TF Template Word Windows 2010/media/bl/global/business-and... · appropriate investments in design...

BAM2014 This paper is from the BAM2014 Conference Proceedings

About BAM

The British Academy of Management (BAM) is the leading authority on the academic field of

management in the UK, supporting and representing the community of scholars and engaging with

international peers.

http://www.bam.ac.uk/

1

The Impact of Image Dimensions toward Online Consumers’ Perceptions of Product

Aesthetics

Understanding the value that online consumers ascribe to products’ aesthetic attributes is

important for industrial designers and marketers involved with the development of innovative

products. The purpose of this study is to examine the effect of online consumers’ perceptions

of dimensions of products’ image on the value they attach to product aesthetics. The study

utilizes statistical equation modelling to discern the relationships between three categories of

image dimensions and online consumers’ perceptions of the value of design/product

aesthetics. Because the study is focused on perceptions about Revolutionary Technology-

driven Products (RTP), it also examines the moderating effects of online consumers’

innovativeness and needs for uniqueness on the value they ascribe to RTP’s aesthetic

dimensions. The aesthetics of products are more likely to influence online consumers with

acumen and a high desire for uniqueness. These consumers are influenced by their perception

of the products’ epistemic value and the RTP’s capacity to provide them with something

unique is important to their perception of their value.

Submitted to British Academy of Management on Feb 26, 2014

Track: Marketing & Retail

Word count: 4447 (excluding tables and references)

2

The Impact of Image Dimensions toward Online Consumers’ Perceptions of Product

Aesthetics

Introduction

Marketers and industrial designers devote considerable attention to the visual

attributes of products, based on the premise that the visual appearance of products

influences consumers’ judgements of the products’ attributes, and, potentially, their

intentions to purchase those products. These judgements are cognitive responses that

are based on their perceptions of product attributes. As a result, the image and

appearance of the attributes are viewed as being critical to the formation of consumer

perceptions (Crilly et al., 2004). Likewise, consumer judgements and responses vary

according to the importance they place on products’ visual aesthetics (Bloch et al.,

2003).

This research examines consumers’ perceptions about particular types of innovative

products, termed Revolutionary Technology-driven Products (RTP). RTPs are defined as

innovations that cannot be classified in terms of existing product categories and that are not

new products, models or brands in existing categories (Gregan-Paxton and Roedder John,

1997). The factors that affect consumers’ perceptions of RTP’s characteristics are a concern

because RTPs require substantial resources to develop, are subject to market and

technological uncertainties and are situated in competitive commercial environments (Olleros,

1986; Min et al., 2006; Urban et al., 1996).

Consumers’ personality characteristics can influence how open they are to new

product experiences (Goldsmith and Hofacker, 1991). In addition, online consumers’

perceptions of the value of RTP are influenced by the appearance and image of product

characteristics and by the value they place on aesthetic attributes. Industrial designers and

marketing managers are challenged to understand how online consumers interpret the value of

unfamiliar technology-driven products. However, when technology features are matched with

specific characteristics of target markets, marketers and designers are better able to determine

appropriate investments in design and appropriate levels of consumer involvement in design

development.

This research focuses on a conceptual product, which is an example of an RTP. The

conceptual product that we used for this study is a digital cookbook that offers taste sampling,

thereby providing online food-tasting experiences. The unit is made up of a portable touch

screen display and a print system that dispenses edible flavor strips. The product incorporates

ink-jet print technology utilizing 18 flavor cartridges and a role of dissolving strip. Flavor

cartridges can be easily switched out to match the necessary ingredient required for the

desired dish. The intent of the design is to extend the traditional cookbook to a digital

peripheral that reproduces the content in a physical tasting experience.

This study examines how online consumers’ perceptions of the usability

image/impression of a RTP affect the importance they ascribe to its visual aesthetics. Further,

it examines the moderating influence of specific consumer characteristics on these

perceptions. In particular, it examines the extent that the nature of online consumers’

innovativeness and needs for uniqueness relate to their perceptions about RTPs. The goal of

the research is to expand understanding of the factors that influence the value that online

consumers ascribe to products’ aesthetic appearance.

The rest of the paper is organised as follows: the next section describes the theoretical

background of the research. Section two presents the elements of the study’s conceptual

model. The third section describes the research methodology, applying a structural equation

modelling method to empirically test the proposed model. The fourth section presents the

3

results of the data analysis. The final section discusses theoretical and managerial

implications, limitations and further research related to the key findings.

Theoretical Background

This research is informed by cognitive approaches to explaining consumer behavior

from the fields of design research, aesthetics, psychology, consumer research, sociology,

marketing and semiotics. Cognitive responses are “the judgments that the user or consumer

makes about the product based on the information perceived by the senses.” (Crilly et al.,

2004:552).

Cognitive responses can be classified according to the aesthetic impressions and

semantic interpretations that consumers perceive about products. Aesthetic impressions are

the sensations that result in perceptions of products’ attractiveness and functionality.

Semantic interpretation is what a product visually portrays about its utility and practical

qualities (i.e. function, performance, efficiency and ergonomics) (Crilly et al., 2004).

