Product design and apparent usability. The influence of novelty in product appearance

Applied Ergonomics

Volumn 43, Issue 6, 2012, Pages 1081-1088

  Mugge, Ruth ^a   Schoormans, Jan P L ^a  

^a Swedish School of Economics and Business Administration   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Apparent usability; Novelty; Visual perception

Indexed keywords

PLASTIC PARTS; USABILITY ENGINEERING;

APPARENT USABILITY; NOVELTY; POINT OF SALE; PRODUCT APPEARANCE; TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS; TECHNOLOGICAL ADVANCEMENT; VISUAL PERCEPTION;

PRODUCT DESIGN;

ADULT; ARTICLE; CONSUMER ATTITUDE; DEVICES; DIGITAL CAMERA; EQUIPMENT DESIGN; EXPERIMENTAL STUDY; FEMALE; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; KNOWLEDGE; MALE; PRODUCT APPEARANCE; PRODUCT DESIGN; STIMULUS RESPONSE; VISION; WASHING MACHINE;

EID: 84863775809     PISSN: 00036870     EISSN: 18729126     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.apergo.2012.03.009     Document Type: Article

References (52)

1. Ahearne M., Gruen T.W., Burke Jarvis C. If looks could sell: moderation and mediation of the attractiveness effect on salesperson performance. Int. J. Res. Mark 1999, 16:269-284.
2. Alba J.W., Hutchinson J.W. Dimensions of consumer expertise. J. Cons. Res. 1987, 13:411-438.
3. Ben-Bassat T., Meyer J., Tractinsky N. Economic and subjective measures of the perceived value of aesthetics and usability. ACM Trans. Comput. Hum. Interact. 2006, 13:210-234.
4. Berlyne D.E. Aesthetics and Psychobiology 1971, Appleton-Century-Crofts, New York.
5. Blijlevens J., Carbon C.C., Mugge R., Schoormans J.P.L. Aesthetic appraisal of product designs: independent effects of typicality and arousal. Br. J. Psychol. 2012, 103:44-57.
6. Borkenau P., Liebler A. Observable attributes as manifestations and cues of personality and intelligence. J. Pers. 1995, 63:1-25.
7. Carbon C.C. The Repeated Evaluation Technique (RET). A method to capture dynamic effects of innovativeness and attractiveness. Appl. Cogn. Psychol. 2005, 19:587-601.
8. Carlson J.P., Vincent L.H., Hardesty D.M., Bearden W.O. Objective and subjective knowledge relationships: a quantitative analysis of consumer research findings. J. Cons. Res. 2009, 35:864-876.
9. Cox D., Cox A.D. Beyond first impressions: the effects of repeated exposure on consumer liking of visually complex and simple product designs. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 2002, 30:119-130.
10. Creusen M.E.H., Schoormans J.P.L. The different roles of product appearance in consumer choice. J. Prod. Innov. Manag. 2005, 22:63-81.
11. Creusen M.E.H., Veryzer R.W., Schoormans J.P.L. Product value importance and consumer preference for visual complexity and symmetry. Eur. J. Mark 2010, 44:1437-1452.
12. Dion K., Berscheid E., Walster E. What is beautiful is good. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 1972, 24:285-290.
13. Farrington-Darby T., Wilson J.R. The nature of expertise: a review. Appl. Ergon. 2006, 37:17-32.
14. Fenko A., Schifferstein H.N.J., Hekkert P. Shifts in sensory dominance between various stages of user-product interactions. Appl. Ergon. 2010, 41:34-40.
15. Field A. Discovering Statistics using SPSS 2009, Sage, London, UK. third ed.
16. Fitzsimons G.J. Death to dichotomizing. J. Cons. Res. 2008, 35:5-8.
17. Garber L.L., Hyatt E.M., Startt R.G. The effects of food color on perceived flavor. J. Mark. Theory Pract. 2000, 8:59-70.
18. Grossman R.P., Wisenblit J.Z. What we know about consumers' color choices. J. Mark. Pract. Appl. Mark. Sci. 1999, 5:78-88.
19. Hassenzahl M. The interplay of beauty, goodness, and usability in interactive products. Hum. Comput. Interact. 2004, 19:319-349.
20. Hekkert P., Snelders D., Van Wieringen P.C.W. 'Most advanced, yet acceptable': typicality and novelty as joint predictors of aesthetic preference in industrial design. Br. J. Psychol. 2003, 94:111-124.
21. Hellström A., Tekle J. Person perception through facial photographs: effects of glasses, hair, and beard on judgments of occupation and personal qualities. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 1994, 24:693-705.
22. Hsu S.H., Chuang M.C., Chang C.C. A semantic differential study of designers' and users' product form perception. Int. J. Ind. Ergon. 2000, 25:375-391.
