Different Roles of Product Appearance in Consumer Choice

The Different Roles of Product Appearance in Consumer Choice�

Marielle E. H. Creusen and Jan P. L. Schoormans

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 appear-

ance of products, the present study identified the different ways in which the ap-

pearance 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 con-

sumers are identified: (1) communication of aesthetic, (2) symbolic, (3) function-

al, 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 (N5 142) it was tested whether these roles indeed exist in con-

sumers’ 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 in-

sight into these roles was gained. After making a choice between two answering ma-

chines, 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 di-

minish 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 func-

tional—differed between subjects. One person may like a rounded shape, while an-

other 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

Address correspondence to: Marielle E. H. Creusen, Delft University of Technology, Faculty of Industrial Design Engineering, Department ofProduct Innovation and Management, Landbergstraat 15, 2628 CE Delft, The Netherlands. Email: [email protected].�We are grateful to the editor of this article, Abbie Griffin, as her comments significantly changed and improved this article.

J PROD INNOV MANAG 2005;22:63–81r 2005 Product Development & Management Association

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 prod-

uct appearance better to market needs, as the roles have different and sometimes

even conflicting implications for the design of the product appearance.

Introduction

Product design is an opportunity for differential

advantage in the marketplace (e.g., Hammer,

1995; Kotler and Rath, 1984; Lobach, 1976;

Lorenz, 1986; Pilditch, 1976; Veryzer, 1995). A num-

ber of companies successfully focus on product design

as a competitive tool (see, e.g., Dumaine, 1991;

Nussbaum, 1993; Smith, 1994). Several studies indi-

cate the influence of good product design on com-

mercial success (e.g., Black and Baker, 1987; Bruce

and Whitehead, 1988; Gemser and Leenders, 2001;

Roy, 1994; Thackara, 1997). Yamamoto and Lambert

(1994) showed that even for industrial products, ap-

pearance has an influence on product preference.

But what does this mean in practice? Which prod-

uct design will lead to commercial success? To be able

to define some guidelines that can be used in new

product development (NPD), it is necessary to look at

the role of product design in consumer evaluation.

First, it must be recognized that this role is com-

plex and diverse. There are a number of ways in

which product design influences consumer preference

(Bloch, 1995). The design of a product determines

consumers’ first impression of the product and quick-

ly can communicate product advantage. In addition,

the design of a product will generate consumer infer-

ences regarding several product attributes (Berkowitz,

1987; Bloch, 1995; Pilditch, 1976). Furthermore,

product appearance can provide value in itself;

many people like to buy a product that looks aesthet-

ically pleasing. As the influence of product design on

consumer evaluation is often complex, it is difficult to

decide upon during the product development process.

For example, a product with bright colors may be

valued aesthetically, but these same colors may give

consumers the idea that the product is of low quality.

To be able to give guidelines for design following

from its influence on consumer product evaluations, it

is necessary first to answer the question of what ex-

actly constitutes the value of a product design for

consumers. In order to answer this question, the

present article begins with an overview of the differ-

ent roles of the product design in the purchase deci-

sion of consumers. More precisely, the influence of

what consumers see of the product—that is, its exte-

rior—in making a purchase decision will be described.

Therefore, the term product appearance instead of

product design will be used, as the design of a prod-

uct also refers to product parts that consumers cannot

see (i.e., the interior of the product). On the basis of a

literature review and a large qualitative study, the im-

plications of these roles for product design and prod-

uct development are described.

Product Appearance and Consumer Product

Evaluation: A Literature Review

This section describes the roles of product appearance

in the process of consumer evaluation and choice.

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCHES

Dr. Marielle E. H. Creusen is assistant professor of consumer re-

search with the Faculty of Industrial Design Engineering at Delft

University of Technology in The Netherlands. She received an

M.Sc. in economic psychology from Tilburg University and a

Ph.D. from Delft University of Technology. She has published in

journals such as the International Journal of Research in Marketing

and Advances in Consumer Research. Her current research interests

include consumer research methods in product development and

the influence of product appearance factors on consumer product

preference.

Dr. Jan P. L. Schoormans is professor of consumer research with

the Faculty of Industrial Design Engineering at Delft University of

Technology in The Netherlands. He received an M.Sc. and Ph.D. in

economic psychology from Tilburg University. He has published in

journals such as the Journal of Product Innovation Management,

Design Studies, International Journal of Research in Marketing,

Journal of Economic Psychology, and Advances in Consumer Re-

search. His current research interests include consumer research

methods in the product development process.

64 J PROD INNOV MANAG2005;22:63–81

M. E. H. CREUSEN AND J. P. L. SCHOORMANS

For this aim, literature in the fields of product

development, product design, consumer behavior,

marketing, and human factors has been searched.

The literature shows that the visual appearance of a

product can influence consumer product evaluations

and choice in several ways. Several authors considered

the role of product or package appearance in con-

sumer product evaluation or choice (Bloch, 1995;

Garber, 1995; Garber et al., 2000; Veryzer, 1993;

Veryzer, 1995). However, they did not discuss explic-

itly the different ways in which appearance influences

consumer choice and their respective implications for

product design. In addition to these more recent con-

tributions to the literature, the functions of a product

in consumer–product interaction are described in ear-

lier industrial design literature (Lobach, 1976; Pil-

ditch, 1976; Schurer, 1971). Several of these functions

concern product appearance. There are differences

between authors in the number of roles (i.e., func-

tions) of product appearance they distinguish and the

terms they use. For example, communication of ease

of use was mentioned by Bloch (1995) and was de-

scribed as part of the aesthetic function by Lobach

(1976), while Veryzer (1995) called it the communica-

tive function of a product appearance. If all the roles

mentioned in the literature are considered as a whole,

the following six roles of product appearance for con-

sumers can be distinguished: (1) communication of

aesthetic, (2) symbolic, (3) functional, and (4) ergo-

nomic product information; (5) attention drawing;

and (6) categorization. A description of these six roles

and their implications for product design follows.

Product Appearance and Aesthetic Product Value

The aesthetic value of a product pertains to the pleas-

ure derived from seeing the product, without consid-

eration of utility (Holbrook, 1980). A consumer can

value the ‘‘look’’ of a product purely for its own sake,

as looking at something beautiful is rewarding in it-

self. When product alternatives are similar in func-

tioning and price, consumers will prefer the one that

appeals the most to them aesthetically (see, for exam-

ple, Figure 1). Aesthetic responses are primarily emo-

tional or feeling responses, and as such they are very

personal (Bamossy et al., 1983).

