Do users know what designers are up to? Product experience and the inference of persuasive intentions

International Journal of Design

Volumn 5, Issue 3, 2011, Pages 1-15

  Crilly, Nathan ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Consumer response; Design literacy; Persuasion knowledge model (PKM); Persuasive design; Persuasive technology; User experience

Indexed keywords

EID: 84855719857     PISSN: 19913761     EISSN: 1994036X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (135)

1. Aruk, N., Jansson-Boyd, C.V., & Crilly, N. (2011). What users know about the design process: A report on two exploratory studies. In C. Cautela, A. Deserti, F. Rizzo, & F. Zurlo (Eds.), Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Designing Pleasurable Products and Interfaces (pp. 251-258). New York: ACM.
2. Barthes, R. (1977). The death of the author. In Image, music, text (S. Heath, Trans., pp. 142-148). London: Fontana.
3. Baxter, M. (1995). Product design: A practical guide to systematic methods of new product development. London: Chapman & Hall.
4. Bengtsson, A., & Firat, A. F. (2006). Brand literacy: Consumers' sense-making of brand management. Advances in Consumer Research, 33(1), 375-380.
5. Berman, S. (1999). Public buildings as public relations: Ideas about the theory and practice of strategic architectural communication. Public Relations Quarterly, 44(1),18-22.
6. Blaich, R. I. (1989). Philips corporate industrial design: A personal account. Design Issues, 5(2), 1-8.
7. Blijlevens, J., Creusen, M., & Schoormans, J. (2009). How consumers perceive product appearance: The identification of three product appearance attributes. International Journal of Design, 3(3), 27-35.
8. Bloch, P. H. (1995). Seeking the ideal form: Product design and consumer response. Journal of Marketing, 59(3), 16-29.
9. Bloom, P. (1996). Intention, history, and artifact concepts. Cognition, 60(1), 1-29.
10. Bonsiepe, G. (1961). Persuasive communication: Towards a visual rhetoric. Uppercase, 5, 19-34.
11. Bonsiepe, G. (1972). Visual/verbal rhetoric. In Shibles W. A. (Ed.), Essays on metaphor (pp. 155-162). Whitewater, WI: Language Press.
12. Bonta, J. P. (1979). Architecture and its interpretation: A study of expressive systems in architecture. New York: Rizzoli.
13. Bordwell, D. (1989). Making meaning: Inference and rhetoric in the interpretation of cinema. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
14. Boush, D. M., Friestad, M., & Rose, G. M. (1994). Adolescent skepticism toward TV advertising and knowledge of advertiser tactics. Journal of Consumer Research, 21(1), 165-175.
15. Boush, D. M., Friestad, M., & Wright, P. (2009). Deception in the marketplace. New York: Routledge.
16. Brucks, M., Armstrong, G. M., & Goldberg, M. E. (1998). Children's use of cognitive defenses against television advertising: A cognitive response approach. Journal of Consumer Research, 14(4), 471-482.
17. Buchanan, R. (1985). Declaration by design: Rhetoric, argument, and demonstration in design practice. Design Issues, 2(1), 4-22.
18. Buchanan, R. (2001). Design and the new rhetoric: Productive arts in the philosophy of culture. Philosophy and Rhetoric, 34(3), 183-206.
19. Campbell, M. C. (1995). When attention-getting advertising tactics elicit consumer inferences of manipulative intent: The importance of balancing benefits and investments. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 4(3), 225-254.
20. Campbell, M. C., & Kirmani, A. (2000). Consumers' use of persuasion knowledge: The effects of accessibility and cognitive capacity on perceptions of an influence agent. Journal of Consumer Research, 27(1), 69-83.
21. Capdevila, A. (2004). The rhetoric of objects: Rhetorical phases as a model for generating meanings. Temes de Disseny, 21, 140-147.
22. Chuang, Y., & Chen, L.-L. (2008). How to rate 100 visual stimuli efficiently. International Journal of Design, 2(1), 31-43.
23. Corbett, E. P. J. (1990). Classical rhetoric for the modern student (3rd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.
24. Cotte, J., Coulter, R. A., & Moore, M. (2005). Enhancing or disrupting guilt: The role of ad credibility and perceived manipulative intent. Journal of Business Research, 58(3), 361-368.
25. Coulter, R. H., Cotte, J., & Moore, M. L. (1999). Believe it or not: Persuasion, manipulation and credibility of guilt appeals. Advances in Consumer Research, 26(1), 288-294.
