A Role for Aesthetics in Consumer Psychology

Handbook of Consumer Psychology

Volumn , Issue , 2018, Pages 733-754

  Hoegg, JoAndrea ^a   Alba, Joseph W ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA   (Canada)

^b UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 85145830891     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.4324/9780203809570-40     Document Type: Chapter

References (142)

1. Alba, J. W., & Hutchinson. J. W. (1987). Dimensions of consumer expertise. Journal of Consumer Research, 13, 411-454.
2. Arneill, A. B., & Sloan Devlin, A. (2002). Perceived quality of care: The infl uence of the waiting room environment. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 22, 345-360.
3. Berlyne, D. E. (1971). Aesthetics and Psychobiology, Meredith Corporation: New York.
4. Berlyne, D. E. (1974). Novelty, complexity and interestingness. In D. E. Berlyne(Ed.), Studies in the new experimental aesthetics (pp. 175-180). New York: Wiley.
5. Berry, L. L., & Bendapudi, N. (2003). Clueing in customers. Harvard Business Review, (February), 2-7.
6. Berry, L. L., Carbone, L. P., & Haeckel, S. H. (2002). Managing the total customer experience. MIT Sloan Management Review, (Spring), 85-89.
7. Biederman, I. (1987). Recognition-by-components: A theory of human image understanding. Psychological Review, 94, 115-147.
8. Bloch, P. H. (1995). Seeking the ideal form: Product design and consumer response. Journal of Marketing, 59, 16-29.
9. 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.
10. Boiney, L. G., Kennedy, J., & Nye P. (1997). Instrumental bias in motivated reasoning: More when more is needed. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 72, 1-24.
11. Braun, K. A. (1999). Postexperience advertising effects on consumer memory. Journal of Consumer Research, 25, 319-334.
12. Brownstein, A. L. (2003). Biased predecision processing. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 545-568.
13. Bruce, V. & Humphreys, G. W. (1994). Recognizing objects and faces. Object and Face Recognition: Special Issue of Visual Cognition, 1, 141-180.
14. Burns, B., Shepp, B. E., McDonough, D., & Weiner-Ehrlich, W. (1978). The relation between stimulus analyzability and perceived dimensional structure. In G. H. Bower(Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation: Advances in research and theory, Vol. 12 (pp. 77-115). New York: Academic Press.
15. Cabeza, R., & Kato, T. (2000). Features are also important: Contributions of featural and confi gural processing to face recognition. Psychological Science, 11, 429-433.
16. Carey, S., & Diamond, R. (1994). Are faces perceived as confi gurations more by adults than by children?Object and Face Recognition: Special Issue of Visual Cognition, 1, 253-274.
17. Cheng, P. W.,& Pachella, R. G. (1984). A psychophysical approach to dimensional separability. Cognitive Psychology, 16, 279-304.
18. Clare, J., & Lewandowsky, S. (2004). Verbalizing facial memory: Criterion effects in verbal overshadowing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 30, 739-755.
19. Cox, D., & Cox, A. D. (2002). Beyond fi rst 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.
20. Creusen, M. E. H., & Schoormans, J. P. L. (2005). The different roles of product appearance in consumer choice. Journal of Product Innovation Management,22, 63-81.
21. Darley, J. M., & Gross, P. H. (1983). A hypothesis-confi rming bias in labeling effects. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44, 20-33.
22. Diamond, R., & Carey, S. (1986). Why faces are and are not special: An effect of expertise. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 115, 107-117.
23. Dion, K. K., Berscheid, E., & Walster, E. (1972). What is beautiful is good. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 24, 285-290.
24. Dodson, C. S., Johnson, M. K., & Schooler, J.W. (1997). The verbal overshadowing effect: Why descriptions impair face recognition. Memory & Cognition, 25,129-139.
25. Eagly, A. H., Ashmore, R. D., Makhijani, M. G., & Longo, L. C. (1991). What is beautiful is good, but…: A meta-analytic review of research on the physical attractiveness stereotype. Psychological Bulletin, 110, 109-128.
26. Edwards, K. (1990). The interplay of affect and cognition in attitude formation and change. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 202-216.
27. Fallshore, M., & Schooler, J. W. (1995). Verbal vulnerability of perceptual expertise. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 21, 1608-1623.
28. Farah, M., Wilson, K. D., Drain, H. M., & Tanaka, J. N. (1998). What is ‘special’ about face perception. Psychological Review, 105, 482-498.
29. Farah, M., Tanaka, J. N., & Drain, H. M. (1995). What causes the face inversion effect? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 21, 628-634.