Several researchers have tried to determine prop-

erties of products that are related to aesthetic appre-

ciation. Innate preferences are proposed for visual

organization principles, such as unity (i.e., congruence

in elements), proportion (e.g., ‘‘the Golden Section’’),

and symmetry (Hekkert, 1995; Muller, 2001; Veryzer,

1993; Veryzer and Hutchinson, 1998), and an inverted

U-shaped relation is proposed between aesthetic

preference and complexity (Berlyne, 1971). Another

property influencing aesthetic judgments is color. The

desirability of a color will change according to the

object to which it is applied (e.g., a car or a table) and

with the style of the object (e.g., modern or Georgian)

(Whitfield and Wiltshire, 1983).

In addition to (innate) preferences for certain prop-

erties of stimuli, prototypicality is found to influence

the aesthetic response. Prototypicality is the degree to

which something is representative of a category (see

also the section about categorization). In several stud-

ies, evidence is found for a positive influence of vis-

ual prototypicality on aesthetic preference (Hekkert,

1995; Veryzer and Hutchinson, 1998; Whitfield and

Slatter, 1979). According to Hekkert et al. (2003),

products with an optimal combination of prototypi-

cality and novelty are preferred aesthetically.

As well as the product-related characteristics pre-

viously mentioned, there are cultural, social, and per-

sonal influences on design taste. For example, color

preferences differ between cultures and in time (Whit-

field and Wiltshire, 1983). In addition, personal fac-

tors, such as design acumen, prior experience, and

personality influence the design taste of consumers

(Bloch, 1995).

The influence of an aesthetic judgment on product

preference can be moderated by the perceived aes-

thetic fit of the product with other products the con-

sumer owns, or his or her home interior (Bloch, 1995).

Figure 1. Mobile Phones Differing in Their Aesthetic Appear-

ance (reprinted with permission from Nokia Corporation)

PRODUCT APPEARANCE AND CONSUMER CHOICE J PROD INNOV MANAG2005;22:63–81

65

Consumers may like a product’s appearance but may

not buy it because it does not fit aesthetically with

their home interior.

Product Appearance and Symbolic Product Value

Consumer goods carry and communicate symbolic

meaning (McCracken, 1986). Symbolic value even can

be the key determinant for product selection (Hirsch-

man and Holbrook, 1982) and can account for the

selection of products that clearly are inferior in their

tangible characteristics (Levy, 1959). An example of

the latter is Philippe Starck’s Juicy Salif lemon squeezer

(Lloyd and Snelders, 2003). The choice for a specific

product or brand may convey the kind of person

someone is or wants to be; consumers use products to

express their (ideal) self-image to themselves and to

others (Belk, 1988; Landon, 1974; Sirgy, 1982; Solo-

mon, 1983). Symbolic meaning can be attached to a

product or brand on the basis of, among other things,

advertising (McCracken, 1986), country of origin, or

the kind of people using it (Sirgy, 1982). But the prod-

uct itself also can communicate symbolic value in a

more direct way, namely by its appearance.

A product’s appearance communicates messages

(Murdoch and Flurscheim, 1983), as it may look

cheerful, boring, friendly, expensive, rude, or childish

(see, for example, Figure 2). In addition, a certain

style of appearance may evoke associations with a

certain time or place (e.g., the Fifties). Furthermore,

the product or package appearance can reinforce the

image of a brand, as the identity of a brand is ex-

pressed visually in the appearance of products (Sch-

mitt and Simonson, 1997). Consumers may attach the

meaning of a brand to elements of the physical ap-

pearance of products. In this way, a brand image may

transfer to different kinds of products (see the section

about categorization). Many companies therefore

make consistent use of certain design elements, such

as a color combination, a distinctive form element, or

style. For example, car manufacturers often try to

keep different car models recognizable as belonging to

the same brand. The distinctive radiator grill of BMW

automobiles is an example of a recognizable design

element. The linking of brand meaning to elements of

the product appearance will be easier when the asso-

ciations these elements engender by themselves (e.g.,

because they are innate or are determined by culture)

correspond to the desired brand image. For example,

use of bright colors and a large size, which is associ-

ated with aggression (Murdoch and Flurscheim,

1983), will make it easier to position a car brand as

aggressive.

Although there are large individual and time-spe-

cific differences in the experience of color and form,

there are certain associations that seem to be relatively

constant. Overviews of the influence of form and color

on consumer perception of symbolic value (but also

ergonomic and aesthetic value) can be found in Muller

(2001), Murdoch and Flurscheim (1983), Schmitt

and Simonson (1997), and Whitfield and Wiltshire

(1983). For example, angular forms are associated

with dynamism and masculinity, while roundness

evokes softness and femininity (Schmitt and Simon-

son, 1997).

Culture is an important determinant of the inter-

pretations that consumers give and the associations

they have with certain factors of a product’s appear-

ance. For example, color associations vary from cul-

ture to culture (Whitfield and Wiltshire, 1983). In

America and Europe, the color white stands for pu-

rity, and brides traditionally dress in white; in Japan it

Figure 2. Electrical Toothbrushes with an Appearance Sym-

bolizing Use by Children (Right) or Adults (reprinted with

permission from Gillette/Oral-B)



is a color of mourning. Furthermore, meaning is

context dependent. The impression that colors give

may change completely by combining certain colors

(Muller, 2001). Also, the meaning of forms and colors

may change in time, as meanings are continuously

transformed by movements in art, fashion, etcetera

(Muller, 2001).

There is some debate about whether symbolic in-

terpretation is part of the aesthetic experience. In

most literature, aesthetic value is mentioned as both

a hedonic impression and a result of interpretation

and representation (Schmitt and Simonson, 1997;

Vihma, 1995). It is acknowledged in this article that

whether a product is conceived of as beautiful is af-

fected by what it represents (Vihma, 1995). The same

style can be considered ‘‘good taste’’ at one point in

time, while being considered ‘‘bad taste’’ 10 years lat-

er, because the connotations associated with it or the

interpretations given to it have changed. For example,

orange was a modern color for clothes, furniture, and

plastic products in the Seventies, generally was per-

ceived as old-fashioned and ugly in the Eighties, and

became used in products and clothing again in the

Nineties. However, the view in this article is that aes-

thetic and symbolic value should be distinguished, as

they may have opposite influences on preference. For

example, someone who likes a colorful design may not

buy it because it looks ‘‘too childish.’’