Moderating influences like consumers’ prior experiences, sensory capabilities and personal

characteristics have been shown to influence their responses to product appearance (Eckman

and Wagner, 1994; Holbrook and Schindler, 1994; Joseph and Vyas, 1984).

In particular, the study focuses on consumers’ perceptions of characteristics of product

value (Howard & Sheth, 1969). The Sheth-Newman-Gross Theory of Consumption Values

(Sheth et al., 1991) provides the theoretical underpinnings for this research, because it

identifies consumption values that consumers perceive to be important in their buying

experience. Five consumption values influencing consumer choice behaviour are identified

by the theory, including functional, social, conditional, emotional, and epistemic values. Each

consumption value in the theory is consistent with various components of models advanced

by Maslow (1970), Katona (1971), Katz (1960), and Hanna (1980).

The theory proposes that any or all of the five consumption values may independently

influence consumers’ judgements and decisions. Previous research has utilised the model to

investigate tourism consumers’ perceptions of value (Williams and Soutar, 2000), to develop

scales examining value of durable goods (Sweeney and Soutar, 2001) and to investigate

effects on customer satisfaction (Wang et al., 2004), though there have been no studies

specifically focused on the discrete dimensions of functional and epistemic values. This

research makes a theoretical contribution by expanding knowledge about the interplay of the

effects of functional and epistemic value.

According to Sheth et al. (1991) the functional value of a product is defined as:

"The perceived utility acquired from an alternative for functional, utilitarian, or

physical performance. An alternative acquires functional value through the possession

of salient functional, utilitarian, or physical attributes." Functional value has been

identified as a determinant of consumer choice (Davis, 1989) and the relationship

underlies economic utility theory advanced by Marshall (1920) and Stigler (1950) and

the social cognitive approach to product adoption presented in the Technology

acceptance Model (TAM) (Davis, 1989) and the Unified Theory of Acceptance and

Utilization of Technology (UTAUT) (Venkatesh et al., 2003).

Sheth et al. (1991 ;162) define epistemic value as a product’s "capacity to arouse

curiosity, provide novelty, and/or satisfy a desire for knowledge." Epistemic values are

related to product characteristics that provide new and different experiences and to consumer

purchase behaviors (Howard and Sheth, 1969).

Some products (i.e. RTPs) might be viewed by consumers as having high epistemic

values because their qualities are perceived to evolve with use over time. These types of

products are referred to as epistemic consumption objects (Zwick and Dholakia, 2006).

4

Consumers perceive that these products reveal themselves progressively through interaction,

observation, use, examination, and evaluation and can change through addition or subtraction

of properties. Consumers are thereby engaged with the products’ evolution and epistemic

values, however the particular moderating effects of consumers’ personal characteristics on

perceptions of functional and epistemic value have not been previously investigated.

The next section presents the literature related to the elements that constitute this

study’s conceptual model.

Review of Literature

Image of Products

Studies identify the roles of product image and appearance in providing information

that influences consumer choice (Creusen and Schoorman, 2005). Han et al. (2000) identify

that consumers consider image and impression to be as important as performance in their

perception of usability. Their research describes three categories of image/impressions

dimensions: Basic sense, description of image, and evaluative feeling/attitude.

Basic sense includes characteristics of shape, colour, brightness, translucency, texture,

balance, heaviness, and volume. This study hypothesises that consumers’ perceptions of

basic sense dimensions influence the value that consumers ascribe to products’ aesthetic

attributes.

H1: A consumer’s perception of a product’s basic sense image is positively related to the

value the consumer attaches to its visual product aesthetics.


consumer’s acumen in discerning its visual aesthetics from other products.


consumer’s level of response to its visual aesthetics.

Description of image refers to the ways that users would describe a product based on

its appearance and dimensions including metaphoric design images, elegance, elaborateness,

harmoniousness, luxuriousness, magnificence, neatness, rigidity, salience and dynamicity.

This study hypothesises those descriptions that consumers’ would use to describe products

influence the value that consumers ascribe to products’ aesthetic attributes.

H4: A consumer’s description of a product’s appearance and dimensions is positively related

to the value of its visual aesthetics.


to the consumer’s acumen in discerning its visual aesthetics from other products.


to the consumer’s level of response to its visual aesthetics.

Evaluative Feeling refers to consumers’ feelings or attitudes about a product’s

usability and includes acceptability, comfort, convenience, reliability, attractiveness,

preference, and satisfaction (Han et al., 2000). This study hypothesises that feelings that

consumers have about products’ usability influence the value that consumers ascribe to

products’ aesthetic attributes.

H7: A consumer’s attitudes about a product’s usability are positively related to the value the

consumer attaches to its visual aesthetics.

H8: A consumer’s attitudes about a product’s usability are positively related to the

consumer’s acumen in discerning its visual aesthetics from other products.

H9: A consumer’s attitudes about a product’s usability are positively related to the

consumer’s level of response to its visual aesthetics.

5

Aesthetics of Products

Marketing and consumer behavior research recognises that consumers use

design/products to express their different social identities and that the aesthetic aspects of

design/products impact consumers’ product adoption choices (Creusen and Schoormans,

2005; Kotler, 2003; Veryzer and Borja de Mozota, 2005). Visual aesthetics are the first thing

about products that connects with consumers and aesthetics about ease of use and

innovativeness have symbolic functions that influence how products are evaluated (Bloch et

al., 2003).

