1

User response: Influence of Individual Taste on Product Appraisal

Nico van Aken, 1220012

Martin van Drunen, 1318764 SPD Research Project TU Delft

There have been done lots of researches tothe effect of a background (context) on theappraisal of a product. Of course this is animportant and interesting subject, sinceproducts are always shown in a context incommercialsorinashop.WhereBlijlevensetal.were focussingmore on the typicality ofthe context,here is focussedmoreon if the

respondent liked the context because ofhis or her vacation preference and,becauseof that,aestheticallyappraiseaproduct higher when the context is oftheir preference. This research showedthat the preference for context doesn’tinfluence the aesthetic appraisal of aproductsignificantly.

2

Fig. 1: Conceptual Consumer Response Model

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

USER RESPONSE

Thefactthatcustomersreacttotheformofaproductisunchallenged.Thewaytheyreactisanimportantissueofresearchoverthelastyears.AbasicoverviewofuserresponseisgivenbyBloch (1995) in a conceptual model (figure 1) that still is acknowledged in recent papers (forexample: Robert, 1998 and Blijlevens et al, 2010). In the accompanying paper Bloch brieflyexplainsconsequencesofeachfactorinuserresponsetotheexteriorofaproduct.Designersandmarketers, have to take into account that a product form will enable consumers to form anopinionaboutthepurposeandperformanceofaproduct.

Themodelinfigure1showstwomainmoderatinginfluencesinproductformevaluation;Individual preference andproduct context. From the researchdone, the careful statement thattheinfluenceofthecontextismostemphasizedinresearchcanbemade.Over75%ofthepapersthatwerefound(andused)mainlyrefertoattitudeand/orbehaviouronlytakingdirectinfluencesinaccount,anddoesn’thighlighttheroleoftheidentityofauser.Exploringthemostfundamentalresearch findings explained below, the same statement is reflected in these theories. Anotherstatementthatcanbedrawnfromthefindingsisthatignoringtheuserstastesandpreferencesinresearch is justified, for they illustrate the commonness in user response,whatever preferenceusershave.Itstillleavesusthequestionifindividualpreferencemakessenseatall.

ASSIMILATION AND CONTRAST

Oneofthemostimportantandinterestingtheoriesinmarketingresearchisthecontrast‐assimilation theory,wherevarious researchersadd their findings. Ingeneral it cansaid that ifacontextcontainsobjectsthatarethematicallyrelevanttotheconcernedproduct,usersarelikelytocomparetheseobjectsinsteadofcombiningthem,whichleadstoacontrasteffect.Acontext

3

containingnotthematicallyrelatedobjectshowever,enablesinvolveduserstocopythequalitiesofthecontextintotheirbeliefsabouttheconcerningproduct(Shenetal2009).FromBlijlevens(2010)researchwherenoeffectwasfoundforatypical(a‐typical)productinana‐typical(typical)context,theconclusioncanbedrawnthatassimilationandcontrasteffectswillnotalwaysoccurintuitively. The effect of personal preferences however still is an interesting factor. Thiswill beillustratedfurtheroninthispaper.

TYPICALITY

Typicality (goodnessofexample)andnovelty (stateofnewness)areshowntoberelatedwith the aesthetic preference of human artefacts. Since typical products are rarely new, andinnovative products are rarely typical, they seem to have a negative effect on one another. Inother words, both are positively related to a high product appraisal, but they are negativelyrelatedtoeachother.Thisiswhytheyhavetobeinbalancetominimizetheirmutualsuppressingeffectsandmaximizetheaestheticappraisal.ThisisknownastheMAYAprinciple(mostadvanced,yet acceptable) (Hekkert et al, 2003). Innovative products are new and stand apart from thetypicalproducts. AccordingtoWardandLoken(1987),theproductwiththehighestproductappraisalistheproductwiththebestsetofsalientattributes.Somestudies,however,showimportantexceptionstothetypicalityorpreferencerelationship.WardandLoken(1987)foundthatconsumersseekingvariety,prestigeorscarcity,negativelyvaluedtypicality.Insuchcases,productuniquenessinsteadofproducttypicalitywilldriveconsumerpreference.Sotypicalitydoesn’thavetobeofsignificantvalue,thereareofcoursemorefactorsthatinfluencethefinalproductappraisal