Product Appearance and Functional Product Value

The functional value of a product pertains to the util-

itarian functions a product can perform (its use)

(Lobach, 1976; Veryzer, 1995). Products differ in the

degree to which they are suited to perform their basic

utilitarian function, such as communication or trans-

portation, but also in quality (e.g., by the technology

or materials used) and in features. For example, tele-

phones can be purchased with a redial and a hands-

free option. The presence of such options influences

the functional value of the product for consumers. As

well as reading verbal product information or asking

others, consumers may form an impression about

utilitarian functions and product quality on the basis

of a product’s appearance (Bloch, 1995; Dawar and

Parker, 1994).

The utilitarian functions of a product can be di-

rectly obvious from its appearance. A handle indicat-

ed that the product is portable. In addition, product

appearance can be used as a cue to infer more impor-

tant but less readily accessible product attributes

(Berkowitz, 1987; Dawar and Parker, 1994). For ex-

ample, subjects may infer on first sight that a larger

hairdryer has more power than a smaller one (see

Figure 3). Or the appearance as a whole may com-

municate quality by looking reliable or solid (Srini-

vasan et al., 1997; Yamamoto and Lambert, 1994).

Physical product appearance is an important quality

signal for consumers (Dawar and Parker, 1994). As

Dickson (1994) notes, ‘‘There is also something in-

tangible about quality. It resides in the feel, the look,

the sound of an item. We may not be able to explain

it, but we know it when we see it’’ (p. 263). So product

appearance can be used proactively in order to give

consumers a certain impression about the functional

product value.

Product Appearance and Ergonomic Product Value

The ergonomic value of a product (see Lobach, 1976;

Schurer, 1971; Veryzer, 1995) entails the adjustment

of a product to human qualities. Product ergonomics

or ‘‘human factors’’ concerns the comprehensibility

and usability of a product, the suitability to per-

form and correctly to communicate its utilitarian

functions. Technical functions can be implemented

in a product in a more-or-less easy-to-use manner.

Usability entails cognitive aspects of use, such as how

logical a product is to operate, as well as emotional

aspects in that it is not frustrating in operation and

gives an enjoyable usage experience (March, 1994).

Consumers may form an impression about the ease

of use on the basis of the product appearance (e.g.,

Norman, 1988).

Figure 3. A Larger Hair Dryer (Left) Looks More Powerful

(Both are 1875 Watts) (reprinted with permission from Conair

Corporation)


67

Consumers have to experience the operation of a

product in order to judge it adequately. As consumers

often cannot try out products in a shop or when buy-

ing on the Internet, they will use the product appear-

ance to form an indication of the ergonomic product

value (see also Bloch, 1995). By seeing the product,

people form an impression about whether handles are

easy and pleasant to hold and whether buttons will be

easy to use (see Figure 4). In order to influence con-

sumer preference positively, it is not sufficient that a

product be simply easy to use. Consumers also must

perceive the product to be easy to use. The appearance

of the product influences consumer perception of as-

pects such as ease of operation, weight, and stability,

which affect the perceived ease of use of a product.

For example, an upright-shaped product may be de-

signed in such a way that it cannot fall over in normal

use, but consumers may conclude that it is not stable

after seeing it (see Murdoch and Flurscheim, 1983).

Based on this first impression, they may discard the

product. Another example is that a small number of

controls (such as buttons) makes a product look easy

to use (Norman, 1988).

Attention-Drawing Ability of the Product Appearance

Gaining attention is an important first step in ena-

bling consumer product purchase. Attention is the

allocation of information processing capacity to a

stimulus (Engel et al., 1995). When a product stands

out visually from competitive products, chances are

higher that consumers will pay attention to the prod-

uct in a purchase situation, as it ‘‘catches their eye.’’

For food products, the attention-drawing ability of a

package has been found to heighten the probability of

purchase (Garber, 1995; Garber et al., 2000).

In general, the attention-drawing ability of a prod-

uct can be enhanced by increasing its size and by using

bright colors. Furthermore, people attend to stimuli

that contrast with their background and are novel

(unusual or unexpected) (see Engel et al., 1995). Garber

(1995) emphasizes that the visual effect of a product

package is relative to a background comprised of

competitor alternatives. For example, the Philips

‘‘Billy’’ handmixer (see Figure 5, second one from

the left) draws attention because of its bright colors,

which differ from the typical white and other light

colors used in this product category. So in order to

design an eye-catching appearance, product alterna-

tives available on the market—and perhaps even the

purchase environment—should be taken into account.

Product Appearance and Categorization

Consumers may use product appearance for catego-

rization (Bloch, 1995; Veryzer, 1995). The appearance

of a product can influence the ease with which a prod-

uct is categorized and the category to which it will be

assigned. Product identification will be easier when a

product resembles other products in the same catego-

ry, that is, when it is more prototypical of the category

(Loken and Ward, 1990). With respect to product ap-

pearance, this means that it should be more visually

typical. Garber (1995) defined visual typicality as ‘‘the

look or appearance that most consumers would as-

sociate with a product category, and by which they

identify brands that belong to the category’’ (p. 656).

When a product is difficult to categorize based on its

appearance, consumers may not regard the product as

a purchase alternative. For example, there might be

some consumers who do not notice that the Philips

Alessi coffee maker, with its atypical appearance, is a

coffeemaker (see Figure 6, right picture).

Figure 4. An Easy-to-Operate Telephone (Left) and a More

Complex One (reprinted with permission from Hesdo BV,

www.profoon.nl)

Figure 5. The ‘‘Billy’’ Hand Blender Draws Attention In Store

by Its Differentiating Colors



Using verbal product descriptions,Meyers-Levy and

Tybout (1989) found that products that differ slightly

from the prototype are evaluated more positively than

products that are either very typical or very atypical.