Likewise, consumers’ responsiveness to design/product aesthetics may vary between

consumers (Hoyer and Stokburger-Sauer, 2011). The variance is referred to as the centrality

of visual product aesthetics (CVPA) (Bloch et al, 2003), and it is defined as “the level of

significance that visual aesthetics hold for a particular consumer in his/her relationship with

products” (Bloch et al., 2003: 551).

Bloch et al., (2003) have determined that CVPA encompasses four

dimensions: 1) the value that consumers attach to products’ appearance that enhances their

well-being, 2) their acumen in discerning and discriminating between product designs, 3) their

level of response to visual design aspects, and 4) the effect of visual aesthetics on product

preferences and purchase satisfaction. Their research has developed a scale that measures

individual differences in the centrality of visual product aesthetics (CVPA), and this study

utilizes the scale to measure consumers’ value, acumen and level of response levels when

presented with a RTP. Because this study is not focused on consumer purchase behaviors, it

does not include the fourth dimension of Bloch et al.’s (2003) CVPA model. This study

hypothesises that the dimensions of CVPA influence the value that consumers ascribe to

products’ aesthetic attributes.

H10: The value that a consumer ascribes to a product’s appearance is positively related to

their acumen in discerning its visual aesthetics from other products.

H11: The level of acumen that a consumer has in discerning a product’s visual aesthetics is

positively related to their level of response to its visual aesthetics.

Consumer Innovativeness

Revolutionary new products rarely gain immediate acceptance. They are typically

adopted by a relatively small group with strong innovative tendencies, who then influence

later adopters (Rogers, 2003). Consumer innovativeness is a consumer’s tendency to buy new

products more often and more quickly than other people (Midgley and Dowling, 1978;

Roehrich, 2004; Venkatraman, 1991). Innovation characteristics refer to the attributes

consumers use to evaluate an innovation. In the innovation adoption literature, innovation

characteristics include the consumer’s perception of the advantage, compatibility, complexity,

trialability, observability of an innovation (Rogers 2003), and of the uncertainty or risk

involved with an innovation (Hoeffler 2003). Research suggests that although consumer

innovativeness has inconsistent effects on generalised adoption intention, it has a positive

influence on consumers’ intentions to adopt specific products (Goldsmith and Hofacker,

1991; Im et al., 2003; Roehrich, 2004). In particular, more innovative consumers are more

likely to adopt new products (Joseph and Vyas, 1984).

An examination of consumer innovativeness’ effect is provided by Goldsmith and

Hofacker (1991)’s scale which measures innovativeness with a specific product or within a

specific domain of interest. Joseph and Vyas’ (1984) study also presents a scale that assesses

consumers’ innovativeness as an antecedent to purchase intentions. Portions of the scales

from these two studies are utilised in this study to measure consumers’ innovativeness as a

6

moderator of the relationships between perceptions of product image and different dimensions

of CVPA.

Need for Uniqueness

Consumers possess and display products as a way to feel different from other people.

These feelings and consumers’ reactions to their similarity to others form the basis of

uniqueness theory (Snyder and Fromkin, 1980). Notable to this research, the pursuit of

differentness varies between consumers, thereby producing different responses amongst

consumers to unique products (i.e. RTPs) (Lynn and Harris, 1997).

This paper defines consumers’ need for uniqueness as “individuals’ pursuit of

differentness relative to others that is achieved through the acquisition, utilization, and

disposition of consumer goods for the purpose of developing and enhancing one’s personal

and social identity.” (Tian and McKenzie, 2001:172). The goods that consumers with a high

need for uniqueness choose are different than the norm and reflect counter-conformity

choices, which can take three forms: 1) creative choices that are acceptable in broader society,

yet unique, 2) unpopular choices that are rarely chosen by others and 3) choices that avoid

similarity with others. They found that consumers possessing a high need for uniqueness

avoid popular consumer choices, and require novelty or complexity in products.

An examination of consumers’ need for uniqueness is provided by Lynn and Harris’

(1997) study which determined that higher levels are related to desires for innovative products

(i.e. RTPs). Their scale is utilised in this study to measure consumers’ need for uniqueness as

a moderator of the relationships between perceptions of product image and different

dimensions of CVPA.

-----------------------------------------------

INSERT FIGURE 1 ABOUT HERE

-----------------------------------------------

Methodology

Data Collection and Sample Characteristics

An online panel was purchased from an independent marketing research company with a

nationwide (i.e. U.S.) pool of online consumers. In order to minimize coverage error, the firm was

hired to randomly select the sample from their national sample. Online consumers were selected

because this specific RTP provides online access to tasting, which is an online experience that has

not been previously accessible and this study examines consumer perceptions of a product with

which they have no prior experience. The sample population in this study was composed of

consumers who were at least 18 years of age and who had an Internet connection. The

respondents’ socio-demographic characteristics reflected similar characteristics to the larger US

population of internet users. 72% of the sample was female, reflecting the gender distribution of

online consumers (UNCTAD, 2009). Further, the income and education of participants also

reflected those of online consumers (i.e. appropriate for use and purchase of new technology

products). In particular, the data revealed that 40.4% of participants earned an annual income of

less than 50,000 dollars with 59.6% earning more than 50,000 dollars. The majority of the

participants (44.4%) had college education whereas 25.1% had graduate degrees.