CONTEXT

Certain characteristics of stimuli have a significant absolute impact on individuals, forexample the attention given to a loud noise, the effect of stimuli is often moderated by thecontextinwhichthestimuliappear.Stimuliwithcharacteristicsthatcontrastwiththoseofotherstimuliintheenvironmentaremorelikelytoattractconsumers'attention.(Garber,1995) Froma researchdonebyBlijlevensetal (2010), it is found thata typicalproductappearanceisperceivedaslesstypicalwithinatypicalcontextthanjudgedinisolationandthat,asa result, the aesthetic appraisal of this typical product appearance is negatively influenced.Furthermore, it is found that an atypical product appearance within an atypical context isperceived to bemore typical, and therefore, ismore positively appraised thanwhen judged inisolation. These contrast effectsof contextonlyoccurwhenaproduct appearance ispresentedwithinacontextcongruenttotheproduct’stypicalitylevel. Whenlaunchingaproductinanewmarket,itbecomesmorecomplicated,hereitdependsifthemarketwherethenewproductwillappearinisheterogeneousorhomogeneous.Typicalityandthecontextfitaremoreimportantwhenthecategorywherethebrandextensionisfoundisin a heterogeneous market than in a homogenous market. (M. Seltene, 2008) E.g. a pack ofcookiescanbeusedindifferentsituations.Theycanbeeatenwithcoffeeortea,asasnackwhilewatchingamovieorforspecialoccasionslikeabirthday,thisbringsdifferentreasonsforbuyingtheproduct.Thismarketisfarmoreheterogeneousthane.g.alipbalm,whichcanonlyreallybeusedforchappedlips.Contextoftheplacedmarketplaysthenaroleintheproductappraisal. AccordingtoJensen(1999),companieswillneedtounderstandthattheirproductsmaybeless important than their stories. Storytellers specialized in the art of transmitting humanemotions, will then need to have a voice in the design process. He adds that designers and

4

engineersmay abandon ingenious technical enhancements, if they cannot be integrated into aproduct'sstory.

INDIVIDUAL PREFERENCE

Consumershaveacertainstyle,apersonaltastethatreflectsinthetypesofproductstheyarebuying.Theycanlikeaproductforallkindofreasonse.g.thefeatures,thedesign,whatandwhoitisassociatedwithetc.Inadvertisingaproductisalwaysshowninacontext.Theadvertisertriestocreateacertainatmosphere,whichshouldattracttheirtargetgroup.Fromvisualart, tomusic,toliteraturethesearethefeaturesthatendearthemtopeople.But,thesefeatureshave,inadditionandalways,spillovereffectsonthoseitemsofconsumptionthatarethoughtofassemi‐luxuriesorsemi‐durables.Thesespillovereffectscanbedismissedasbeyondthescopeofrationalmodels,ortheycanbeanalyzedandexplained,providedonlythatrationalityisallowedtoincludealsothecognitiveandaffectiveproblemsthatarisewhennoveltyenters.(Bianchi,M2002) Aproductexpressesvalues,thatareinterpretandrankedbyindividualstoacertainsocialcontext in terms of acceptance or rejection, linking or disliking (Wikström, 1996). According toGriffin (1999) this emotional response is not an automatic response to an object, a thing, or asituation.It isanautomaticresponse(deepinsideourbrain)tothethoughtsthatareassociatedwiththesituationortheobject.Thefollowingdiagramshowstheflowofanemotionalresponse:

Fig. 2. Emotional Response flow (Demirbilek, 2003) Griffin(1999)separatesknowledge(thoughts,beliefs,values,andattitudes)andemotionsintotwodifferentcategoriesofreactions.Thesearecloselyrelatedandcannotfunctionwithouteachother.Peoplelearnthroughtheirexperiencesandtheirculture.Thislearningprocessstartsvery early in childhood and is anongoingprocess (Piaget, 1990). This view is supportedby theconceptual model of Bloch (1995), although he perceives an extra dimension, which isunchangeable: innate (design) preferences. People’s thoughts, attitudes, beliefs, and values canchangeovertime.Theemotionalresponse,orreactiontomeaning,triggeredbyaproduct,variesfor people with different backgrounds, e.g. social class, educational level, religion, etc. Theattributesthatdesignerscouldusetoenhancedesiredfeelingsandemotionsinproductsmaywellbe hidden in childhood socialization, when their main beliefs, values and thoughts are takingshape (Demirbilek, 2003). Asanexample to illustrate influenceofe.g. socio‐cultural factorsonproductappraisal; in the1960swhen refrigeratorswere introduced inSouth India, interestwasverylow.Foodrefrigerationconflictedwithlocalideologyandhealthtraditions(Wilhite,2008).So