Schoormans and Robben (1997) confirmed this for

package appearances; a slightly atypical appearance

catches attention from consumers while remaining ac-

ceptable to them. So in general, an appearance that

differs slightly from the prototype will be preferred. In

some cases, however, strong differentiation from or

strong similarity to the prototype or another product

alternative will be a beneficial strategy. A description of

these cases will be treated later in this article.

For products for which prestige, exclusiveness, or

novelty are important, an atypical appearance is ad-

visable. For such products, preference declines when

it becomes more widely available and thus more typ-

ical, because uniqueness is valued (Ward and Loken,

1988). An atypical appearance also is advisable when

a product must be differentiated from other products

in the category—for example, when there are many

competing alternatives. Strong differentiation even

may lead consumers to consider first the product as

a member of its own individual class (Rosch et al.,

1976, p. 434). Also, new functional attributes are

communicated better by an atypical appearance. Dif-

ferentiation from the category decreases comparison

with other products from the category. As a result,

distinguishing features are noticed better and are

found to be more important (Sujan and Bettman,

1989). For example, the Dyson vacuum cleaner differs

in its appearance from the prototypical vacuum clean-

er, so that consumers more easily perceive its unique

mechanism (see Figure 7).

On the other hand, when consumers do not find the

purchase important or interesting, a typical appear-

ance is advisable (Alba and Hutchinson, 1987). Typ-

ical members of a category tend to be classified more

quickly and accurately (see Loken and Ward, 1990).

Therefore, consumers tend to buy typical category

members in low-involvement purchases, since they

want to minimize their effort (Hoyer, 1984). One

also can design the appearance of a product to re-

semble another well-known and positively valued

product alternative. This heightens the probability

that people evaluate the product based on knowledge

about, or affect toward, the product it resembles,

which is called exemplar-based categorization (Cohen

and Basu, 1987). This strategy may be beneficial when

there is one dominant brand in the category with

which it is difficult to compete.

Similarity to a category prototype or a known ex-

emplar may provide consumers with expectations

about certain product attributes and thereby about

the functional, ergonomic, aesthetic, and/or symbolic

value of the product. Based on previous experience

with Sony products, one may assume for example that

new Sony products are easy to operate without eval-

uating the ease of operation of the specific product at

hand. However, category-based evaluations occur less

often for durables than for fast-moving consumer

goods (Olshavsky and Spreng, 1996). So for du-

rables, consumers will tend to process the available

Figure 6. A Typical (Left) and An Atypical (Right) Coffeemaker

Figure 7. A Differentiating Appearance Underlines the Unique

Mechanism of the Dyson Vacuum Cleaner (reprinted with

permission from Dyson BV)


69

information instead of deriving a judgment from cat-

egorization only.

Product Appearance and Consumers’ Choice

Reasons: An Extensive Qualitative Study

This qualitative study investigated whether the six

roles of product appearance for consumers distin-

guished on the basis of the literature review indeed

do exist in consumers’ product choices. In addition,

it was assessed whether these six roles sufficiently

describe the way in which consumers use product ap-

pearance in making a product choice or whether ad-

ditional roles should be distinguished. Furthermore,

qualitative insight was gained into these roles by look-

ing at the inferences consumers make from aspects of

the product appearance, the extent of difference in

consumer product perceptions based on product

appearance, and the extent to which these roles are

interrelated. Because a relatively large number of re-

spondents were used in this qualitative study, results

were able to be quantified.

Research Method

In a laboratory setting, subjects made a choice be-

tween two product alternatives, after which they were

interviewed about the reasons underlying their choice.

These choice reasons, and the information on which

they are based, are the focus of the study.

Subjects. Subjects (N5 146) were selected from a

consumer household panel. About one-half of them

were males, ranging in age from 18 to 65.

Stimuli. Telephone answering machines were used

as the product in the study. Three answering machines

were bought, of which a subset of two was presented

to each subject. In this way there were three different

choice sets; each of them was presented to about one-

third of the sample. The products themselves were

placed in front of subjects, with accompanying cards

showing textual information about four functional

product characteristics derived from product cata-

logues and in-store information (see Figure 8). This

agrees with the way in which durable products gen-

erally are presented in a purchase situation.

Procedure. First, subjects read a description of the

basic functionality of an answering machine. This en-

sured that they at least knew the product’s basic use,

to provide knowledge expected of a consumer actually

buying one. Two answering machines were placed in

front of the subject, who was asked not to touch (and

thus possibly open) the product. The subject made a

product choice by indicating the answering machine

that she or he would be most likely to buy.

After that, an interview into the choice reasons was

conducted and was recorded on audiotape. The inter-

viewer first gathered all the subject’s choice reasons,

after which she probed further into each separate rea-

son to be clear about the subject’s precise meaning,

Figure 8. Stimulus Material



why he or she valued the product attribute concerned,

and what information he or she used to make the at-

tribute judgment. Because of the large number of in-

terviews, two interviewers were used (one of them

performed about two-thirds of the total number of

interviews).

The total procedure took about 20minutes, after

which each subject received a written debriefing and a

small monetary compensation.

Analysis and Results

The interviews into the choice reasons were tran-

scribed fully. These transcriptions were the basis for

data analysis. Data of 142 subjects were used (a total

of four subjects either possessed one of the products

from their choice set, had handled the products

against instructions, or did not understand the basic

use of an answering machine). Two judges (of which

one was also an interviewer) independently catego-

rized each subject’s considerations that played a role

in the product choice and were based on the product

appearance (i.e., were not based on the card informa-

tion). Choice reasons that did not fit into one of the

categories were assigned to a ‘‘remaining’’ category.

There were not many differences between the judges,

and these were discussed until an agreement was

reached.

The six roles of the product appearance—commu-

nication of aesthetic, symbolic, functional, and ergo-

nomic product information; attention drawing; and

categorization—proved sufficient to categorize all

choice reasons based on product appearance. A few

reasons did not fit into the six categories of appear-

ance roles; they concerned textual information drawn

from the appearance, such as brand name or the lan-

guage of the words underneath the buttons (i.e., in

Dutch versus in English).

The relative importance of the appearance roles

differed between subjects. Some subjects valued aes-

thetics the most, while others found functionalities or

quality far more important. Age did not influence the

frequency of mentioning a specific appearance role;

gender only influenced concern about whether the

product fit with the home interior and attention draw-

ing (see the aesthetic role and attention-drawing role

following). A number of subjects considered one

product alternative superior with respect to one kind

of product value (e.g., aesthetic value) and the other

alternative with respect to another kind of product

value (e.g., ergonomic value). As a result, they had to

choose between two or more kinds of product value,

most often functional and aesthetic value. For exam-

ple, one subject chose the digital product even though

she liked the appearance of the other product better.

