Seeking the ideal level of design newness: Consumer response to radical and incremental product design

Journal of Product Innovation Management

Volumn 30, Issue SUPPL 1, 2013, Pages 34-47

  Mugge, Ruth ^a,b   Dahl, Darren W ^c  

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

^b DELFT UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY   (Netherlands)

^c UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

INNOVATION; KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT; MANAGERS; RESEARCH;

FUNCTIONAL ATTRIBUTE; INCREMENTAL INNOVATION; MANAGERIAL IMPLICATIONS; NEW PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT; PRODUCT CATEGORIES; PRODUCT INNOVATION; RADICAL AND INCREMENTAL INNOVATIONS; RADICAL INNOVATION;

PRODUCT DESIGN;

EID: 84893870465     PISSN: 07376782     EISSN: 15405885     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/jpim.12062     Document Type: Article

References (37)

1. Berlyne, D. E. 1971. Aesthetics and psychobiology. New York: Appleton- Century-Crofts.
2. Blijlevens, J., C. C. Carbon, R. Mugge, and J. P. L. Schoormans. 2012. Aesthetic appraisal of product designs: Independent effects of typicality and arousal. British Journal of Psychology 103 (1): 44-57.
3. Bloch, P. H. 1995. Seeking the ideal form: Product design and consumer response. Journal of Marketing 59 (July): 16-29.
4. Calantone, R. J., K. Chan, and A. S. Cui. 2006. Decomposing product innovativeness and its effects on new product success. Journal of Product Innovation Management 23 (5): 408-21.
5. Campbell, M. C., and R. C. Goodstein. 2001. The moderating effect of perceived risk on consumers' evaluation of product incongruity: Preference for the norm. Journal of Consumer Research 28 (December): 439-49.
6. Creusen, M. E. H., and J. P. L. Schoormans. 2005. The different roles of product appearance in consumer choice. Journal of Product Innovation Management 22 (1): 63-81.
7. Dahl, D. W., and S. Hoeffler. 2004. Visualizing the self: Exploring the potential benefits and drawbacks for new product evaluation. Journal of Product Innovation Management 21 (4): 259-67.
8. Feiereisen, S., V. Wong, and A. J. Broderick. 2008. Analogies and mental stimulation in learning for really new products: The role of visual attention. Journal of Product Innovation Management 25: 593-607.
9. Goldenberg, J., D. Mazursky, and S. Solomon. 1999. Toward identifying the inventive templates of new products: A channeled ideation approach. Journal of Marketing Research 36 (May): 200-10.
10. Gourville, J. 2006. Eager sellers and stony buyers: Understanding the psychology of new product adoption. Harvard Business Review 84 (6): 98-106.
11. Gregan-Paxton, J., J. Hibbard, F. F. Brunel, and P. Azar. 2002. "So that's what that is" examining the impact of analogy on consumers' knowledge development for really new products. Psychology and Marketing 19 (6): 533-50.
12. Hekkert, P., D. Snelders, and P. C. W. Van Wieringen. 2003. "Most advanced, yet acceptable": Typicality and novelty as joint predictors of aesthetic preference in industrial design. British Journal of Psychology 94 (1): 111-24.
13. Hoeffler, S. 2003. Measuring preferences for really new products. Journal of Marketing Research 40 (November): 406-20.
14. Loken, B., and J. Ward. 1990. Alternative approaches to understanding the determinants of typicality. Journal of Consumer Research 17 (September): 111-26.
15. Love, B. C., and S. A. Sloman. 1995. Mutability and the determinants of conceptual transformability. In Proceedings of the Seventeenth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, eds., J. D. Moore and J. F. Lehmann, 654-59. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
16. Manning, K. C., W. O. Bearden, and T. J. Madden. 1995. Consumer innovativeness and the adoption process. Journal of Consumer Psychology 4 (4): 329-46.
17. Meyers-Levy, J., and A. Tybout. 1989. Schema congruity as a basis for product evaluation. Journal of Consumer Research 16 (June): 39-54.
18. Moreau, C. P., D. R. Lehmann, and A. B. Markman. 2001. Entrenched knowledge structures and consumer response to new products. Journal of Marketing Research 38 (February): 14-29.
19. Moreau, C. P., A. B. Markman, and D. R. Lehmann. 2001. "What is it?" Categorization flexibility and consumers' responses to really new products. Journal of Consumer Research 27 (March): 489-98.
20. Mugge, R., and J. P. L. Schoormans. 2012. Newer is better! The influence of a novel appearance on the perceived performance quality of products. Journal of Engineering Design 23 (6): 469-84.
21. Mukherjee, A., and W. D. Hoyer. 2001. The effect of novel attributes on product evaluation. Journal of Consumer Research 28 (December): 462-72.
22. Payne, J.W. 1982. Contingent decision behavior. Psychological Bulletin 92 (2): 382-402.
23. Person, O., J. P. L. Schoormans, D. Snelders, and T.-M. Karjalainen. 2008. Should new products look similar or different? The influence of the market environment on strategic product styling. Design Studies 29 (1): 30-48.
24. Preacher, K. J., and A. F. Hayes. 2004. SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects in simple mediation models. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers 36 (4): 717-31.
25. Rajagopal, P., and R. E. Burnkrant. 2008. Consumer evaluations of hybrid products. Journal of Consumer Research 36 (August): 232-41.
26. Rijsdijk, S. A., and E. J. Hultink. 2009. How today's consumers perceive tomorrow's smart products. Journal of Product Innovation Management 26 (1): 24-42.
27. Rindova, V. P., and A. P. Petkova. 2007. When is a new thing a good thing? Technological change, product form design, and perceptions of value for product innovations. Organization Science 18 (2): 217-32.
28. Rogers, E. M. 1995. Diffusion of innovations. New York: The Free Press.
29. Sujan, M., and J. R. Bettman. 1989. The effects of brand positioning strategies on consumers' brand and category perceptions: Some insights from schema research. Journal of Marketing Research 26 (November): 454-67.
30. Talke, K., S. Salomo, J. E.Wieringa, and A. Lutz. 2009. What about design newness? Investigating the relevance of a neglected dimension of product innovativeness. Journal of Product Innovation Management 26 (6): 601-15.
31. Veryzer, R. W. 1995. The place of product design and aesthetics in consumer research. In Advances in consumer research, ed. F. R. Kardes and M. Sujan, 641-45. Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research.
32. Veryzer, R. W. 1998. Key factors affecting customer evaluation of discontinuous new products. Journal of Product Innovation Management 15 (March): 136-50.
33. Veryzer, R. W., and J. W. Hutchinson. 1998. The influence of unity and prototypicality on aesthetic responses to new product designs. Journal of Consumer Research 24 (March): 374-94.
34. Whitfield, T.W. A., and P. E. Slatter. 1979. The effects of categorization and prototypicality on aesthetic choice in a furniture selection task. British Journal of Psychology 70: 65-75.
35. Zhao, M., S. Hoeffler, and D. W. Dahl. 2009. The role of imaginationfocused visualization on new product evaluation. Journal of Marketing Research 46 (February): 46-55.
36. Zhao, X., J. G. Lynch Jr., and Q. Chen. 2010. Reconsidering Baron and Kenny: Myths and truths about mediation analysis. Journal of Consumer Research 37 (August): 197-206.
37. Ziamou, P., and S. Ratneshwar. 2003. Innovations in product functionality: When and why are explicit comparisons effective? Journal of Marketing 67 (April): 49-61.