5

the refrigerator was not disliked because of malfunction or design, but simply because of notfitting their life ideology. This is an exaggerated example, but it shows how a product can bedisliked,simplybecauseitdoesn’tfitaperson’s(ofae.g.socialclass)lifeorstyle. Exceptfromvisualpreferencesusershave,thereisalsosomethingthatcanbecalledbrandpreference,more focused on brand image as a product of experienceswith products from thesamebrand.Fromthestartaproductorabrandhasacertainappraisalbyconsumers,andeverynewproducttheybringoutwillbeevaluatedwiththatimpressionintheirsubconscious.Ifabrandis favourably evaluated and the extended product is considered close to it, than the inverseattitude of the consumer can be transferred and the extension will be evaluated positively(CegarraandMerunka,1993).AlsoRatheswaretal(1990)showthatstimulithathaverelevanceforconsumershave lowerperceptual thresholds,andassuch induce fasterorientingresponses.Opportunitytoprocessbrandrelatedinformationisoneofthekeyfactorsdistinguishedinrecentresearchonadvertisingeffectiveness, inwhichhighopportunity toprocessshould leadtomorefavourablebrandandproductattitudes(RobbenandPoiesz,1993). It wouldn’t be hard to imagine that users still favour a product they like more than aproductthatishighlytypical.Itisevenpossiblethattheindividualpreferenceforaproductstyle(e.g. classical ormodern) suppresses the typicality effects (where typicality is proven positivelyrelatedtoproductappraisal(Blijlevens,2010)).Ourresearchwillstudythisrelation.

6

HYPOTHESES & DESIGN

HYPOTHESES

Blijlevensetal(2010)concludedthattypicalproductsareappraisedhigherthana‐typicalproducts, leaving individual preference out of the question. To test the importance of thesecontext related findings in respect to the individual preferences, the following hypotheses aremade:

H1: Atypicalproductinanon‐preferredcontextislowerappraisedthaninisolation.H2: Atypicalproductinapreferredcontextishigherappraisedthatinisolation.H3: Ana‐typicalproductinanon‐preferredcontextislowerappraisedthaninisolation.H4: Ana‐typicalproductinapreferredcontextishigherappraisedthaninisolation.Also:H5: Atypicalproductinapreferredcontextishigherappraisedthanatypicalproductin

anon‐preferredcontext. H6: Ana‐typicalproductinapreferredcontextishigherappraisedthanana‐typical productinanon‐preferredcontext.

DESIGN

In the research it will be tested if individual preference is a more important factor inaesthetic appraisal than typicality. Personal preference is the independent variable. It ismoderatingaestheticappraisal.Ourresearch,theoryandhypotheses,arepresentedinthefiguresbelow.Inshort,preferredcontexthasapositiveeffectonuserresponse,butdoesn’toverrulethetypicalityeffect.

Fig. 3. Two by two design table of our research

7

Atwo‐by‐twodesignresearch,givesfoursituationstotest.Toavoidprimingorinfluencingthe subjectwith any other pictures than just fromone situation, the test for every situation isdonewithadifferentgroupofparticipants(betweensubjectsdesign).

Fig. 4. Research model

DEFINITIONS

Individualpreference:towhatextendasubjectlikesordislikessomething(more)basedontheirthoughts,beliefsandattitudes.Context:thetotalpictureaproductisplacedin.Productappraisal(alsoaestheticappraisal):towhatextendthesubjectlikesaproduct.(Perceived)typicality:thedegreetowhichanobjectisrepresentativeofacategoryorameasureofgoodness‐of‐example(Hekkertetal,2003)Style:General design category, for this research preferably existing of two clear opposites. E.g.Classicvs.Modern,Organicalvs.Mathematical,Realisticvs.Abstract.