Some subjects had to choose between aesthetic value

and ergonomic value and, for example, chose the at-

tractive-looking product even though the other prod-

uct looked easier to operate. In total, 19 subjects

chose product alternative D; 49 subjects chose F; and

74 subjects preferred G (see Figure 8).

Now a description of the results for each of the six

roles separately is provided. The quotations have been

translated from Dutch into English by the authors.

Keep in mind that every subject was able to mention

several different choice reasons and also several

choice reasons belonging to one category. The num-

ber of appearance roles mentioned by subjects varies

from one to five; the mode is two. Figure 9 shows the

percentage of subjects mentioning each number of

product appearance roles. Subjects mentioning zero

appearance roles based their choice on the card infor-

mation. Figure 10 shows the percentage of subjects

that mentioned each of the different appearance roles.

Aesthetic role. This role was mentioned most of-

ten: 65% of the subjects (92) mentioned an attractive

product appearance as a choice reason. An additional

10% mentioned the attractiveness of the appearance

but did not base their choice on it because other as-

pects were more important to them. Aspects men-

tioned to play a role in the aesthetic attractiveness are

Number of appearance roles543210

Per

cent

40

30

20

10

0

Figure 9. Percentage of Subjects Mentioning Each Number of

Product Appearance Roles


71

overall roundedness, size, color, and specific details.

Several subjects found it difficult to indicate why they

found a specific product more aesthetically attractive,

as it was an instinctive judgment.

Forty-five percent of all subjects (64) liked a

rounded product (i.e., alternative F or G), because

this looked modern to them. They perceived this as

suiting the contemporary design trend, as many mod-

ern products are rounded (e.g., cars, car stereos). For

example, one subject said, ‘‘And you also see that with

a lot of audio equipment. All that has a more rounded

design than previously, really.’’ Only very few subjects

mentioned disliking a rounded shape; one of them

said, ‘‘I personally don’t like rounded sides and such

things . . . a bit trendy.’’ Many subjects disliked alter-

native D because it is rectangular and straight. Only

three subjects liked such a shape.

Many subjects (12) aesthetically preferred a smaller,

compact product, as a larger product is ungainly and

obtrusive. Many subjects considered alternative D to

be too big. For example, one subject said, ‘‘I really

liked the shape of that small one. I found the other

one a bit . . . yes, if you place it in your room, not so

. . . a bit crude . . . I do not like all those big things in

my room.’’

Several (8) subjects mentioned the ‘‘closed’’ impres-

sion of alternative F. Alternative G looks more

‘‘open,’’ as it has a display and a bigger button.

Half of these subjects liked this closed look, as it

makes the product a compact whole. As one subject

said, ‘‘I found that G still has something cozy about it,

also because of the display, I think, and that other one

was such a closed whole . . .’’ The other half disliked a

closed impression, because it looked less friendly and

sympathetic. One subject said, ‘‘Well, that appliance

totally was a closed box, such a black box, and

that other one made at least a, yes . . . a bit more

of a friendly impression, it seemed to look a bit

more open.’’

Subjects (32) preferred a certain color because they

liked it better or because it fit into their home envi-

ronment. One subject said, ‘‘so I picture it next to the

black couch and the black telephone, then that thing

completely fits in.’’ Several subjects wanted a dark or

black color, and some preferred a neutral or soft col-

or. Also, several subjects (10) preferred a product in

one color as opposed to multiple colors (i.e., alterna-

tive D with its two-colored casing and white buttons),

because this makes the product a unified whole and

looks more tranquil. For example, one subject said

about alternative D, ‘‘The buttons also attracted a

little attention, in my opinion, because they had a

different color. It just isn’t a whole.’’

Some subjects mentioned visual organization prin-

ciples as a basis for their aesthetic preference. Unity

was mentioned by a few subjects, referring to the use

of one instead of more colors (see the quotation in the

previous paragraph). Symmetry was mentioned by

one subject, who said, ‘‘And in addition it was sym-

metrical, say, in its length. I also always like that a bit

myself.’’

Many subjects (33, or 23.2%) mentioned details

that played a role in their aesthetic judgments, often

only after the interviewer probed for this. Some (6)

liked the little purple button on alternative F, because

it was perceived as funny and playful. Nine subjects

disliked the buttons on alternative D, as they ‘‘lay on

top of the product,’’ while integrated buttons (on al-

ternative F and G) make a product smoother. The

obtrusiveness of the buttons on alternative D is rein-

forced by their contrasting white color. Some subjects

liked or disliked the presence of a display from an

aesthetic point of view or chose the product with a

more attractive display. One subject said, ‘‘Such a

display with numbers, I don’t need that . . . That

doesn’t look nice in my opinion.’’ Some idiosyncrat-

ic reasons concerned, for example, the size of the

holes in the grid in front of the loudspeaker and the

material.

categorization

attention drawing

functional

ergonomic

symbolic

aesthetic

Per

cent

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

Figure 10. Percentage of Subjects that Mentioned Each of theDifferent Appearance Roles



Twenty-four subjects (16.9%) mentioned that the

product had to fit aesthetically into their home envi-

ronment or with other products they already own

(such as their telephone). For this reason, many of

these subjects valued a dark or neutral-colored prod-

uct and a modern-looking product (only two subjects

found that a less modern answering machine suited

their homes better). For example, one subject said

that ‘‘the other answering machine would fit less into

my home interior’’ (referring to alternative D). She

further explained that it was ‘‘because we have a

modern interior design with black furniture.’’ Females

more often mentioned the aesthetic fit into their home

as a choice reason than males (w2 5 4.68, po.05).

Symbolic role. Almost one-half of all subjects (68,

or 47.9%) mentioned that the symbolic meaning or

associations of the product appearance played a role

in their product choice. Additionally, some subjects

considered symbolic aspects but found other aspects

more important on which to base their choice. Almost

all subjects mentioning symbolic aspects mention it as

part of an aesthetic judgment; only some mentioned a

modern, friendly, or serious look as a choice reason

without explicitly calling it aesthetically attractive—so

symbolic and aesthetic value often were intertwined.