26. Crilly, N., Good, D., Matravers, D., & Clarkson, P. J. (2008a). Design as communication: Exploring the validity and utility of relating intention to interpretation. Design Studies, 29(5), 425-457.
27. Crilly, N., Maier, A., & Clarkson, P. J. (2008b). Representing artefacts as media: Modelling the relationship between designer intent and consumer experience. International Journal of Design, 2(3), 15-27.
28. Crilly, N., Moultrie, J., & Clarkson, P. J. (2004). Seeing things: Consumer response to the visual domain in product design. Design Studies, 25(6), 547-577.
29. Crilly, N., Moultrie, J., & Clarkson, P. J. (2009). Shaping things: Intended consumer response and the other determinants of product form. Design Studies, 30(3), 224-254.
30. Creusen, M. E. H., & Schoormans, J. P. L. (2005). The different roles of product appearance in consumer choice. The Journal of Product Innovation Management, 22(1), 63-81.
31. Demirbilek, O., & Sener, B. (2003). Product design, semantics and emotional response. Ergonomics, 46(13-14), 1346-1360.
32. Dennett, D. C. (1987). The intentional stance. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
33. Desmet, P. M. A., & Hekkert, P. (2007). Framework of roduct experience. International Journal of Design, 1(1), 57-66.
34. Desmet, P. M. A., Ortíz Nicolás, J. C., & Schoormans, J. P. (2008). Product personality in physical interaction. Design Studies, 29(5), 458-477.
35. Djajadiningrat, J. P., Overbeeke, C. J., & Wensveen, S. A. G. (2000). Augmenting fun and beauty: A pamphlet. In Proceedings of the Conference on Designing Augmented Reality Environments (pp. 131-134). New York: ACM.
36. Durand, J. (1987). Rhetorical figures in the advertising mage. In J. Umiker-Sebeok (Ed.), Marketing and semiotics: New directions in the study of signs for sale (pp. 295-318). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Walter de Gruyter.
37. Fogg, B. J. (2002). Persuasive technology: Using computers to change what we think and do. San Francisco: Morgan Kaufmann.
38. Fogg, B. J., Cuellar, G., & Danielson, D. (2003). Motivating, influencing, and persuading users. In J. A. Jacko & A. Sears (Eds.), The human-computer interaction handbook (pp. 358-370). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
39. Foss, S. K. (2005). Theory of visual rhetoric. In K. L. Smith, S. Moriarty, G. Barbatsis, & K. Kenney (Eds.), Handbook of visual communication: Theory, methods, and media (pp. 141-152). New York: Routledge.
40. Friestad, M., & Wright, P. (1994). The persuasion knowledge odel: How people cope with persuasion attempts. Journal of Consumer Research, 21(1), 1-31.
41. Friestad, M., & Wright, P. (1995). Persuasion knowledge: ay people's and researchers' beliefs about the psychology of advertising. Journal of Consumer Research, 22(1), 62-74.
42. Friestad, M., & Wright, P. (1999). Everyday persuasion knowledge. Psychology & Marketing, 16(2), 185-194.
43. Gibbs, R. W. (1999). Intentions in the experience of meaning. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
44. Gibbs, R. W. (2001). Authorial intentions in text understanding. Discourse Processes, 32(1), 73-80.
45. Gibbs, R. W., Kushner, J. M., & Mills, W. R. (1991). Authorial intentions and metaphor comprehension. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 20(1), 11-30.
46. Govers, P. C. M., Hekkert, P., & Schoormans, J. P. L. (2002). Happy, cute and tough: Can designers create a product personality that consumers understand? In D. McDonagh, P. Hekkert, J. Van Erp, & D. Gyi (Eds.), Design and emotion: The experience of everyday things (pp. 345-349). London: Taylor and Francis.
47. Grice, H. P. (1967). Meaning. In P. F. Stawson (Ed.), Philosophical logic (pp. 39-48). London: Oxford University Press.
48. Gros, J. (1973). Erweiterter funktionalismus und empirische ästhetik [Diploma thesis]. Department of Experimental Environment Design, Staatlichen Hochschule für Bildende Künste Braunschweig.
49. Hartson, H. (2003). Cognitive, physical, sensory, and functional affordances in interaction design. Behaviour and Information Technology, 22(5), 315-338.