8

METHOD

PRETEST

For the main test a typical and an a‐typical water bottle was necessary. We found 2pictures andmanipulated these so that they had the same characteristics, but stillwere foundtypicaloratypical.Wepre‐tested(N=15,meanage=27,SD=11)thestimulionperceivedtypicalityandfunctionality(Within‐design).Wetestedintotal5bottles(2typical‐and3a‐typicalbottles).TheresultsfromaRepeatedMeasuresbetweenthetypicalanda‐typicalbottleshowedin(fig.5)on distinctiveness (MD=‐2.67, p<0.001), predictable (MD=‐3.47, p<0.001), difference (MD=‐3.7,p<0.001) and normality (MD=‐3.13, p<0.001) gave us two bottles, which differ significantly ontypicality.Theycouldn’tdifferonfunctionalitysowealsodidaRepeatedMeasuresontheitemsfunctionality(MD=‐1.33,p<0.230),usability(MD=‐1.13,p<0.060)andquality(MD=‐0.467,p<1.00).Thebottleswerenotsignificantdifferentontheseitems,socanbeusedinthemain‐test.

Fig. 5. A-typical and Typical water bottle.

9

We also pre‐tested the contexts, in a between design (Active‐scenes Test; N=14, meanage=35,SD=16&Rustic‐scenestest;N=14,meanage=36,SD=16).Wetested8scenesintotal(3active‐and5 rustic scenes)AOne‐wayANOVAshowedthat thescenes (fig.6)differonactivity(F(1,25)=6.129,p=0.02)andontypicality(F(1,25)=8.943,p=0.006).

Sincepeoplepreferatypeofvacation(inthiscaserelaxingandactivevacationswereused)wewanttoseeifthispreferenceinfluencestheaestheticappraisalofthebottle.Thetypicalityofthe bottle, the typicality of the nature scene, the type of vacation a scene reflects, and nosignificantdistinctiononfunctionalityincaseofthebottleswillbepre‐tested. Thesewereplacedinanaturalvacationscenewithamountain;thissceneisrustic(typical)oractive(a‐typical).Incombiningthebottleswiththenaturalscenes,therewerefourimages,oneofatypical[a‐typical]bottleinatypical[a‐typical]sceneandanatypical[typical]bottleinatypical[a‐typical] scene. This is necessary for the research of Blijlevens et al. in order to verify theirfindings as outlined in the theoretical framework of this paper. In total we had six stimuli, asexplainedinthenextchapter.

MAIN TEST

Fromthepre‐testwederivedsixdifferentstimulitotestourhypotheses.Fourpicturesofthetwobottles,bothwithtwodifferentbackgrounds,andtwobottlesinisolation(fig7.)

Fig 6. Active scene (a-typical) and Rustic scene (typical).

10

Fig. 7: The six final stimuli

11

Thesubjectwasaskedhowtheirattitudewastowardstheproducttheysaw,andhowtheyperceivethetypicalityoftheproduct.LiketheresearchofBlijlevensetal.,perceivedtypicalitywasmeasuredwiththreeitemsbasedonVeryzerandHutchinson(1998)(poorexampleoftheproductcategory – good example of the product category, not predictable – predictable and notconventional – conventional, Cronbach’s α = 0.74), perceived novelty was measured with fiveitems,basedonHekkertetal.(2003)(notoriginal–original,notdifferent–different,notfuturistic–futuristic,notrevolutionary–revolutionaryandnotinnovative–innovative,Cronbach’sα=0.96)and attractivenesswasmeasured using Page andHerr’s (2002) scale from1 (unattractive) to 7(attractive).Besides, J.Blijlevensgaveussomeotherscaleswealsoused.Thereafter itwasalsorequiredtoknowthesubjects’personalpreferences inholidayspending(morerelaxingormoresportive),usingtwo7‐pointscales‘easy‐adventurous’and’relaxing‐sporting’.InappendixAthequestionnairesasusedinthetestcanbefound.RESULTS

In the following table,wepresent some regular information about the results of the sixdifferentquestionnaires.Afterthatwe’lltestourhypotheseswithdecollecteddata.