Symbolic associations mentioned by several sub-

jects included ‘‘expensive’’ or ‘‘cheap,’’ ‘‘playful,’’

‘‘friendly,’’ ‘‘businesslike,’’ ‘‘soft,’’ ‘‘sympathetic,’’

‘‘boring,’’ and ‘‘hi-tech.’’ Several subjects (6) men-

tioned that alternative D gave a cheap impression be-

cause of its crude and simple shape. One subject

noted, ‘‘Look, obviously straight shapes are easier to

manufacture. Therefore I interpret them as cheaper.’’

Many subjects (38) mentioned a modern or contem-

porary (alternative F or G) versus an old-fash-

ioned or even obsolete impression (alternative D) as

a choice reason. A great deal of these subjects men-

tioned that roundedness or a streamlined shape brings

about this modern look. This roundedness also made

alternative F and G look friendly, sympathetic, and

soft. In contrast, the rectangular straight product (al-

ternative D) looked old-fashioned, ungainly, bombas-

tic, harsh, and cheap to subjects. They associated

alternative D with an old cassette player, a cigar

box, a box of bricks, and a bread tin. Many men-

tioned alternative F as resembling a portable compact

disc (CD) player or Discman, which some thought

gave it a contemporary look or thought it was hu-

mourous. For example, one subject mentioned that

alternative D reminded him of ‘‘an old-fashioned cas-

sette player,’’ while alternative F ‘‘reminds me much

more of a modern car radio.’’ In addition to the as-

sociations just mentioned, other associations evoked

by alternative F were ‘‘playful,’’ ‘‘female,’’ ‘‘cute with

that sweet little purple button,’’ ‘‘elegant,’’ ‘‘refined,’’

‘‘chic,’’ ‘‘more sexy,’’ ‘‘yuppie-like,’’ ‘‘flowing,’’ ‘‘more

funny,’’ ‘‘more hi-tech-like,’’ but also ‘‘businesslike’’

and ‘‘boring.’’ Specific remarks referring to alter-

native G were ‘‘cozier,’’ ‘‘less boring,’’ ‘‘more flair,’’

‘‘playful,’’ ‘‘more serious,’’ and ‘‘common.’’

Functional role. Many subjects (49.3%) based their

product choice on the textual information about func-

tionalities that was presented with the products on

cards. However, for 18 subjects (12.7%) the appear-

ance influenced the perceived functional product val-

ue. Five subjects (3.5% of the total sample) derived

information about functionalities from the product

appearance, namely the presence of a display or a

small indication light. One subject based her choice on

the fact that she saw a rewind button on alternative G,

which she did not see on alternative F. In addition,

two subjects explicitly mentioned wanting as few fea-

tures as possible. According to them, these ‘‘bells and

whistles’’ made the product more vulnerable so that it

would break down more easily, and these added fea-

tures often are not used anyway.

Eleven subjects (7.8% of the sample) derived an

impression about the reliability and durability of the

product from its appearance. They chose the product

that looked to them more solid or reliable (most often

alternative G), because that signified that the product

would last longer. Some subjects found it difficult to

specify the characteristics responsible for this; a few

mentioned that it was their first impression or some-

thing instinctive. Nevertheless, several subjects men-

tioned elements that engendered this impression, such

as a flap or display that could break easily, a turning

instead of sliding volume button, a large size, or the

roundedness or rather the squareness of the product.

For example, one subject said about alternative G, ‘‘It

looked more reliable, a bit more solid. It was a bit

larger.’’ He explained why it looked more solid: ‘‘the

size was decisive . . . maybe the shape—it was broader

than the other one.’’ A few subjects inferred from a

product’s modern styling (referring to the more

rounded shape of alternative F or G) that the prod-

uct was technologically superior, because it had been

designed more recently. The following part of an in-

terview illustrates why one subject prefers a modern-

looking answering machine: ‘‘Yes, maybe it will last

longer that way, [it] looks more reliable . . . The other

one [alternative D] looks as if it is prehistoric, as if it is


73

out of date or something, that is the impression it

makes . . . old.’’ However, another subject preferred

alternative D for its ‘‘more functional appearance,’’ as

he thought that ‘‘most often with these futuristic

products, they look slick and finished, but they are

usually not really solid’’ (referring to alternative F).

Ergonomic role. About one-third of the subjects

(51, which is 35.9%) mentioned reasons concerning

usability as a basis for their choice. Of these, 34 sub-

jects mentioned operational aspects, such as the vis-

ibility of the display or the size, number, clarity, or

placing of the buttons. For example, one subject who

chose alternative G instead of F, said, ‘‘. . . and also

the buttons on it, they were just a bit more clear, just

one button to play and rewind et cetera. The other

one, it had one button, but it did not exactly say what

it was for . . .’’ Several subjects found the buttons of

alternative D clear and the button of alternative F too

small, although several others preferred alternative G

or F to D because it had one instead of two buttons

on top. Nine subjects wanted a product with as few

buttons as possible; according to them, more buttons

are only confusing and heighten the likelihood of

making mistakes. As one subject said, ‘‘. . . The sim-

pler the design, the less easily it will break down . . .

and a lot of buttons—that is simply confusing.’’ A few

subjects preferred a separate button for each function

instead of one button having several functions. Seven

subjects preferred alternative G because they could

see immediately how it worked: it had clear buttons

that were labeled clearly so that the possibilities were

clear, while alternative F was closed so that how it

worked was not obvious from just looking at it (see

Figure 8). Two subjects preferred the product alter-

native that operates similar to their own answering

machine.

In addition to operational aspects, more general as-

pects of use were mentioned. Such general aspects are

not related to the direct operation of the product, but

to more indirect consequences of use, such as the space

needed by the product (e.g., whether it fits on a table),

the ease of cleaning, or the likelihood of accidentally

hurting someone. Fourteen subjects valued a small size

(i.e., alternative G or F instead of D) because a small

product needs less space and is easier to hide in a

drawer. Four subjects chose alternative D because it is

square instead of rounded and therefore fits more eas-

ily into a corner or between other things. In contrast,

two subjects valued a rounded product (alternative F

or G), as it is easier to handle and is less likely to hurt

someone (i.e., no sharp edges). One subject mentioned

that buttons that are integrated into the surface make

the product easier to handle, and another subject

found this easier to clean. They therefore did not

choose alternative D with its protruding buttons.

