Consumer response to overstyling: Balancing aesthetics and functionality in product design

Psychology and Marketing

Volumn 31, Issue 7, 2014, Pages 518-525

  Hagtvedt, Henrik ^a   Patrick, Vanessa M ^b  

^a BOSTON COLLEGE   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF HOUSTON   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84902013417     PISSN: 07426046     EISSN: 15206793     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/mar.20713     Document Type: Article

References (49)

1. Averill, J. R., Stanat, P., & More, T. A. (1998). Aesthetics and the environment. Review of General Psychology, 2, 153-174.
2. Bellizzi, J. A., & Hite, R. E. (1992). Environmental color, consumer feelings, and purchase likelihood. Psychology & Marketing, 9, 347-363.
3. Berlyne, D. E. (1971). Aesthetics and psychobiology. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
4. Blackburn, S. (2005). Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
5. Bloch, P. H. (1995). Seeking the ideal form: Product design and consumer response. Journal of Marketing, 59, 16-29.
6. Bloch, P. H., Brunel, F. F., & Arnold, T. J. (2003). Individual differences in the centrality of visual product aesthetics: Concept and measurement. Journal of Consumer Research, 29, 551-565.
7. Brunel, F., & Swain, S. D. (2007). A moderated perceptual model of product aesthetic evaluations. Milan, Italy: Paper presented at the European Conference of the Association for Consumer Research.
8. Chang, T.-Z., & Wildt, A. R. (1996). Impact of product information on the use of price as a quality cue. Psychology & Marketing, 13, 55-75.
9. Chitturi, R., Chitturi, P., & Raghavarao, D. (2010). Design for synergy with brand or price information. Psychology & Marketing, 27, 679-697.
10. Chitturi, R., Raghunathan, R., & Mahajan, V. (2007). Form versus function: How the intensities of specific emotions evoked in functional versus hedonic trade-offs mediate product preferences. Journal of Marketing Research, 44, 702-714.
11. Chitturi, R., Raghunathan, R., & Mahajan, V. (2008). Delight by design: The role of hedonic versus utilitarian benefits. Journal of Marketing, 72, 48-63.
12. Cox, D., & Cox, A. D. (2002). Beyond first impressions: The effects of repeated exposure on consumer liking of visually complex and simple product designs. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 30, 119-130.
13. Dermer, M., & Thiel, D. L. (1975). When beauty may fail. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 31, 1168-1176.
14. Dhar, R., & Wertenbroch, K. (2000). Consumer choice between hedonic and utilitarian goods. Journal of Marketing Research, 37, 60-71.
15. Dion, K., Berscheid, E., & Walster, E. (1972). What is beautiful is good. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 24, 285-290.
16. Dutton, D. (2002). Aesthetic universals. In B. Gaut & D. M. Lopes (Eds.), The Routledge companion to aesthetics. London: Routledge, 279-291.
17. Grewal, D., Levy, M., & Kumar, V. (2009). Customer experience management in retailing: An organizing framework. Journal of Retailing, 85, 1-14.
18. Hagtvedt, H., & Patrick, V. M. (2008). Art infusion: The influence of visual art on the perception and evaluation of consumer products. Journal of Marketing Research, 45, 379-389.
19. Hagtvedt, H., Hagtvedt, R., & Patrick, V. M. (2008). The perception and evaluation of visual art. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 26, 197-218.
20. Haws, K. L., & Bearden, W. O. (2006). Dynamic pricing and consumer fairness perceptions. Journal of Consumer Research, 33, 304-311.
21. Hayes, A. F. (2012). PROCESS: A versatile computational tool for observed variable mediation, moderation, and conditional process modeling [White paper]. Retrieved from http://www.afhayes.com/public/process2012.pdf. Accessed December 1, 2013.
22. Hirschman, E. C. (1983). Aesthetics, ideologies and the limits of the marketing concept. Journal of Marketing, 47, 45-55.
23. Hoegg, J., & Alba, J. W. (2008). A role for aesthetics in consumer psychology. In F. Kardes, C. Haugtvedt, & P. Herr (Eds.), Handbook of consumer psychology. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 733-754.
24. Hoegg, J., Alba, J. W., & Dahl, D. W. (2010). The good, the bad, and the ugly: Influence of aesthetics on product feature judgments. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 20, 419-430.
