The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The Different Roles of Product Appearance in Consumer Choice*
Abstract
Product design has been recognized as an opportunity for differential advantage in the market place. The appearance of a product influences consumer product choice in several ways. To help product development managers in optimizing the appearance of products, the present study identified the different ways in which the appearance of a product plays a role in consumer product evaluation and, hence, choice. In addition, the implications for product design of each role are listed, and managerial recommendations for optimizing the appearance of products are given. Based on a literature review, six different roles of product appearance for consumers are identified: (1) communication of aesthetic, (2) symbolic, (3) functional, and (4) ergonomic information; (5) attention drawing; and (6) categorization. A product's appearance can have aesthetic and symbolic value for consumers, can communicate functional characteristics and give a quality impression (functional value), and can communicate ease of use (ergonomic value). In addition, it can draw attention and can influence the ease of categorization of the product. In a large qualitative study (N=142) it was tested whether these roles indeed exist in consumers' process of product choice and whether they are sufficient to describe the way in which product appearance plays a role for consumers. In addition, qualitative insight into these roles was gained. After making a choice between two answering machines, subjects were interviewed about the reasons for their choice and the product information they used to form the judgments underlying their choice reasons. The six appearance roles indeed proved relevant for consumers and were sufficient to describe the influence of product appearance on product choice. The number of ways in which appearance played a role for consumers differed between 0 and 5; most subjects mentioned two different ways in which appearance influenced their product choice. The aesthetic and symbolic roles were mentioned most often. The preferred shape (e.g., rounded or angular), color, or size were found to differ depending on the way in which product appearance played a role for subjects. For example, bright colors may be valued from an aesthetic point of view but may diminish the impression of quality (i.e., functional value). This makes it difficult to optimize all roles and illustrates that the product value that is most important for consumers when purchasing a specific kind of product should be the starting point in the design of the product appearance. Furthermore, the influence of shape, color, or size on a certain kind of product value—aesthetic, symbolic, ergonomic, or functional—differed between subjects. One person may like a rounded shape, while another may prefer a rectangular shape. This means that the value of guidelines indicating how the perception of a specific kind of product value can be engendered by means of shape, color, and size is limited. This is especially the case for aesthetic and symbolic product value, which are very personal. Therefore it is recommended to test the performance of the appearance of a newly developed product on these six roles with the target group of consumers. Insight into the different ways in which appearance characteristics, such as form and color, may influence consumer choice will increase managers' awareness about how to use product appearance as a marketing tool. In addition, distinguishing these six appearance roles will help product development managers to optimize the product appearance better to market needs, as the roles have different and sometimes even conflicting implications for the design of the product appearance.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Possessions and the Extended Self
Belk, R. W. (1988) · Journal of Consumer Research · doi:10.1086/209154 · Cited by 9,064
Basic objects in natural categories
Rosch, E., Mervis, C. B., Gray, W. D., Johnson, D. M., & Boyes-Braem, P. (1976) · Cognitive Psychology · doi:10.1016/0010-0285(76)90013-x · Cited by 5,643
Cited by
Loebnitz, N., Schuitema, G., & Grunert, K. G. (2015) · Psychology & Marketing · doi:10.1002/mar.20788 · Cited by 216
Magni, M., Susan Taylor, M., & Venkatesh, V. (2010) · International Journal of Human-Computer Studies · doi:10.1016/j.ijhcs.2010.03.004 · Cited by 173
Kwong, C. K., Jiang, H., & Luo, X. G. (2016) · Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1016/j.engappai.2015.04.001 · Cited by 98
Consumer buying behaviour of sustainable vacuum cleaners—Consequences for design and marketing
Visser, M., Schoormans, J., & Vogtländer, J. (2018) · Journal of Cleaner Production · doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.05.114 · Cited by 26
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Creusen, M. E. H., & Schoormans, J. P. L.
- Venue
- Journal of Product Innovation Management
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2004-12-22
- Volume
- 22
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 63-81
- ISSN
- 0737-6782 (ISSN-L)
- 1540-5885
- OpenAlex
- W2070828591
- Cited by
- 912
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 9.47
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.