Questionnaire N Meanage SD #man1.Typicalbottleinrusticscene 14 38 12,6 52.Typicalbottleinactivescene 13 39 10,2 93.A‐typicalbottleinrusticscene 15 38 12,1 64.A‐typicalbottleinactivescene 15 49 14,6 55.Typicalbottleinisolation 15 39 11,6 96.A‐typicalbottleinisolation 15 37 9,2 11

Somereliablescaleswere found.The first is for typicality(usedscales: recognizable,predictable,goodexample, typical,Cronbachsα:0,86), thesecond for likability (usedscales:nice,attractive,likeable,Cronbachsα:0,83).Unfortunately,wedidn’tfoundareliablescaleforthe combination of ‘easy‐adventurous’ and ’relaxing‐sportive’. For we regard the scale ‘easy‐adventurous’themostrepresenting,weusedthisonetocalculateOneWayANOVA’sinordertofind effects. For this measuring we combined the two questionnaires with typical or a‐typicalbottles,treatingpeoplewholikeaneasyholidayintherusticversionthesameaspeoplewholikean activeholiday in the active version.We leavepeoplewho filled in a 4 out of themeasures. Looking at H1 and H2 (typical bottle), no effects were found (F(3,38)=0,757, p=0,525).MoreorlessthesameresultscanbeaccountedforH3andH4(F(3,41)=0,624,p=0,603).LookingatH5andH6,bothinthetypical(F(2,24)=0,738,p=0,489)asintheatypical(F(2,27)=1,11,p=0,34)noeffectswerefoundeither.Allthehypothesesarethereforenotsignificantlysupportedbytestresults.

TYPICALITY Tocheckthetheoryofwhichthisresearchisderivedfrom,anIndependent‐SamplesT‐testwasperformedtocheckthetypicalityandtheproductaestheticappraisalofthewaterbottle.TheT‐test’sweredonebetweenthetypical(a‐typical)bottlein isolation,thetypical(a‐typical)bottle

12

in the rustic context (also perceived as typical) and the typical (a‐typical) bottle in the activecontext(alsoperceivedasa‐typical). AT‐testshowedthatthereisasignificantdifferenceintypicalitybetweenthetypicalbottleandthea‐typicalbottle(both in isolation)namelyt(27)= ‐4,438p=0,000.Onaestheticappraisalwasn’tfoundanysignificantdifferencebetweenthebottles(t(28)=0,311p=0,758). InasecondT‐testfortypicalityandaestheticappraisal,betweenthegroupstypicalbottlein isolation and typical bottle in a typical context, wasn’t found any significant difference fortypicality(t(27)=‐0,959p=0,346)norforaestheticappraisal(t(27)=‐1,331p=0,194). ThelastT‐testfortypicalityandaestheticappraisal,betweenthegroupsa‐typicalbottleinisolation and a‐typical bottle in an a‐typical context, also showed no significant differencesbetweenthetwogroupsfortypicality(t(27)=0,403p=0,690)norforaestheticappraisal(t(28)=‐0,645p=0,524).

DISCUSSION & CONCLUSION

Theoutcomeofthisresearch(H1toH4)showsthatitdoesn’tmatterwhatkindofcontexttheproductisplacedin,becauseitwillnotbeaestheticallyappraisedhigherorlowerifthecontextisinfavouroftherespondent.Thoughthisisstillinterestingbecauseinthisresearchweusedsimilartypesofcontextsasinnaturalsceneswithamountainandwaterinfrontofit.Itispossiblethat,whenwedifferentiatethetwocontextsmore(e.g.acontextwithamountainwithwaterandacontextwithabeachandthesea)theeffectbecomesvisiblebecausepeopleprobablyhaveastrongeropinionwhentheyhavetochoosebetweenasunnybeachvacationandasummerintheAlps.Thiscanbeaninterestingnextstepforthisresearch. Therecanbevariousreasonsforthehypothesisesnottobesupportedsignificantlybythetests.Thebottlefitswellwiththebackgroundinboth(rusticandadventurous)contexts,whereitispossiblethattheadventurousbackgroundlosesitsadventurousvaluewhenabottleofwaterisshown(abackpackcanforexampleincreasetheadventurousvalueofthewholeimage).Itcanbeinterestingtorepeatthisresearchwithbackpacksinsteadofthewaterbottles(thebackpacksfailedthistimeinthepre‐testtobeaproperstimuliinthemain‐testduetolackoftimerelatedtothedeadlines). TYPICALITY FollowsthetheoryofBlijlevensetal.(2010)atypicalproductinatypicalcontextisperceivedaslesstypicalandalsoloweraestheticallyappraisedthanatypicalproductinisolation.Meanwhileana‐typicalproductinana‐typicalcontextisperceivedmoretypicalandisaestheticallyappraisedhigherthanana‐typicalproductinisolation. Inthemaintestthedifferenceintypicalitybetweenthetwobottlesisconfirmed,thoughtheabovetheoryhasnotbeenproven.Thedecreasingoftheperceivedtypicalityandtheaestheticappraisalofatypicalproductinatypicalcontextcomparedtoatypicalproductinisolationisnotproveninthistest.Northeincreasingoftheperceivedtypicalityandtheaestheticappraisalofana‐typicalproductinana‐typicalcontextcomparedtoana‐typicalproductinisolationisnotproven. SincethistheoryisprovenbyBlijlevensetal.therecanbedifferentreasonswhythistimethetheoryisnotright.Blijlevensusedacontextofdifferentpictures,whereheretheproductwasplaceddirectlyinacontext(anaturalbackground).Itisalsopossiblethatthesoperceiveda‐