30. Garner W. R. (1974). The processing of information and structure. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
31. Garner W. R., & Felfoldy, G. L. (1970). Integrality of stimulus dimensions in various types of information processing. Cognitive Psychology, 1, 225-241.
32. Goldstone, R. L., Medin, D. L., & Gentner, D. (1991). Relational similarity and the nonindependence of features in similarity judgments. Cognitive Psychology, 23, 222-262.
33. Halberstadt, J. B. (1997). Effects of verbalization on confi gural and featural face recognition. Unpublished Dissertation, Indiana University.
34. Halberstadt, J., Goldstone, R. L., & Levine, G. M. (2003). Featural processing in face preferences. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 39, 270-278.
35. Halberstadt, J., & Rhodes, G. (2000). The attractiveness of nonface averages: Implications for an evolutionary explanation of the attractiveness of average faces. Psychological Science, 11, 285-289.
36. Hassin R., & Trope, Y. (2000). Facing faces: Studieson the cognitive aspects of physiognomy. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 837-852.
37. Hoch, S. J., & Ha, Y. W. (1986). Consumer learning: Advertising and the ambiguity of product experience. Journal of Consumer Research, 13, 221-233.
38. Hoffman, J. E. (1980). Interaction between global and local levels of a form. Journal of Experimental Psychology:Human Perception and Performance, 6, 222-234.
39. Holbrook, M. B. (1980). Some preliminary noteson research in consumer esthetics. Advances in Consumer Research, 7 104-108.
40. Holbrook, M. B., & Huber, J. (1979). Separating perceptual dimensions from affective overtones: An application to consumer aesthetics. Journal of Consumer Research, 5, 272-283.
41. Holbrook, M. B., & Zirlin, R. B. (1985). Artistic creation, artworks, and aesthetic appreciation. Advances in Non-Profi t Marketing, 1, 1-54.
42. Hsee, C. K. (1995). Elastic justifi cation: How tempting but task-irrelevant factors infl uence decisions. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 62, 330-129.
43. Hsee, C. K. (1996). Elastic justifi cation: How unjustifi able factors infl uence judgments. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 66, 122-129.
44. Hutchinson, J. W., & Alba, J. W. (1991). Ignoring irrelevant information: Situational determinants of consumer learning. Journal of Consumer Research, 18, 325-345.
45. Jordan, P. W., Thomas, B., & McClelland, I. L. (1996). Issues for usability evaluation in industry: Seminar discussions. In P. W. Jordan(Ed.), Usability evaluation in industry (pp. 237-243). London: Taylor and Francis.
46. Kalins, D. (2003). Design 2004: It’s cool to be warm. Newsweek, October 27, 58-73.
47. Kemler Nelson, D. G. (1984). The effect of intention on what concepts are acquired. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 23, 734-759.
48. Kemler Nelson, D. G. (1989). The nature and occurrence of holistic processing. In B. E. Shepp & S. Ballesteros,(Eds.), Object perception: Structure and process (pp. 357-386). Hillsdale NJ: Erlbaum.
49. Kemler Nelson, D. G. (1993). Processing integral dimensions: The whole view. Journal of Experimental Psychology:Human Perception and Performance, 19, 1105-1113.
50. Kimchi, R. (1992). Primacy of wholistic processing and global/local paradigm: A critical review. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 24-38.
51. Kimchi, R. (2003). Relative dominance of holistic component properties in the perceptual organization of visual objects. In G. Rhodes & M. A. Peterson(Eds.), Perception of faces, objects, and scenes: Analytic and holistic processes (pp. 235-268). New York: Oxford University Press.
52. Koffk a, K. (1935). Principles of Gestalt psychology, Harcourt Brace: New York.
53. Kotler, P., & Rath, G. A. (1984). Design: A powerful but neglected strategic tool. Journal of Business Strategy, 5, 16-21.
54. Kruglanski, A. W. (1996). Motivated social cognition: Principles of the interface. In E. T. Higgins & A. W. Kruglanski (Eds.), Social psychology: Handbook of basic principles (pp. 493-520). New York: Guilford.
55. Kunda, Z. (1990). The case for motivated reasoning. Psychological Bulletin, 108, 480-498.
56. Lamb, M. R., & Robertson, L. C. (1988). The processing of hierarchical stimuli: Effects of retinal locus, locational uncertainty, and stimulus identity. Perception & Psychophysics, 44, 172-181.
57. Lamb, M. R., & Robertson, L. C. (1990). The effect of visual angle on global and local reaction times dependson the set of visual angles presented. Perception and Psychophysics, 47, 489-496.
58. Lamb, M. R., & Yund, E. W. (1993). The role of spatial frequency in the processing of hierarchically organized stimuli. Perception and Psychophysics, 54, 773-784.