The questionnaire was sent out by the marketing research company, thereby providing

access to a sample pool and to a random sampling approach that minimized coverage errors. Two

thousand randomly selected potential respondents were invited to participate in the study, of which

usable respondents totalled 275. The survey was distributed randomly to an online consumer panel.

The respondents were not paid directly but received point/rewards for a rewards program. The

response rate was 13.75 percent. An e-mail invitation containing the survey’s hyperlink was

sent to each of the potential respondents. The survey consisted of a twofold process. For the

7

first step, respondents were asked to review a newly developed product, imaginary product

with explanations of concepts, functionalities, and benefits. As respondents agreed to

participate, the second step was to think about their experience about the product.

Characteristics of respondents included a mean age of 47.4; males were represented at 28.0 percent

and females at 72.0 percent. Demographic characteristics for the entire sample are reported in

Table 1.

Existing scales for all constructs were used (see Appendix A). All constructs were

measured using seven-point Likert type scales. Thirteen items were adapted from Han et

al.(2011) to measure image of product with three sub-dimensions: basic sense (r=.79),

description of image(r=.84), and evaluative feeling (r=.87). Aesthetic of product was

measured with ten items from Bloch et al. (2003) with three dimensions: value (r=.82),

acumen (r=.88), and response (r=.83).

-----------------------------------------------

INSERT TABLE 1 ABOUT HERE

-----------------------------------------------

-----------------------------------------------


-----------------------------------------------

Analysis and Results

Measurements and Structural Model

In the first step, a confirmatory factor analysis was performed in order to make sure

the validity and reliability of each construct are sustainable. In the second step, structural

equation modelling analysis of the proposed model was performed to examine the

relationships among the construct. Confirmatory factor analysis was performed with

maximum likelihood estimation. Relevant measurement properties are presented in Table 1.

The construct alphas exceed the suggested minimum of .70 (Nunnally, 1978). The average

variance extracted (AVE) of the constructs with multiple items are all above .50 (Fornell and

Larcker, 1981) (see Table 2). The factor loadings of each construct are statistically significant.

The goodness-of-fit from confirmatory factor analysis shows a good fit of data,

χ2

(215)=347.209, CFI= .967, NFI= .919, RFI=.905, RMSEA= .047 (Bagozzi and Yi, 1988).

The structural model was examined in the next step with a good fit (Goodness-of-fit: χ2209

=334.636, p<0.00; GFI=0.904; NFI=0.922; RFI=0.906; IFI=0.969; TLI=0.962; CFI=0.969,

RMR=0.068; RMSEA=0.047) by guidelines provided by Hair et al. (2006) and Hu and Benter

(1999). Eleven paths were examined in the structural model (see Figure 1).

Basic sense was linked as an antecedent of three dimensions of the aesthetics of

products (H1-H3). Results provide no significant effect (H1-H3). Description of image was

linked as an antecedent of the same dimensions to the aesthetics of products (H4-H6). The

results show that consumers’ description of a product’s appearance and dimensions is

negatively related to the value of its visual aesthetics (Coefficient=-0.74, t-value=-4.09***

)

(H4). In addition, consumers’ description of a product’s appearance and dimensions is

negatively related to the consumer’s level of response to its visual aesthetics (Coefficient=-

0.48, t-value=-3.09**

) (H6). Evaluative feelings toward the three variables also provide no

significant effect (H7-H9).

The value that a consumer ascribes to a product’s appearance is positively related to

their acumen in discerning its visual aesthetics from other products. (Coefficient=0.68, t-

value=10.29***

) (H10). The level of acumen that a consumer has in discerning a product’s

visual aesthetics is positively related to their level of response to its visual aesthetics.

(Coefficient=0.60, t-value=8.15***

) (H11)

-----------------------------------------------


8

-----------------------------------------------

-----------------------------------------------


-----------------------------------------------

Moderating Effect

Consumers’ innovativeness did not show a moderating effect on the relationships

between perceptions of product image and different dimensions of CVPA. The unconstrained

model and measurement weights model were not significantly different (Δx2(df)=39.74(28), Δ

x2(P-value)=0.07).

Consumers’ need for uniqueness showed a moderating effect on the relationships

between perceptions of product image and different dimensions of CVPA. The

unconstrained model and measurement weights model were not significantly different

(Δx2(df)=54.42(28), Δ x

2(P-value)=0.002

**).

-----------------------------------------------


-----------------------------------------------

-----------------------------------------------


-----------------------------------------------

Results

The results of this study show that online consumers who have high levels of acumen

in discerning and discriminating between product designs are more likely to value aesthetic

elements and are more likely to respond to them than consumers with lower levels. However,

these consumers do not rely upon the image of the product for their assessments of the

products’ aesthetics. Rather, they rely upon their own acumen to the point where descriptions

of aesthetic elements negatively influence consumers’ perceptions of the elements’ value.