Attention-drawing role. Of the 14 subjects (9.9%

of the total sample) who mentioned the attention-

drawing ability of one of the product alternatives,

13 preferred the less attention-drawing alternative (al-

ternative F or G, see Figure 8). Almost all of them

found alternative D to be too conspicuous because it

was too big and because its buttons were in a con-

trasting color. They preferred a product that would be

less conspicuous in their home, or as one subject

called it, ‘‘harmless in the interior of my home.’’ An-

other subject stated that an answering machine is a

functional product that ‘‘strictly speaking, you do not

want to see.’’ Therefore, these subjects preferred a

smaller product that could be put away easily and that

had a more neutral color.

Only one subject chose the product that drew her

attention by its design. She explained her preference

for the appearance of alternative G as follows: ‘‘Well,

it is more like a whole, the impression it makes on me,

does it attract my attention and does it satisfy my

wishes . . .’’ Another subject stated that although she

chose the less attention-drawing product, she might

buy a specially designed product that draws a lot of

attention but looks very attractive at the same time.

Females significantly more often mention attention

drawing as a choice reason than males (w2 5 8.80,

po.01).

Categorization role. Eleven subjects (7.8%) men-

tioned visual categorization as playing a role in their

product choice. Categorization also may have a sub-

conscious influence and thus may have played a role

for more subjects, but the remarks of these 11 subjects

provide some insight into how visual categorization

plays a role for consumers.

A few subjects preferred alternative G because it

was more recognizable as an answering machine—

that is, easy to categorize—but found it difficult to

explain why. For example, one subject explained

why she liked the appearance of alternative G better

than F: ‘‘I found it more recognizable, the other one,

that looked like . . . what is it called? . . . a CD player

. . . Well, in my eyes it looks more like an answering

machine.’’

Others preferred something different from a stand-

ard box, something more special that does not look

ordinary (i.e., is less prototypical). Two subjects ex-

plicitly preferred a product that was less recognizable



as an answering machine and that was less plain. Sub-

jects valuing an atypical product chose alternative F

or G. One subject said, ‘‘I would in first instance con-

sider the one I chose as a portable CD player instead

of an answering machine, so in that sense somewhat

less recognizable as an answering machine.’’ When

asked whether and why he prefers this, he said, ‘‘Well,

I just like to . . . in everything I buy. . . to not pick the

ordinary.’’

Four subjects preferred alternative F or G because

it reminded them of another product, namely a port-

able CD player or modern car radio. They found it

difficult to explain why but thought that it was a kind

of recognition; they were used to this look. For ex-

ample, one subject said, ‘‘That rounded one appeals

to me, yes, I don’t know why, maybe because it also

looks a bit like a portable CD player or something . . .

that appeals more to me.’’ When asked why, she said,

‘‘Maybe because it is a bit more familiar, I don’t know

. . .’’ One subject disliked alternative D because it re-

minded him of an old-fashioned cassette player.

Interrelations. In several cases, some roles were in-

terrelated. Attention drawing and aesthetic value of-

ten were linked: subjects found an attention-drawing

product less aesthetically attractive. Indeed, the cor-

relation between attention-drawing and aesthetic

choice reasons is significant (Spearman’s rho5 .25,

po.01). Furthermore, symbolic and aesthetic values

often were intertwined. Subjects mention symbolic as-

sociations in explaining why they found the product

aesthetically attractive, which agrees with Vihma

(1995). Indeed, correlation analysis shows that aes-

thetic and symbolic reasons often co-occur (Spear-

man’s rho5 .54, po.001). Also, for some subjects,

symbolic and functional values were linked, as they

felt that a modern-looking answering machine would

be technologically superior. As this concerned only a

small number of subjects, this is not expressed in a

significant correlation between functional and sym-

bolic choice reasons. However, there was a significant

correlation between categorization and symbolic

choice reasons (Spearman’s rho5 .20, po.05), which

probably is due to the fact that several subjects

thought answering machine F looked modern or con-

temporary because it resembled a portable CD player

(i.e., another product category). In addition, the cor-

relation between categorization and aesthetic choice

reasons was on the border of significance (Spearman’s

rho5 .16, p5 .05). This can be explained by the fact

that subjects liked an appearance that looked or did

not look like a typical answering machine.

Conclusion and Discussion

This study distinguishes six roles of product appear-

ance for consumers on the basis of a literature review

and shows in a qualitative study that these roles are

relevant for consumers and are sufficient to describe the

influence of product appearance in consumer choice. In

addition, insight is gained into the information con-

sumers use and the inferences they make from the ap-

pearance of a product. An overview of the roles and

their influence on consumers is provided in Table 1.

Aesthetic value often will be important to consum-

ers for durable products, as these products are often

used for many years and are visible in consumer’s

homes or to other people. Indeed, the majority of

subjects in this study considered aesthetic value in

their product choice, and several subjects considered

whether the product fitted aesthetically into their

home. In this study some subjects were observed giv-

ing up functionalities in favor of aesthetic value. This

study’s subjects mentioned roundedness, size, color,

and specific details as a basis for their aesthetic judg-

ment, although some subjects found it difficult to ver-

balize precisely why a specific product alternative

looked more attractive to them. In general, a small,

rounded answering machine in one neutral, dark color

was preferred aesthetically, although some subjects

had different preferences. The fact that only very few

Table 1. The Six Roles of Product Appearance forConsumers

Appearance Role Influence on Consumers

AttentionDrawing

Draw consumer attention in-store

Categorization Influence ease of categorizationOffer possibility for differentiationfrom the product category

Functional Show features/functionalitiesServe as a cue for features/functionalitiesServe as a cue for technical quality

Ergonomic Show parts for consumer-productinteractionShow consequences of use ofoverall appearance aspects(e.g., size, roundedness)

Aesthetic Serve as a basis for aesthetic appreciationFit with home interior and otherproducts owned

Symbolic Serve as a basis for symbolic productassociationsCommunicate brand image


75

subjects mentioned visual organization principles as

causing their aesthetic preference is not surprising,

as the influence of such principles largely will be

unconscious (Veryzer, 1999). Although prototypical-

ity was not mentioned explicitly, many subjects pre-

ferred a rounded product because it suits the

contemporary design trend and as such is prototypi-

cal for contemporary products.