59. Landy, D., & Sigall, H. (1974). Beauty is talent: Task evaluation as a function of the performer’s physical attractiveness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 29, 299-304.
60. Langlois, J. H., Kalakanis, L. E., Rubenstein, A. J., Larson, A. D., Hallam M. J., & Smoot, M. T. (2000). Maxims or myths of beauty: A meta-analytic and theoretical review. Psychological Bulletin, 126, 390-423.
61. Lasaga, M. I. (1989). Gestalts and their components: Nature of information-precedence. In B. E. Shepp. & S. Ballesteros(Eds.), Object perception: Structure and process (pp. 165202). Hillsdale NJ: Erlbaum.
62. Latimer, C. & Stevens, C. (1997). Some remarkson wholes, parts and their perception. Psycoloquy, 8, 1-23.
63. Leder, H. & Bruce, V. (2000). When inverted faces are recognized: The role of confi gural information in face recognition. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 53A, 513-536.
64. Levine, G. M., Halberstadt, J. B., & Goldstone, R. L. (1996). Reasoning and the weighting of attributes in attitude judgments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 230-240.
65. Langlois, J. H., Roggman, L. A., & Musselman, L. (1994). What is average and not average about attractive faces? Psychological Science,5, 214-220.
66. Light, L. L., Hollander, S., & Kayra-Stuart, F. (1981). Why attractive people are harder to remember. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,7, 269-276.
67. Lockhead, G. R. (1972). Processing dimensional stimuli: A note. Psychological Review, 79, 410-419.
68. Loewenstein, G. F. (2001). The creative destruction of decision research. Journal of Consumer Research, 28, 499-505.
69. Loewenstein, G. F., Weber, E. U., Hsee, C. K., & Welch, N. (2001). Risk as feelings. Psychological Bulletin, 127, 267-286.
70. Loewy, R. (1951). Never leave well enough alone, New York: Simon & Schuster.
71. Love, B. C., Rouder, J. N., & Wisniewski, E. J. (1999). A structural account of global and local processing. Cognitive Psychology, 38, 291-316.
72. Macho, S. & Leder, H. (1998). Your eyes only? A test of interactive infl uence in the processing of facial features. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 24, 1486-1500.
73. Macrae, C. N., & Lewis, H. L. (2002). Do I know you? Processing orientation and face recognition. Psychological Science, 13, 194-196.
74. Martin, M. (1979). Local and global processing: The role of sparsity. Memory and Cognition, 7, 476-484.
75. Martindale, C. (1984). The pleasures of thought: A theory of cognitive hedonics. The Journal of Mind and Behavior, 5,49-80.
76. Martindale, C. (1988). Aesthetics, psychobiology, and cognition. In F. Farley & R. Neperud(Eds.), The foundations of aesthetics, art, and art education (pp. 7-42). New York: Praeger.
77. Martindale, C., & Moore, K. (1988). Priming, prototypicality, and preference. Journal of Experimental Psychology:Human Perception and Performance, 14, 661-670.
78. Martindale, C. Moore, K., & Borkum, J. (1990). Aesthetic preference: Anomalous fi ndings for Berlyne’s psychobiological theory. American Journal of Psychology, 103, 53-80.
79. Melara, R. D., & Marks, L. E. (1990). Perceptual primacy of dimensions: Support for a model of dimensional interaction. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 16, 398-414.
80. Melara, R. D., Marks, L. E., & Potts, B. C. (1993a). Early-holistic processing or dimensional similarity? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 91, 1114-1120.
81. Melara, R. D., Marks, L. E., & Potts, B. C. (1993b). Primacy of dimensions in color perception. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 19, 1082-1104.
82. Melcher, J. M., & Schooler, J.W. (1996). The misremembrance of wines past: Verbal and perceptual expertise differentially mediate verbal overshadowing of taste memory. Journal of Memory and Language, 35, 231-245.
83. Miller, M., & Adler, J. (2003). Design 2004: Isaac hits his target. Newsweek, October 27, 2003, 74-77.
84. Navon, D. (1977). Forest before trees: The precedence of global features in visual perception. Cognitive Psychology, 9, 353-383.
85. Navon, D. (1981). The forest revisited: More on global precedence. Psychological Research, 43, 1-32.
86. Nisbett, R. E., & Wilson, T. D. (1977). The halo effect: Evidence for unconscious alteration of judgments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35, 250-256.
87. Norman, D. A. (2004). Emotional design: Why we love (or hate) everyday things. New York: Basic Books.
88. Obermiller, C. (1985). Varieties of mere exposure: The effects of processing style and repetition on affective response. Journal of Consumer Research, 12, 17-30.