13

typicalbackgroundisnotsoa‐typicalanymorewithabottleofwaterinit(thebackgroundfitsthebottlewhenthisisanadvertfore.g.amineralwater).Thiscanbeanimportantdifference. Thefinalstimuliofthemain‐testcouldhavebeenpicturesfore.g.arealisticprintadvertisement,sothisresearchhassimulatedarealisticsituation.Thoughwedidn’tfindanysignificanceonourhypothesises,noronthetypicalitytheorythiscanbeofthedifferenceofthisresearchwithpreviousdonetests.Respondentsarenotprimedortheproductisnotplacedinacontextofotherproducts.Thiscanalsobeareasonfortheotherfindings.THE RESEARCH ITSELF Itisalwayspossiblethatthereareinaccuraciesinthisresearch,whichcanhavehadsomeinfluencesontheoutcomesofthetests.Oursampleswerenotverylarge(15resp.perstimuli)andwhentherespondentsweredividedinthetwogroupsof,inpreferenceofthecontextandnotinpreferenceofthecontext,thesamplebecameevensmaller(duetopeoplewhodidn’thaveaclearopiniononifthelikeaadventurousorrusticvacation). It’salsopossiblethatbecauseoftheparticipantsnotgettinganycompensationfortheirtime,didn’tfillinthequestionnairesverycarefully.Sometimesitseemedthatpeopledidn’tunderstandtheitemsverywell.Conventionalwasletopenacoupleoftimesandalsothereweresomerespondentswhohadaverydifferentopinionthantheothersontheitemstypicality,characteristicandgoodexampleoftheproductgroupabouttheplasticbottle.Itcanbethattheydohaveadifferentopinion,butittendedtothattheydidn’tunderstandthemeaningoftheitemverywellandratedthebottletheotherwayaround.