Furthermore, product aesthetics are more likely to affect consumers with high levels of

acumen who also have a high desire for uniqueness. These findings suggest that discerning

consumers are more likely to rely on their own assessments of new products’ value,

particularly if the products satisfy their need for uniqueness.

The results of this study therefore support previous research that has identified that

consumers’ personality characteristics influence their propensity to try or purchase new

products (Eckman and Wagner, 1994; Holbrook and Schindler, 1994; Joseph and Vyas,

1984). Furthermore, this study shows that online consumers’ need for uniqueness – i.e. a

personal characteristic - is a more important influence on their perceptions of products’ value

than product image dimensions

Given that online consumers with high needs for uniqueness are more likely to try or

purchase new products, it is important to note that these same consumers are not likely to

regard descriptions as important to how they differentiate between products. These consumers

rely on their own acumen and differentiate themselves from other consumers based on their

acumen in discerning aesthetic elements.

Theoretical and Managerial Implications

Theoretical implications

The results of this study provide evidence that individual differences in uniqueness

motivation moderated how online consumers’ perceptions of a product’s image characteristics

influenced their perceptions of its value. In particular, consumers’ need for uniqueness was

more influential for their perceptions of the product’s value than their perceptions of its

functional value. Image dimensions related to functional value had no effect on online

9

consumers’ perceptions of a new product’s aesthetic value. Consequently, these findings

expand understanding of the consumer characteristics that respond to perceptions of products’

epistemic value.

Managerial Implications

Although marketers should consider the image of value they want a product to

communicate, they should also consider how different aspects of a product’s value appeal to

different online consumers.

Marketers and industrial designers should involve online consumers in early design

stages to determine what aesthetic aspects are most important to consumers with different

personal characteristics and at what stages of development these aspects become important.

Managers and designers can then differentiate image characteristics for consumers that differ

in their perceptions of product image dimensions and in their CVPA. For example, although

this study showed the importance of epistemic value to online consumers with a need for

uniqueness, their perception of the products’ functional value may increase over time.

Likewise, given that this study shows that the level of online consumers’ acumen influences

their perceptions of products’ novelty (and thereby their value), these consumers could

provide insights into which features are particularly innovative and why.

Our finding that the need for uniqueness is related to perceptions of value suggests

that uniqueness appeals may be particularly effective in the promotion of new products. In

order to appeal to consumers’ desire to be different from others, marketers might develop

advertising messages and platforms that employ product‐scarcity appeals, uniqueness appeals,

and rule-breaking appeals.

Limitations and Further Research

The current study is limited by the particulars of the empirical setting. Although the

RTP was presented to the sample participants as a really new product, its use was associated

with a previously used product (i.e. cookbook). However, to the novel nature of the product,

the online setting may have presented barriers to participants’ understanding of the product’s

characteristics. Their understanding of the characteristics may have influenced their

perceptions of the product’s image dimensions.

Further research might consider how variations in the discrete elements of the three

image dimensions affect perceptions of aesthetics. For example, research should address

questions about the discrete effects of variations in shape, colour, brightness, translucency,

texture, balance, heaviness and volume on CVPA dimensions. Qualitative research would also

expand this study’s findings about the discrete elements of the image dimensions. For

example, this research should be expanded with qualitative research that is oriented to

research questions based on the language used to describe aspects of new product aesthetics

(i.e. metaphoric design images, elegance, elaborateness, harmoniousness, luxuriousness,

magnificence, neatness, rigidity, salience and dynamicity). These questions should be related

to the dimensions of CVPA and provide further understanding about the differences in

descriptors as they relate to usability.

Likewise, future research might consider cultural differences in the relationship

between perceptions of image and aesthetics. As food preparation and consumption is a basic

cultural practice and given that the product involves taste, the cultural backgrounds of

participants may influence their perception of the product’s value.

This research could also be extended by examining an empirical example involving an

in-store experience with RTP aesthetics. For instance, a study situated in-store could

investigate the effects of specific atmospherics, merchandising strategies, and interpersonal

10

interactions (i.e. with employee and/or other customer behaviours) on perceptions of

aesthetics and products’ epistemic value.

Finally, because epistemic value is related to the evolution of online consumers’

experiences with products, longitudinal studies might examine the related CVPA relationships

throughout a RTP’s development. These types of studies could investigate the trajectory of

the emergence and impact of specific product dimensions.

Conclusions

Although marketers and industrial designers devote considerable attention to the

image dimensions of new products, this study shows that when presented with a completely

new product, online consumers’ perceptions of the products’ value are likely to be influenced

by their personal need for uniqueness. In other words, these consumers are influenced by

their perception of the products’ epistemic value and the RTP’s capacity to provide them with

something unique is important to their perception of their value.

11

References

Arnould, E. J. and Thompson, C. J. (2005). Consumer culture theory (CCT): Twenty Years of

Research. Journal of Consumer Research vol. 1, no. 4, pp. 868–882.

Bloch, P. H.; Brunel, F.F. and Arnold, T.J. (2003). Individual differences in the

centrality of visual product aesthetics: Concept and measurement, Journal of Consumer

Research, vol. 29, no. 4, pp. 551-565.