89. Palmer, S. E. (1990). Modern theories of gestalt perception. Mind and Language, 5, 289-323.
90. 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.
91. Pham, M. T., Cohen, J. B., Pracejus, J. W., & Hughes, G. D. (2001). Affect monitoring and the primacy of feelings in judgment. Journal of Consumer Research, 28, 167-188.
92. Pomerantz, J. R. (1981). Perceptual organization in information processing. In M. Kubovy, & J. R. Pomerantz(Eds.), Perceptual organization. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
93. Pomerantz, J. R., & Kubovy, M. (1986). Theoretical approaches to perceptual organization: Simplicity and likelihood principles. In K. R. Boff, L. Kaufman, & J. P. Thomas,(Eds.), Handbook of perception and human performance: Cognitive process and performance (pp. 3601-3646). New York: Wiley.
94. Prasso, S. (2001). Boeing gets beat. Businessweek, October 29, 12.
95. Raghubir, P., & Greenleaf, E. (2006). Ratios in proportion: What should the shape of the package be? Journal of Marketing, 70, 95-107.
96. 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, 364-382.
97. Reber, R., Winkielman, P., & Schwarz, N. (1998). Effects of perceptual fluency on affective judgments. Psychological Science, 9, 45-48.
98. Reilly, B. A., & Doherty, M. E. (1989). A note on the assessment of self-insight in judgment research. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 44, 123-131.
99. Rhodes, G., Harwood, K., Yoshikawa, S., Nishitani, M., & McLean, I. (2002). The attractiveness of average faces: Cross-cultural evidence and possible biological basis. In G. Rhodes & L. A. Zebrowitz(Eds.), Facial attractiveness (pp. 35-58). Westport CT: Ablex Publishing.
100. Rhodes, G., Tan, S., Brake, S., & Taylor, K. (1989). Expertise and confi gural codeing in face recognition. British Journal of Psychology, 80, 313-331.
101. Rhodes, G., & Tremewan, T. (1996). Averageness, exaggeration, and facial attractiveness. Psychological Science,7, 105-110.
102. Ritterfeld, U. (2002). Social heuristics in interior design preferences. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 22, 369-386.
103. Rubenstein, A. J., Langlois, J. H., & Roggman, L. A. (2002). What makes a face attractive and why: The role of averageness in defi ning facial beauty. In In G. Rhodes. & L. A. Zebrowitz(Eds.), Facial attractiveness (pp. 1-34). Westport CT: Ablex Publishing.
104. Russo, J. E., Medvec, V. H., & Meloy, M. G. (1996). The distortion of information during decisions. Organizational and Human Decision Processes, 66, 102-110.
105. Russo, J. E., Meloy, M. G., & Medvec, V. H. (1998). Predecisional distortion of product information. Journal of Marketing Research, 35, 438-452.
106. Schooler, J. W. (2002). Verbalization produces a transfer inappropriate processing shift. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 16, 989-997.
107. Schooler, J. W., & Engstler-Schooler, T. Y. (1990). Verbal overshadowing of visual memories: Some things are better left unsaid. Cognitive Psychology, 22, 36-71.
108. Schooler, J. W., Fiore, S. M., & Brandimonte, M. A. (1997). At a loss from words: Verbal overshadowing of perceptual memories. In Medin, D.(Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation: Advances in research and theory (pp. 291-340). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
109. Schwarz, N., & Clore, G. L. (1996). Feelings and phenomenal experiences. In E. T. Higgins & A. W. Kruglanski(Eds.), Social psychology: Handbook of basic principles (pp. 433-465). New York: Guilford.
110. Schwarzer, G. (2000). Development of face processing: The effect of face inversion. Child Development, 71, 391-401.
111. Schweitzer, M. E., & Hsee, C. K. (2002). Stretching the truth: Elastic justifi cation and motivated communication of uncertain information. The Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 25, 185-201.
112. Sergent, J. (1984). An investigation into component and confi gural processes underlying face recognition. British Journal of Psychology, 75, 221-242.
113. Shapiro, S., & Spence, M. T. (2002). Factors affecting encoding, retrieval, and alignment of sensory attributes in a memory-based brand choice task. Journal of Consumer Research, 28, 603-617.
114. Shepp, B. E. (1989). On perceiving objects: Holistic versus featural properties. In B. E. Shepp & S. Ballesteros(Eds.), Object perception: Structure and process (pp. 203-233). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
115. Shiv, B., & Fedorikhin, A. (1999). Heart and mind in confl ict: The interplay of affect and cognition in consumer decision making. Journal of Consumer Research, 26, 278-292.