14

REFERENCES

Allport,GordonW.(1935), “Attitudes,” InC.Murchison(Ed.),HandbookofSocialPsychology (pp.798‐884).Worcester,MA:ClarkUniversityPress.Bagozzi,RichardP .,&Burnkrant,RobertE . (1979),Attitudeorganizationand theattitude behaviorrelationship.JournalofPersonalityandSocialPsychology,37,913‐929.Bagozzi,RichardP.,&Burnmkrant,RobertE.(1985).Attitudeorganizationandtheattitude‐ behavior relation:A reply to Dillon and Kumar. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,49,47‐57.Bianchi,Marina(2002),“Novelty,PreferencesandFashion:WhenGoodsAreUnsettling,”Journal ofEconomicBehaviour&Organization,47(1)1‐18BlijlevensJ.,GerdaGemserandRuthMugge,(2010),”Theimportanceofbeing‘wellplaced’:The influence of context on perceived typicality and aesthetic appraisal of product appearance,”TUDelftBloch,PeterH.(1995),“SeekingtheIdealForm:ProductDesignandConsumerResponse”Journal ofMarketing,59(3)16‐29Cegarra. J.J. and Merunka, D. (1993), “Les extensions de marquee: concepts et modeles”, RechercheetApplicationsenMarketing,Vol.8No.1pp.53‐76Demirbilek,O (2003), “Productdesign, semantics andemotional response”,Ergonomics, vol. 46 nos.13/14pp.1346‐1360Eagly, Alice H., & Chaiken, Shelly. (1993), “The psychology of attitudes.,”Fort Worth, TX: HarcourtBraceJovanovich,Inc.Fazio, Russell H.(1991), “Multiple processes by which attitudes guide behavior: The mode model as an integrative framework,” InM. P. Zanna (Ed.),Advances in experimental socialpsychology(Vol.23,pp75‐109),NewYork:AcademicGarber,L.L.,(1995),“Thepackageappearanceinchoice,”AdvancesinConsumerResearchvol.22, 653‐661.Griffin, T (1999), Semantic communication through products, http://www.acs.ucalgary.ca/~tgriffin/index2.htm(19‐02‐2001)Hekkert, Paul, Dirk Snelders and Piet C. W. van Wieringen (2003), “Most advanced, Yet acceptable:Typicality andNovelty as joint predictersof aesthetic preference in industrial design,”Britishjournalofpsychology94(1),pp.111‐24.Jensen,R(1999),“TheDreamSociety:Howthecomingshiftfrominformationtoimaginationwill transformyourbusiness”,NewYork:McGraw‐HillPage, Christine and Paul M. Herr (2002), “An investigation of the processes by which Product DesignandBrandStrength Interact toDetermine InitialAffect andQuality Judgements,” JournalofConsumerPsychology,12(2),133‐47.Piaget,J(1990),“Thechild’sconceptionoftheworld”,NewYork:LittlefieldAdamsRatheswar, S., D. Mick and G. Reitinger, (1990), “Selective attention in consumer information processing:theroleofchronicallyaccessibleattributes,”AdvancesinConsumerResearch. vol.17,547‐553.Robben, H.S.J. and T.B.C. Poiesz, (1993), “The operationalization of motivation, capacity and opportunitytoprocessandadvertisingimage,”EuropeanAdvancesinConsumerResearch, 1,pp.160‐167.RobertW.VeryzerJR.J.WeslyHutchinson,(1998),“TheinfluenceofUnityandPrototypicalityon AestheticResponsestoNewProductDesigns”Journalofconsumerresearchvol.24Seltene,M.andO.Brunel(2008),“Brandextension:themoderatingroleofthecategorytowhich

15

thebrandextensionisfound,”JournalofProduct&Management,Vol.17,No.6,2008,pp. 393‐402Shen,H.,Jiang,Y.andAdaval,R.(2009),“Contrastandassimilationeffectsofprocessingfluency,” Journalofconsumerresearch,Vol.36.Stapel D. A.,W. Koomen and A. S. Velthuijsen, (1998), “Assimilation or Contrast?: Comparison Relevance, Distinctness, and the Impact of Accessible Information on Consumer Judgments,”Journalofconsumerpsychology,vol.7(1),pp.1‐24Stewart,D.W. andD.H. Furse, (1986), “Effective TVAdvertising:A Studyof 1000Commercials”. Lexington,MA:Lexington.Ward, J.C. and B. Loken, (1987), “The generality of typicality effects on preference and comparison:Anexploratorytest.”AdvancesinConsumerResearchvol.15,pp.55‐61.Wikström, L (1996), “Methods for evaluation of products’ semantics”, PhD thesis, Sweden ChalmersUniversityofTechnologyWilhite,H (2008),Newthinkingon theagentive relationshipbetweenend‐use technologiesand energy‐usingpractises.EnergyEfficiency20081(2):pp.121‐130.Zajonc, Robert B. (1980), ”Feeling and thinking: Preferences need no inferences,”American Psychologist,35,151‐175.

16

APPENDIX A. Bestedeelnemer,

DitonderzoekwordtuitgevoerddoordeFaculteitIndustrieelOntwerpenvandeTUDelft.Hetdoelisominzichttekrijgeninhetbeoordelenvanhetuiterlijkvanproducten.Hetonderzoekbestaatuiteenafbeeldingvaneenwaterflesineennatuurlijkeomgevingeneenbeoordelingslijst,hetonderzoektduurtintotaalongeveer10minutenomintevullen.Erwordtzorgvuldigmetuwantwoordenomgegaanenzewordenanoniemverwerkt.

Voorhetbeantwoordenvandevragenisdeonderstaandeinformatienoodzakelijk.Leesdezeaandachtigdoor.