25. Jansson, C., Bointon, B., & Marlow, N. (2002). Determinants of consumers' aesthetic response to point-of-purchase materials. Journal of Consumer Studies, 26, 145-153.
26. Kalins, D. (2003). Design 2004: It's cool to be warm. Newsweek, October 27, 58-73.
27. Lam, S. Y., & Mukherjee, A. (2005). The effects of merchandise coordination and juxtaposition on consumers' product evaluation and purchase intention in store-based retailing. Journal of Retailing, 81, 231-250.
28. Landwehr, J. R., Wentzel, D., & Herrmann, A. (2012). The tipping point of design: How product designs and brands interact to affect consumers' preferences. Psychology & Marketing, 29, 422-433.
29. Mantrala, M. K., Levy, M., Kahn, B. E., Fox, E. J., Gaidarev, P., Dankworth, B., et al. (2009). Why is assortment planning so difficult for retailers? A framework and research agenda. Journal of Retailing, 85, 71-83.
30. Mathwick, C., Malhotra, N. K., & Rigdon, E. (2002). The effect of dynamic retail experiences on experiential perceptions of value: An internet and catalog comparison. Journal of Retailing, 78, 51-60.
31. Miller, M., & Adler, J. (2003). Design 2004: Isaac hits his target. Newsweek, October 27, 74-77.
32. Muller, D., Judd, C. M., & Yzerbyt, V. Y. (2005). When moderation is mediated and mediation is moderated. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89, 852-863.
33. Nesvig, K. (2010). The fashionista is in - Designer lines at target. The Minnesota Daily, February 10. Retrieved from http://www.mndaily.com/2010/02/10/fashionista-designer-lines-target. Accessed December 1, 2013.
34. Norman, D. A. (2004). Emotional design: Why we love (or hate) everyday things. New York, NY: Basic Books.
35. O'Curry, S., & Strahilevitz, M. (2001). Probability and mode of acquisition effects on choices between hedonic and utilitarian options. Marketing Letters, 12, 37-49.
36. Page, C., & Herr, P. M. (2002). An investigation of the processes by which product design and brand strength interact to determine initial affect and quality judgments. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 12, 133-147.
37. Patrick, V., & Hagtvedt, H. (2011). Aesthetic incongruity resolution. Journal of Marketing Research, 48, 393-402.
38. Raghubir, P., & Greenleaf, E. (2006). Ratios in proportion: What should the shape of the package be? Journal of Marketing, 70, 95-107.
39. Rawsthorn, A. (2009). Fiddly, fussy or just plain ugly kettles. The New York Times, August 10. Retrieved November 22, 2009, from http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/10/fashion/10iht-design10.html.
40. Read, H. E. (1953). Art and industry: The principles of industrial design (3rd ed). London: Faber and Faber.
41. Reimann, M., Zaichkowsky, J., Neuhaus, C., Bender, T., & Weber, B. (2010). Aesthetic package design: A behavioral, neural, and psychological investigation. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 20, 431-441.
42. Russo, B., & De Moraes, A. (2003). The usability of iconic designs a case study of juicy salif. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 47, 844-847.
43. Schmitt, B. H., & Simonson, A. (1997). Marketing aesthetics: The strategic management of brands, identity and image. New York: Free Press.
44. Tractinsky, N. (1997). Aesthetics and apparent usability: empirically assessing cultural and methodological issues. CHI 97 Conference Proceedings, Atlanta, 22-27 March, ACM, New York, 115-122.
45. Veryzer, R. W. (1999). A nonconscious processing explanation of consumer response to product design. Psychology & Marketing, 16, 497-522.
46. Veryzer, R. W., & Hutchinson, J. W. (1998). The influence of unity and prototypicality on aesthetic responses to new product designs. Journal of Consumer Research, 24, 374-395.
47. Wedell, D. H. (1998). Testing models of trade-off contrast in pairwise choice. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 24, 49-65.
48. Westerman, S. J., Gardner, P. H., Sutherland, E. J., White, T., Jordan, K., Watts, D., et al. (2012). Product design: Preference for rounded versus angular design elements. Psychology & Marketing, 29, 595-605.
49. Yamamoto M., & Lambert, D. R. (1994). The impact of product aesthetics on the evaluation of industrial products. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 11, 309-324.