Creusen, M. E., and Schoormans, J. P. (2005). The different roles of product appearance in

consumer choice*. Journal of Product Innovation Management, vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 63-81.

Eckman, M and Wagner, J. (1994). Judging the Attractiveness of Product Design: The Effect

of Visual Attributes and Consumer Characteristics Advances in Consumer Research vol. 21,

pp 560-564.

Goldsmith, R.E. and Hofacker, C. (1991), Measuring Consumer Innovativeness, Journal of

the Academy of Marketing Science, vol. 19, pp. 209-21.

Gregan-Paxton, J. and Roedder, J.D. (1997). Consumer Learning by Analogy: A

Model of Internal Knowledge Transfer,” Journal of Consumer Research, vol. 24, pp. 266-

284.

Han, S.H.; Yun, M.H.; Kim, K.; & Kwahk, J. (2000). Evaluation of product usability:

developmenat and validation of usability dimensions and design elements based on empirical

models. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, vol. 26, pp. 477-488.

Han, S.H.; Yun, M.H.; Kwahk. and Hong, S.W. (2001). Usability of consumer electronic

products. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, vol. 28, pp. 143-151.

Hoeffler, S. (2003). Measuring Preferences for Really New Products. Journal of Marketing

Research, vol. 40, no. 4, pp. 406-420.

Holbrook, M B and Schindler, R M. (1994) Age, Sex, and Attitude Toward the Past as

Predictors of Consumers' Aesthetic Tastes for Cultural Products Journal of Marketing

Research, vol. 31, no. 3, pp 412-422.

Joseph, B., and Vyas, S. (1984). Concurrent validity of a measure of innovative cognitive

style. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, vol. 12, no. 1-2, pp. 159-175.

Katz, D. (1960). The functional approach to the study of attitudes. Public opinion

quarterly, vol. 24, no. 2, pp. 163-204.

Lynn, M., and Harris, J. (1997). Individual Differences in the Pursuit of Self‐Uniqueness

Through Consumption. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, vol. 27, no. 21, pp. 1861-1883.

Midgley, D.F. and Dowling, G.R. (1978). Innovativeness: The Concept and its Measurement.

Journal of Consumer Research, vol. 4, no. 4, pp. 229-242.

http://econpapers.repec.org/article/ucpjconrs/v_3a31_3ay_3a2005_3ai_3a4_3ap_3a868-882.htm

http://econpapers.repec.org/article/ucpjconrs/v_3a31_3ay_3a2005_3ai_3a4_3ap_3a868-882.htm

12

Min, S.; Kalwani, M.U. and Robinson, W.T. (2006) Market Pioneer and Early Follower

Survival Risks: A Contingency Analysis of Really New Versus Incrementally New Product-

Markets, Journal of Marketing, vol. 70, pp. 15-33.

Olleros, F. (1986), Emerging Industries and the Burnout of Pioneers, Journal of Product

Innovation Management, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 5–18.

Roehrich, G. (2004). Consumer innovativeness Concepts and measurements. Journal of

Business Research, vol. 57, pp. 671– 677.

Rogers, E.M. (2003). Diffusion of Innovations. (5th

ed.) New York: Free Press.

Sheth, J. N., Newman, B. I., and Gross, B. L. (1991). Why we buy what we buy: a theory of

consumption values. Journal of business research, vol. 22, no. 2, pp. 159-170.

Snyder, C. R., and Fromkin, H. L. (1980). Uniqueness: The human pursuit of difference. New

York: Plenum Press.

Sweeney, J.C. and Soutar, G.N. (2001) ‘Consumer Perceived Value: The Development of

a Multiple Item Scale’, Journal of Retailing vol. 77, no.2, pp. 203–20.

Tian, K. T., Bearden, W. O., and Hunter, G. L. (2001). Consumers’ need for uniqueness:

Scale development and validation. Journal of consumer research, vol. 28, no. 1, pp. 50-66.

Tian, K.T. and McKenzie, K. (2001). The Long-term predictive validity of the consumers’

need for uniqueness scale. Journal of Consumer Psychology, vol. 10, no. 3, pp. 171-193.

UNCTAD Information Economy Report 2009, Retrieved Oct. 29, 2013 at

http://unctad.org/en/Docs/ier2009_en.pdf

Urban, G.L.; Weinberg, B.D. and Hauser, J.R. (1996), “Premarket Forecasting of Really-New

Products,” Journal of Marketing, vol. 60, pp. 47–60.

Venkatesh, V.; Morris, M.G., and Davis, G.B. (2003) User acceptance of information

technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly, vol. 27, no. 3, pp. 425-478.

Venkatraman, M. P. (1991), The Impact of Innovativeness and Innovation Type on Adoption,

Journal of Retailing, vol. 67, no. 1, pp. 51–67.

Wang, Y., Lo, H.P., Chi, R. and Yang, Y. (2004) ‘An Integrated Framework for Customer

Value and Customer-Relationship-Management Performance: A Customer-Based

Perspective from China’, Managing Service Quality vol. 14, no. 2–3, pp. 169–82.

Williams, P. and Soutar, G.N. (2000) ‘Dimensions of Customer Value and the Tourism

Experience: An Exploratory Study’, paper presented at Australian and New Zealand

Marketing Academy Conference, 28 November–1 December.