23. Irwin J.R., McClelland G. Misleading heuristics for moderated multiple regression models. J. Mark. Res. 2001, 38:100-109.
24. Jordan P.W. An Introduction to Usability 1998, Taylor & Francis Ltd, London.
25. Kauppinen-Räisänen H., Luomala H.T. Exploring consumers' product-specific colour meanings. Qual. Mark. Res.: Int. J. 2010, 13:287-308.
26. Kleiser S.B., Mantel S.P. The dimensions of consumer expertise: a scale development. AMA Summer Educators' Proc. 1994, 5:20-26.
27. Klemperer P. Markets with consumer switching costs. Q. J. Econ. 1987, 102:375-394.
28. Kwahk J., Han S.H. A methodology for evaluating the usability of audiovisual consumer electronics. Appl. Ergon. 2002, 33:419-431.
29. Mack Z., Sharples S. The importance of usability in product choice: a mobile phone case study. Ergon 2009, 52:1514-1528.
30. Martindale C., Moore K. Priming, prototypicality, and preference. J. Exp. Psychol. Hum. Percept. Perform. 1988, 14:661-670.
31. Mervis C.B., Rosch E. Categorization of natural objects. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 1981, 32:89-115.
32. Moshagen M., Musch J., Göritz A. A blessing, not a curse: experimental evidence for beneficial effects of visual aesthetics on performance. Ergon 2009, 52:1311-1320.
33. Mugge R., Schoormans J.P.L. Newer is better! The influence of a novel appearance on the perceived performance quality of products. J. Eng. Des. 2011, 10.1080/09544828.2011.618802.
34. Mukherjee A., Hoyer W.D. The effect of novel attributes on product evaluation. J. Cons. Res. 2001, 28:462-472.
35. Norman D.A. The Design of Everyday Things 2002, Basic Books, New York.
36. Page C., Herr P.M. An investigation of the processes by which product design and brand strength interact to determine initial affect and quality judgments. J. Cons. Psychol. 2002, 12:133-147.
37. Reinders M.J., Frambach R.T., Schoormans J.P.L. Using product bundling to facilitate the adoption process of radical innovations. J. Prod. Innov. Manag. 2010, 27:1127-1140.
38. Rindova V.P., Petkova A.P. When is a new thing a good thing? Technological change, product form design, and perceptions of value for product innovations. Organ. Sci. 2007, 18:217-232.
39. Rubin J. Handbook of Usability Testing: How to Plan, Design, and Conduct Effective Tests 1994, John Wiley, New York.
40. Sauer J., Seibel K., Rüttinger B. The influence of user expertise and prototype fidelity in usability tests. Appl. Ergon. 2010, 41:130-140.
41. Sauer J., Sonderegger A. The influence of prototype fidelity and aesthetics of design in usability tests: effects of user behaviour, subjective evaluation and emotion. Appl. Ergon. 2009, 40:670-677.
42. Schoormans J.P.L., Robben H.S.J. The effect of new package design on product attention, categorization and evaluation. J. Econ. Psychol. 1997, 18:271-287.
43. Seva R.R., Gosiaco K.G.T., Santos M.C.E.D., Pangilian D.M.L. Product design enhancement using apparent usability and affective quality. Appl. Ergon. 2010, 42:511-517.
44. Sonderegger A., Sauer J. The influence of design aesthetics in usability testing: effects on user performance and perceived usability. Appl. Ergon. 2010, 41:403-410.
45. Talke K., Salomo S., Wieringa J.E., Lutz A. What about design newness? Investigating the relevance of a neglected dimension of product innovativeness. J. Prod. Innov. Manag. 2009, 26:601-615.
46. Thompson D.V., Hamilton R.W., Rust R.T. Feature fatigue: when product capabilities become too much of a good thing. J. Mark. Res. 2005, 42:431-442.
47. Tractinsky N., Katz A.S., Ikar D. What is beautiful is usable. Interact. Comput. 2000, 13:127-145.
48. Vergara M., Mondragón S., Sancho-Bru J.L., Company P., Agost M.-J. Perception of products by progessive multisensory integration. A study on hammers. Appl. Ergon. 2011, 42:652-664.
49. Veryzer R.W., Hutchinson J.W. The influence of unity and prototypicality on aesthetic responses to new product designs. J. Cons. Res. 1998, 24:374-394.
50. Vieceli J., Shaw R.N. Brand salience for fast-moving consumer goods: an empirically based model. J. Mark. Manag. 2010, 26:1218-1238.
51. Zhao M., Hoeffler S., Dahl D.W. The role of imagination-focused visualization on new product evaluation. J. Mark. Res. 2009, 46:46-55.
52. Ziamou P., Ratneshwar S. Promoting consumer adoption of high-technology products: is more information always better?. J. Cons. Psychol. 2002, 12:341-351.