular versus rounded shapes. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32(6), 794-805.