Zwick, D., and Dholakia, N. (2006). The epistemic consumption object and postsocial

consumption: Expanding consumer-object theory in consumer research. Consumption

Markets & Culture, vol.9, no. 1, pp. 17-43.

http://unctad.org/en/Docs/ier2009_en.pdf

13

Figure 1. Research Model of Impact of Image toward Consumers’ Aesthetic Creation

Aesthetic of Product

H6

H8 H9

H10

H7

H1

H2

H3

H4

H5

Basic Sense

(BS)

(b

Description of Image (DI)

Evaluative Feeling

(EF)

CVPA items-Value (IV)

(b

CVPA items-

Acumen

CVPA items-Response (IR)

Moderating Effect H10 : Consumer Innovativeness(CI)

H11 : Need for Uniqueness (NU)

Image of Product

H10

H11

14

<Table 1> Respondents’ Socio-Demographic Characteristics

variable Group Frequency Percent M(SD)

Age

<40 years of age 77 28.4

47.4(13.1)

40-50 44 16.2

50-60 66 24.4

>60 years of age 84 31.0

Total 271 100.0

Gender

Male 76 28.0

Female 195 72.0

Total 275 100.0

Income

<$30,000 48 17.6

$30,000-$50,000 62 22.8

$50,000-$70,000 69 25.4

>$70,000 93 34.2

Total 272 100.0

Ethnic

African American 9 3.3

Caucasian American 229 84.2

Hispanic American 14 5.1

Native American 3 1.1

Asian/ Asian American 10 3.7

Other 7 2.6

Total 272 100.0

Education

Less than high school degree or

equivalent 30 10.9

Some college but no degree 54 19.6

Associate degree 33 12.0

Bachelor degree 89 32.4

Graduate degree 69 25.1

Total 275 100.0

15

<Table 2> Reliability and Validity Tests

Indicator Loading t-value SMC

Cronbach-

α AVE C.R

Basic Sense

(BS)

BS 1 0.533 5.160 0.356 0.731 0.65 0.79

BS 2 1.000 - 0.950

Description of

Image

(DI)

DI 1 0.945 11.429 0.470

0.855 0.51 0.84

DI 2 0.858 10.559 0.408

DI 3 0.915 13.355 0.619

DI 4 1.000 - 0.601

DI 5 0.905 11.285 0.460

DI 6 0.888 11.610 0.484

Evaluative Feeling

(EF)

EF 1 1.000 - 0.734

0.910 0.67 0.87

EF 2 0.941 18.205 0.740

EF 3 0.931 16.424 0.653

EF 4 0.890 16.764 0.670

EF 5 0.776 14.772 0.570

CVPA items-Value

(IV)

IV 1 1.000 - 0.710

0.890 0.67 0.82 IV 2 0.897 15.866 0.658

IV 3 0.936 17.194 0.734

IV 4 0.893 14.705 0.593

CVPA items-

Acumen

(IA)

IA 1 0.943 19.888 0.749

0.920 0.74 0.88 IA 2 0.968 20.378 0.767

IA 3 1.000 - 0.793

IA 4 0.823 17.816 0.667

CVPA items-

Response

(IR)

IR 1 0.831 17.045 0.707

0.906 0.84 0.83 IR 2 1.000 - 0.973

Goodness-of-fit: χ2215=347.209, p<0.00; GFI=0.900; NFI=0.919; RFI=0.905; IFI=0.968;

TLI=0.961; CFI=0.967; RMR=0.070; RMSEA=0.047

16

<Table 3> Construct Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations

BS: Basic Sense, DI: Description of Image, EF: Evaluative Feeling, IV: CVPA items-Value,

IA: CVPA items-Acumen, IR: CVPA items-Response

BS DI EF IV IA IR

BS 1.00

DI -0.43 1.00

EF -0.34 0.79 1.00

IV 0.11 -0.43 -0.34 1.00

IA 0.14 -0.29 -0.26 0.69 1.00

IR 0.21 -0.39 -0.32 0.68 0.57 1.00

Means 4.37 3.10 3.29 4.67 4.58 4.20

S.D 0.91 0.83 1.05 1.15 1.16 1.39

17

Data Analysis and Results

<Table 4> Structural Models Results

Structural Path Coefficient t-Value Hypothesis

supported

H1: Basic Sense → CVPA items-Value -0.20 -1.38 No

H2: Basic Sense → CVPA items-Acumen 0.21 1.94 No

H3: Basic Sense → CVPA items-Response 0.04 0.30 No

H4: Description of Image → CVPA items-Value -0.74 -4.09***

Yes

H5: Description of Image → CVPA items-Acumen 0.26 1.79 No

H6: Description of Image → CVPA items-Response -0.48 -3.09**

Yes

H7: Evaluative Feeling → CVPA items-Value 0.02 0.20 No

H8: Evaluative Feeling → CVPA items-Acumen -0.12 -1.36 No

H9: Evaluative Feeling → CVPA items-Response 0.07 0.72 No

H10: CVPA items-Value → CVPA items-Acumen 0.68 10.29***

Yes

H11: CVPA items-Acumen → CVPA items-Response 0.60 8.15***

Yes

Goodness-of-fit: χ2215 =367.37, p<0.00; GFI=0.90; NFI=0.91; RFI=0.90; IFI=0.96; TLI=0.96;