116. Silvera, D. H., Josephs, R. A., & Giesler, R. B. (2002). Bigger is better: The infl uence of physical size on aesthetic preference judgments. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 15, 189-202.
117. Slovic, P., & Lichtenstein, S. (1971). Comparison of bayesian and regression approaches to the study of information processing in judgment. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 6, 649-744.
118. Smith, L. B. (1990). A model of perceptual classifi cation in children and adults. Psychological Review, 96, 125-144.
119. Takahashi, S. (1995). Aesthetic properties of pictorial perception. Psychological Review, 102, 671-683.
120. Tanaka, J. W. & Farah, M. J. (1993). Parts and wholes in face recognition. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 46A, 225-245.
121. Tanaka, J. W., & Farah, M. J. (2003). The holistic representation of faces. In G. Rhodes & M. A. Peterson, M. A.(Eds.), Perception of faces, objects, and scenes: Analytic and holistic processes (pp. 53-74). New York:Oxford University Press.
122. Treisman, A. (1986). Properties, parts and objects. In K. R. Boff, L. Kaufman, & J. P. Thomas,(Eds.), Handbook of perception and human performance: Cognitive process and performance (pp. 3501-3570). New York: Wiley.
123. Tversky, A. (1977). Features of similarity. Psychological Review, 84, 327-352.
124. Twitchell, J. B. (2004). An English teacher looks at branding. Journal of Consumer Research, 31, 484-489.
125. Valentine, T., Darling, S., & Donnelly, M. (2004). Why are average faces attractive? The effect of view and averagenesson the attractiveness of female faces. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,11, 482-487.
126. Veryzer, R. W., Jr., & Hutchinson, J. W. (1998). The infl uence of unity and prototypicality on aesthetic response to new product designs. Journal of Consumer Research, 24, 374-394.
127. Ward, T. B., & Scott, J. (1987). Analytic and holistic modes of learning family-resemblance concepts. Memory and Cognition, 15, 42-54.
128. West, P. M., Brown, C. L., & Hoch, S. J. (1996). Consumption vocabulary and preference formation. Journal of Consumer Research, 23, 120-135.
129. Whitfield, T. W. A. (1983). Predicting preference for familiar, everyday objects: An experimental confrontation between two theories of aesthetic behavior. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 3, 221-237.
130. Whitfield, T. W. A. (2000). Beyond prototypicality: Toward a categorical-motivation model of aesthetics. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 18, 1-11.
131. Wilson, M. A., & MacKenzie, N. E. (2000). Social attributions based on domestic interiors. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 20, 343-354.
132. Wilson, T. D., & Brekke, N. (1994). Mental contamination and mental correction: Unwanted influences on judgments and evaluations. Psychological Bulletin, 116, 117-142.
133. Wilson, T. D., Dunn, D. S., Bybee, J. A., Hyman, D. B., & Rotondo, J. A. (1984). Effects of analyzing reasonson attitude-behavior consistency. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47, 5-16.
134. Wilson, T. D., Hodges, S. D., & LaFleur, S. J. (1995). Effects of introspecting about reasons: Inferring attitudes from accessible thoughts. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 16-28.
135. Wilson, T. D., Kraft, D., & Dunn, D. S. (1989). The disruptive effect ofexplaining attitudes: The moderating effect of knowledge about the attitude object. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 25, 379-400.
136. Wilson, T. D., & Nisbett, R. E. (1978). The accuracy of verbal reports about the effects of stimuli on evaluations and behavior. Social Psychology, 41, 118-131.
137. Wilson, T. D., & Schooler, J. W. (1991). Thinking too much: Introspection can reduce the quality of preferences and decisions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 181-192.
138. Winkielman, P., Schwarz, N., Fazendeiro, T. A., & Reber, R. (2003). The hedonic marking of processing fluency:Implications for evaluation judgment. In J. Musch & K. C. Klauer (Eds.), The psychology of evaluation:Affective processes in cognition and emotion (pp. 189-217). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
139. Winkielman, P., Schwarz, N., Reber, R., & Fazendeiro, T. A. (2003). Cognitive and affective consequences of visual fluency: When seeing is easy on the mind. In R. Batra & L. Scott(Eds.), Visual persuasion (pp. 75-89). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
140. Yamamoto, M., & Lambert, D. R. (1994). The impact of product aestheticson the evaluation of industrial products. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 11, 309-324.
141. Young, A. W., Hellawell, D., & Hay, D. C. (1987). Confi gural information in face perception. Perception, 16, 747-759.
142. Zebrowitz, L. (1997). Reading faces: Windows to the soul? Boulder, CO: Westview Press.