50. Hassenzahl, M. (2003). The thing and I: Understanding the relationship between the user and the product. In M. A. Blythe, K. Overbeeke, A. F. Monk, & P. C. Wright (Eds.), Funology: From usability to enjoyment (pp. 31-42). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
51. Horváth, D. (2003). Persuasive form: Mobile telephones in hungary. In L. Scott & R. Batra (Eds.), Persuasive imagery: A consumer response perspective (pp. 397-411). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
52. Hsiao, S.-W., & Ching-Hai, C. (1997). A semantic and shape rammar based approach for product design. Design Studies, 18(3), 275-296.
53. Hsu, S. H., Chuang, M. C., & Chang, C. C. (2000). A semantic differential study of designers' and users' product form perception. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 25(4), 375-391.
54. Janlert, L.-E., & Stolterman, E. (1997). The character of things. Design Studies, 18(3), 297-314.
55. Joost, G., & Scheuermann, A. (2007). Design as rhetoric. Basic principles for design research. Paper presented at the 3rd Symposium of Swiss Design Network. Retrieved March 1, 2010, from http://www.geschejoost.org/
56. Jordan, P. W. (2000). Designing pleasurable products: An introduction to the new human factors. London: Taylor & Francis.
57. Karjalainen, T. (2004). Semantic transformation in design: Communicating strategic brand identity through product design references. Helsinki, Finland: Ilmari.
58. Karjalainen, T., & Snelders, D. (2010). Designing visual recognition for the brand. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 27(1), 6-22.
59. Kaufer, D., & Butler, B. (1996). Rhetoric and the art of design. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
60. Kazmierczak, E. T. (2003). Design as meaning making: From making things to the design of thinking. Design Issues, 19(2), 45-59.
61. Keinonen, T. (2010). Protect and appreciate - Notes on the justification of user-centered design. International Journal of Design, 4(1), 17-27.
62. Kelemen, D., & Carey, S. (2007). The essence of artifacts: eveloping the design stance. In E. Margolis & S. Laurence (Eds.), Creations of the mind: Theories of artifacts and their representation (pp. 212-230). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
63. Kirmani, A., & Campbell, M. C. (2009). Taking the target's perspective: The persuasion knowledge model. In M. Wänke (Ed.), Social psychology of consumer behavior (pp. 297-316). New York: Psychology Press.
64. Kirmani, A., & Zhu, R. J. (2007). Vigilant against anipulation: The effect of regulatory focus on the use of persuasion knowledge. Journal of Marketing, 44(4), 688-701.
65. Krippendorff, K. (2006). The semantic turn. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
66. Krippendorff, K., & Butter, R. (1984). Product semantics: Exploring the symbolic qualities of form. Innovation, 3(2), 4-9.
67. Kuhns, R. (1960). Criticism and the problem of intention. Journal of Philosophy, 57(1), 5-23.
68. Laufer, W. S. (2003). Social accountability and corporate greenwashing. Journal of Business Ethics, 43(3), 253-261.
69. Levinson, J. (1979). Defining art historically. British Journal of Aesthetics, 19(3), 232-250.
70. Levinson, J. (1989). Refining art historically. Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 47(1), 21-33.
71. Lilley, D. (2009). Design for sustainable behaviour: Strategies and perceptions. Design Studies, 30(6), 704-720.
72. Lockton, D., Harrison, D., & Stanton, N. (2008a). Design with intent: Persuasive technology in a wider context. In H. Oinas-Kukkonen, P. Hasle, M. Harjumaa, K. Segerståhl, & P. Øhrstrøm (Eds.), Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Persuasive Technology (pp. 274-278). New York: Springer.
73. Lockton, D., Harrison, D., & Stanton, N. (2008b). Making the user more efficient: Design for sustainable behaviour. Journal of Sustainable Engineering, 1(1), 3-8.
74. Mahlke, S. (2007). Aesthetic and symbolic qualities as antecedents of overall judgements of interactive products. In N. Bryan-Kinns, A. Blanford, P. Cruzon, & L. Nigay (Eds.), Proceedings of the 9th Conference on Human Computer Interaction (pp. 57-64). London: Springer.
75. Malhotra, N. K. (1981). A scale to measure self-concepts, person concepts, and product concepts. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(4), 456-464.
76. Malkewitz, K., Wright, P., & Friestad, M. (2003). Persuasion by design: The state of expertise on visual influence tactics. In L. Scott & R. Batra (Eds.), Persuasive imagery: A consumer response perspective (pp. 3-15). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum and Associates.
77. Mazé, R., & Redström, J. (2008). Switch! Energy ecologies in everyday life. International Journal of Design, 2(3), 55-70.