CFI=0.96, RMR=0.08; RMSEA=0.05 ***

p<0.001, **

p<0.01, * p<0.05

18

<Table 5> Moderating Effect of Consumer Innovativeness

Group High Low

Structural Path Coefficient t-Value Coefficient t-Value

H1: Basic Sense → CVPA items-Value -0.29 -1.97* 0.04 0.16

H2: Basic Sense → CVPA items-Acumen 0.30 2.35* 0.07 0.40

H3: Basic Sense → CVPA items-Response -0.08 -0.68 0.10 0.46

H4: Description of Image → CVPA items-

Value -0.73 -3.03** -0.62 -2.36*


Acumen 0.51 2.44* 0.12 0.63


Response -0.53 -2.77** -0.39 -1.71

H7: Evaluative Feeling → CVPA items-Value -0.14 -0.94 0.19 1.12

H8: Evaluative Feeling → CVPA items-

Acumen -0.22 -1.77 -0.08 -0.65


Response 0.22 1.78 -0.02 -0.15

H10: CVPA items-Value → CVPA items-

Acumen 0.71 7.03*** 0.67 7.51***

H11: CVPA items-Acumen → CVPA items-

Response 0.71 6.15*** 0.46 4.49***

Model Comparisons : Δx2(df)=39.74(28), Δ x

2(P-value)=0.07

*** p<0.001,

** p<0.01,

* p<0.05

19

<Table 6> Moderating Effect of Need for Uniqueness

Group High Low

Structural Path Coefficient t-Value Coefficient t-Value

H1: Basic Sense → CVPA items-Value -0.34 -1.92 -0.13 -0.69

H2: Basic Sense → CVPA items-Acumen 0.36 2.79** 0.09 0.53

H3: Basic Sense → CVPA items-Response -0.35 -2.05* 0.23 1.57


Value -0.74 -3.26** -0.66 -2.50*


Acumen 0.36 2.12* 0.32 1.38


Response -0.50 -2.32* -0.53 -2.53*

H7: Evaluative Feeling → CVPA items-Value 0.06 0.40 0.05 0.34


Acumen -0.21 -2.18* -0.05 -0.34


Response 0.13 0.99 0.13 1.14

H10: CVPA items-Value → CVPA items-

Acumen 0.67 7.26*** 0.61 5.89***

H11: CVPA items-Acumen → CVPA items-

Response 0.74 5.52*** 0.36 4.01***

Model Comparisons : Δx2(df)=54.42(28), Δ x

2(P-value)=0.002

*** p<0.001,

** p<0.01,

* p<0.05

20

Appendix A

Variable Source Measurement items

Basic Sense

(BS)

Han, S.H.; Yun, M.H.;

Kwahk.; & Hong, S.W.

(2001)

1. How heavy the Product looks to you?

2. Does the Product looks bulky or slim?

Description

of Image

(DI)



(2001)

1. How luxuriousness does the Product looks to you?

2. To what degree does the Product feels like it worked out

with great care and in fine detail?

3. How magnificence does the Product feels to you?

4. How neat the Product looks to you? (looks clean, tidy,

simple, and well arrange)

5. How rigid does the Product feels to you? (feeling that the

product looks stout, stable, and secure)

6. How dynamic does the Product looks to you? (Feeling

that it looks dynamic or steady)

Evaluative

Feeling

(EF)



(2001)

1. How acceptable does the Product feels to you? (The

degree to which the user feels it agreeable or acceptable)

2. How comfortable does the Product looks to you? (The

degree to which the user feels easy and comfortable with it)

3. How convenience does the Product looks to you? (The

degree that it is handy and suitable)

4. How reliable does the Product looks to you? (The feeling

that it dependable, fir to be trusted, or confident)

5. How satisfy are you with the Product? (The degree it is

giving contentment or making the user satisfied)

CVPA items-

Value

(IV)

Bloch, P. H.; Brunel,

F.F. & Arnold, T.J.

(2003)

1. Owning products that have superior designs makes me

feel good about myself

2. I enjoy seeing design displays of products that have

superior designs

3. A product's design is source of pleasure for me.

4. Beautiful product designs make our world a better place

to live

CVPA items-

Acumen

(IA)


F.F. & Arnold, T.J.

(2003)

1. Being able to see subtle differences in product design is

one skill that I have developed over time

2. I see things in a product's design that other people tend to

pass over

3. I have the ability to imagine how a product will fit in

with designs of other things I already know

4. I have a pretty good idea of what makes one product look

better than its competitors

CVPA items-

Response

(IR)


F.F. & Arnold, T.J.

(2003)

1. Sometimes the way product looks seems to reach

out and grab me

2. If a product's design really "speaks" to me, I feel

that I must buy it

TF Template Word Windows 2010/media/bl/global/business-and... · appropriate investments in design...

Documents

Transcript of TF Template Word Windows 2010/media/bl/global/business-and... · appropriate investments in design...