Indevragenlijstwordtugevraagddegetoondeafbeeldingtebeoordelenophoerepresentatief,functioneel,engebruiksvriendelijkhetis,metbetrekkingtothetuiterlijk.Hieronderstaateenkorteuitlegvanwaterspecifiekmetdezewoordenbedoeldwordt.Voorbeeldvoordeproductcategorie

Productendiedezelfdefunctiehebbenkunnentochverschilleninuitstraling.Zokunnenproductendieerstandaard,karakteristiekofkenmerkenduitzienookweleengoedvoorbeeldvandeproductcategoriewordengenoemd.ProductA,indeafbeeldinghiernaast,voldoetaandezevoorwaarden.Ditproductheefteenkenmerkenduiterlijkvoordeproductcategoriegitaren.

ProductAProductB

Productenkunnenookeenslechtvoorbeeldvandecategoriezijn,zoalsproductBvandecategoriegitaren.Dezehebbeneenuiterlijkdatjuistnietkenmerkendvoordeproductcategorieis.Dezeproductenwordenvaakookbeschrevenalsorigineel,bijzonder,apartofrevolutionair.

Functioneel

Eenfunctioneelproductvervultdetaken,waarvoorhetproductgemaaktis,naarbehoren.Eenniet‐functioneelproductvervultdetaken,waarvoorhetaangeschaftis,nietofnietnaarbehoren.

GebruiksvriendelijkProductenwaarbijopeerstegezichtduidelijkishoezegebruiktmoetenworden,wordengebruiksvriendelijkgenoemd.Productenwaarvanhetnietduidelijkishoehetgebruiktmoetworden,zijnnietgebruiksvriendelijkgenoemd.

Alvasthartelijkbedanktvooruwtijdenmoeite.

Metvriendelijkegroet,

MartinvanDrunenenNicovanAken

17

Productuiterlijk

Inditonderdeelwordtereendooronsontworpenafbeeldinggetoond.Hierbijwordenwoordengenoemdmetbetrekkingtothetuiterlijkvanhetproduct.Ukuntdooreencijferaanteklikkenaangeveninwelkemateuditwoordmetdeafbeeldingassocieert.

Voorbeeld:

Alsuhetproducteenvrolijkeuitstralingvindthebben,vinktuhethokje5,6of7aan,afhankelijkvandematewaarinuhetproductvrolijkvindt.(Alsuhetproductnieteenvrolijkeuitstralingvindthebbenvinktuhethokje1,2of3aan.)

Nietvrolijk 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Vrolijk

18

Afbeeldingvanstimuli(1vande6)

19

Productuiterlijk

Hieronderzijnwoordengenoemdmetbetrekkingtothetuiterlijkvanhetwaterflesje.Kuntuaangeven,dooreenhokjeaanvinken,inwelkemateuditwoordassocieertmethetproduct

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1. Nietkenmerkend О О О О О О О Kenmerkend

2. Nietvoorspelbaar О О О О О О О Voorspelbaar

3. Gunstig О О О О О О О Ongunstig

4. Nietgebruiksvriendelijk О О О О О О О Gebruiksvriendelijk

5. Nietaantrekkelijk О О О О О О О Aantrekkelijk

6. Nietkarakteristiek О О О О О О О Karakteristiek

7. Slechtvoorbeeldvandeproductcategorie

О О О О О О О Goedvoorbeeldvandeproductcategorie

8. Negatief О О О О О О О Positief

9. Nietfunctioneel О О О О О О О Functioneel

10. Mooi О О О О О О О Lelijk

11. Nietconventioneel О О О О О О О Conventioneel

12. Spreektmijnietaan О О О О О О О Spreektmijaan

13. Nietorigineel О О О О О О О Origineel

14. Niettypisch О О О О О О О Typisch

15. Nietrevolutionair О О О О О О О Revolutionair

16. Nietinnovatief О О О О О О О Innovatief

17. Lagekwaliteit О О О О О О О Hogekwaliteit

18. Nietnormaal О О О О О О О Normaal

19. Nietfuturistisch О О О О О О О Futuristisch

20. Goed О О О О О О О Slecht

21. Nietanders О О О О О О О Anders

22. Aantrekkelijk О О О О О О О Onaantrekkelijk

20

Pesoonlijkevragen:

Geslacht: M V

Geboortejaar: 19......

Achtergrondmetdesign: Nee

Ja,namelijk;.........................................................................

Opvakantiehoudikvan:

rust 1234567 avontuurrelaxen 1234567 sporten