78. McCoy, K. (2000). Information and persuasion: Rivals or partners? Design Issues, 16(3), 80-83.
79. McGrenere, J., & Ho, W. (2000). Affordances: Clarifying and evolving a concept. In Proceedings of the Conference on Graphics Interface (pp. 179-196). Montreal, Canada: Canadian Human-Computer Communications Society.
80. McQuarrie, E. F., & Mick, D. G. (1996). Figures of rhetoric in advertising language. The Journal of Consumer Research, 22(4), 424-438.
81. McQuarrie, E. F., & Mick, D. G. (1999). Visual rhetoric in advertising: Text-interpretive, experimental, and readerresponse analyses. The Journal of Consumer Research, 26(1), 37-54.
82. McQuarrie, E. F., & Mick, D. G. (2003). Visual and verbal rhetorical figures under directed processing versus incidental exposure to advertising. The Journal of Consumer Research, 29(4), 579-587.
83. Mehta, N., Chen, X., & Narasimhan, O. (2008). Informing, transforming, and persuading: Disentangling the multiple effects of advertising on brand choice decisions. Marketing Science, 27(3), 334-355.
84. Monö, R. (1997). Design for product understanding: The aesthetics of design from a semiotic approach. Stockholm, Sweden: Liber.
85. Moore, E. S., & Lutz, R. J. (2000). Children, advertising, and product experiences: A multimethod inquiry. Journal of Consumer Research, 27(1), 31-48.
86. Mugge, R., Govers, P. C. M, & Schoormans, J. P. (2009). The development and testing of a product personality scale. Design Studies, 30(3), 287-302.
87. Muller, W. (2001). Order and meaning in design. Utrecht, The Netherlands: LEMMA Publishers.
88. Munari, B. (2008) Design as art. (P. Creagh, Trans.). London: Penguin books. (Original work published 1966).
89. Noble, C. H., & Kumar, M. (2010). Exploring the appeal of product design: A grounded, value-based model of key design elements and relationships. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 27(5), 640-657.
90. Norman, D. (1988). The psychology of everyday things. New York: Basic Books.
91. Oates, C., Blades, M., & Gunter, B. (2002). Children and television advertising: When do they understand persuasive intent? Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 1(3), 238-245.
92. Obermiller, C., & Spangenberg, E. R. (1998). Development of a scale to measure consumer skepticism toward advertising. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 7(2), 159-186.
93. Obermiller, C., Spangenberg, E. R., & MacLachlan, D. L. (2005). Ad skepticism: The consequences of disbelief. Journal of advertising, 34(3), 7-17.
94. O'Donahue, S., & Tynan, C. (1998). Beyond sophistication: Dimensions of advertising literacy. International Journal of Advertising, 17(4), 467-482.
95. Olson, L. C., Finnegan, C. A., & Hope, D. S. (Eds.). (2008). Visual rhetoric: A reader in communication and American culture. Los Angeles: Sage.
96. Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Los Angeles: Sage.
97. Person, O., Schoormans, J., Snelders, D., & Karjalainen, T. (2008). Should new products look similar or different? The influence of the market environment on strategic product styling. Design Studies, 29(1), 30-48.
98. Person, O., Snelders, D., Karjalainen, T., & Schoormans, J. (2007). Complementing intuition: Insights on styling as a strategic tool. Journal of Marketing Management, 23(9&10), 901-916.
99. Petiot, J., & Yannou, B. (2004). Measuring consumer perceptions for a better comprehension, specification and assessment of product semantics. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 33(6), 507-525.
100. Phillips, B. J., & McQuarrie, E. F. (2004). Beyond visual metaphor: A new typology of visual rhetoric in advertising. Marketing Theory, 4(1-2), 113-136.
101. Ploug, T., Hasle, P., & Oinas-Kukkonen, H. (Eds.). (2010). Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Persuasive Technology. New York: Springer.
102. Poggenpohl, S. H. (1998). Doubly damned: Rhetorical and visual. Visible Language, 32(3), 200-233.
103. Rafaeli, A., & Vilnai-Yavetz, I. (2004). Instrumentality, aesthetics and symbolism of physical artifacts as triggers of emotion. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 5(1), 91-112.
104. Ravasi, D., & Lojacono, G. (2005). Managing design and designers for strategic renewal. Long Range Planning, 38(1), 51-77.
105. st International Conference on Persuasive Technology for Human Well-Being (pp. 112-122). Berlin, Germany: Springer.
106. Richards, J. (2008). Rhetoric. London: Routledge.
107. Ritson, M., & Elliott, R. (1999). The social uses of advertising: An ethnographic study of adolescent advertising. Journal of Consumer Research, 26(3), 260-277.
108. Robertson, T. S., & Rossiter, J. R. (1974). Children and commercial persuasion: An attribution theory analysis. Journal of Consumer Research, 1(1), 13-20.
109. Rushkoff, D. (2000). Coercion: The persuasion professionals and why we listen to what they say. London: Little Brown.
110. Schifferstein, H. N. J., & Hekkert, P. (Eds.). (2008). Product experience. San Diego: Elsevier.
111. Schrage, M. (2004). The power of persuasion. Innovation, 41(2), 41-44.
112. Scott, L. M. (1994a). The bridge from text to mind: Adapting reader-response theory to consumer research. Journal of Consumer Research, 21(3), 461-480.
113. Scott, L. M. (1994b). Images in advertising: The need for a theory of visual rhetoric. The Journal of Consumer Research, 21(2), 252-273.
114. Searle, J. R. (1969). Speech acts: An essay in the philosophy of language. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
115. Selzer, J., & Crowley, S. (Eds.). (1999). Rhetorical bodies. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.
116. Sheridan, D. M. (2010). Fabricating consent: Threedimensional objects as rhetorical compositions. Computers and Composition, 27(4), 249-265.
117. Sperber, D., & Wilson, D. (1986). Relevance: Communication and cognition. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
118. Steffen, D. (1997). Zur theorie der produktsrache [On a theory of product language]. Form Diskurs, 3(2), 16-27.
119. Teisl, M., Roe, B., & Levy, A. (1999). Ecocertification: Why it may not be a "field of dreams". American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 81(5), 1066-1071.
120. Thaler, R. H., & Sunstein, C. R. (2008). Nudge: Improving decisions about health, wealth, and happiness. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
121. Underwood, R. L., & Ozanne, J. L. (1998). Is your package an effective communicator? A normative framework for increasing the communicative competence of packaging. Journal of Marketing Communications, 4(4), 207-220.
122. Vaesen, K., & van Amerongen, M. (2008). Optimality vs. intent: Limitations of Dennett's artefact hermeneutics. Philosophical Psychology, 21(6), 779-797.
123. 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). San Diego: Elsevier.
124. Verganti, R. (2008). Design, meanings, and radical innovation: A metamodel and a research agenda. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 25(5), 436-456.
125. Verganti, R. (2009). Design-driven innovation: Changing the rules of competition by radically innovating what things mean. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Press.
126. Vihma, S. (1995). Products as representations: A semiotic and aesthetic study of design products. Helsinki, Finland: University of Art and Design Helsinki.
127. Wever, R., van Kuijk, J., & Boks, C. (2008). User-centred design for sustainable behaviour. International Journal of Sustainable Engineering, 1(1), 9-20.
128. Wimsatt, W. K., & Beardsley, M. C. (1972). The intentional fallacy. In D. Lodge (Ed.), 20th century literary criticism; A reader (pp. 334-344). London: Longman.
129. Winograd, T., & Flores, F. (1986). Understanding computers and cognition: A new foundation for design. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
130. Woolley, M. (1983). Design, product identity and technological innovation [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Sheffield, UK: Sheffield City Polytechnic.
131. Woolley, M. (1992). A comparison of design and user perceptions. In S. Vihma (Ed.), Objects and images: Studies in design and advertising (pp. 76-85). Helsinki, Finland: University of Industrial Arts Helsinki.
132. Wright, P. (1986). Schemer schema: Consumers' intuitive theories about marketers' influence tactics. Advances in Consumer Research, 13(1), 1-3.
133. Wright, P. (2002). Marketplace metacognition and social intelligence. Journal of Consumer Research, 28(4), 677-682.
134. Wright, P., Friestad, M., & Boush, D. M. (2005). The development of marketplace persuasion knowledge in children, adolescents, and young adults. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 24(2), 222-223.
135. Wrigley, C., Popovic, V., & Chamorro-Koc, M. (2009). A methodological approach to visceral hedonic rhetoric. In Proceedings of the International Association of Societies of Design Research Conference [CD-Rom]. Seoul, Republic of Korea: Korean Society of Design Science. Retrieved March 1, 2010, from http://www.iasdr2009.org/ap/Papers/Orally%20Presented%20Papers/Behavior/A%20methodological%20approach%20to%20visceral%20hedonic%20rhetoric.pdf