Symbolic value was mentioned as a choice reason

by almost one-half of the sample. Subjects mentioned

several associations, such as expensive, friendly, or

businesslike. A modern or contemporary look was

important to more than one-quarter of the subjects.

Aesthetic and symbolic values often were intertwined.

For example, many subjects liked a rounded appear-

ance because it looks modern and friendly. It however

may be good to acknowledge the difference between

these two kinds of product value. Someone might like

a certain appearance but might not purchase it because

the symbolic associations are not suited to her or his

person (e.g., a childlike appearance for an adult) or to

the occasion (think of use at home versus at work).

A few subjects derived functionalities from the

product appearance. In addition, several subjects de-

rived an impression about the functional quality of

the product from its appearance. They chose the prod-

uct alternative that looked the most reliable or solid

but found it difficult to indicate the characteristics re-

sponsible for this impression. This agrees with the lit-

erature, where it is noted that the global impression of

the product appearance can communicate quality

(Srinivasan et al., 1997; Yamamoto and Lambert,

1994). Whether and what inferences are formed on

the basis of the product appearance will differ be-

tween consumers. A knowledgeable and interested

consumer will be able and be willing to assess the val-

ue of most technical product functions. However,

other consumers may use heuristics such as ‘‘more

buttons mean more functions.’’ Information about

how subjects form judgments about functional prod-

uct value on the basis of product appearance can be

used proactively to attune product appearance to con-

sumer perception. This increases the likelihood that

consumers will make accurate judgments about the

functional product value, for ‘‘it is not enough to bury

quality in a product, it must be seen and experienced

to be recognized and believed’’ (Dickson, 1994, p. 263).

More than one-third of the sample mentioned

choice reasons concerning usability. Two-thirds of

them mentioned operational aspects, of which one-

half referred to the number or size of the buttons.

Almost one-third of the subjects that mentioned usa-

bility wanted a small number of buttons on an an-

swering machine, because they believed this made it

simpler to operate. They considered more buttons

simply to be confusing. This agrees with the notion

that simplicity of operation will be a more dominant

sales argument than variety of functional characteris-

tics (Hammer, 1995; Nussbaum, 1988). Clear opera-

tion will be especially important for technologically

complex products. Many electronic products are so

complex that they are almost unusable, and many

consumers even find high-tech products intimidating

(Feldman, 1995). In addition to parts for consumer–

product interaction, such as buttons and displays, this

study revealed that overall aspects of the appearance,

such as size, roundedness, and material, influence the

(perceived) ergonomic product value. These aspects

influence more indirect consequences of use, such

as the space needed by the product (e.g., whether it

fits on a table), the ease of handling the product, or

the ease of cleaning. So in investigating the usability

of a product, attention should be given not only

to (the perception of ) operational aspects but also

to these more indirect consequences of use, as these

also play a role in product choice.

In contrast to food products, where a positive rela-

tion is found between the ability of a package to draw

attention and product choice, all but one of the sub-

jects in this study that mentioned attention drawing as

playing a role in their product choice chose the less at-

tention-drawing product alternative—the reason being

that they did not want the product to be conspicuous in

their home. Indeed, products that draw attention in

store often are conspicuous and may not be the same

ones that are found to be aesthetically attractive. Aes-

thetic considerations will be more important to con-

sumers for durable products than for fast-moving

consumer goods, as durable products are used for a

longer period and often are visible in one’s home and

for other people. So although an atypical product ap-

pearance can be a suitable way of attracting attention

for durable products, care has to be taken to ensure

that this atypical look is acceptable aesthetically for

consumers.

Concerning visual categorization, several subjects

preferred the most typical looking answering machine

but found it difficult to explain why. Others preferred

an atypical, and thereby less common and ordinary,

answering machine. This confirms that the preference

for typicality (or lack thereof) differs between con-

sumers. The choice whether to develop a typical, a



slightly atypical, or a very atypical appearance will

depend on the target group of consumers and the kind

of product. In the literature review section, cases are

listed in which it is beneficial to develop a very typical

or an atypical appearance.

The aesthetic and symbolic appearance roles were

far more salient to consumers, and the appearance

influenced perceived ergonomic value for one-third of

the subjects (see Figure 10). The functional role of the

appearance is mentioned less. This does not mean that

functionalities were not important: 57.7% of the sam-

ple based their choice on functionalities. However,

most of these were derived from the textual informa-

tion presented with the products themselves, and only

12.7% of the subjects mentioned the appearance as a

basis for a judgment about the functional product

value. The attention-drawing and categorization roles

were mentioned less often. It may be that consumers

are not always conscious of their influence (see the

section about future research). The relative impor-

tance of the appearance roles was not the focus of the

present study. Since a small number of product alter-

natives was used, the influence of the appearance roles

in this study may not be indicative for answering ma-

chines in general. For example, the answering ma-

chines in this study had one or two buttons and a

volume slider; an alternative with more buttons would

have increased the incidence with which subjects men-

tion ease of operation as a choice reason. However, it

is striking that aesthetic value played a role for so

many subjects, while the answering machines used in

this study do not differ that much in their appearance

(they are all dark-colored, flat shapes). There were

more subjects that partly based their choice on aes-

thetics than on functionalities. This may indicate the

importance of aesthetics in consumers’ product selec-

tion. However, the relative importance of the appear-

ance roles will differ between product categories and

consumers (see the section about future research).

This study revealed several examples of interrela-

tions between appearance roles. Significant correla-

tions exist between aesthetic and symbolic product

value, aesthetic value and attention drawing, and cat-

egorization and aesthetic as well as symbolic value.

No correlations of functional or ergonomic value with

other appearance roles were significant. However, for

some subjects symbolic and functional value were

linked, and some relations between roles might not

have surfaced in this research (e.g., because of the

small number of product alternatives used). Consum-

ers may derive, for example, an impression about the

functional or ergonomic product value from catego-

rization of the product appearance; similarity to a

well-known product category exemplar of high-tech-

nical quality may lead consumers to infer that the

product at hand is also of good quality.

As some roles can be interrelated, changes in one

role may influence other roles. In addition, the pre-

ferred 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, a small size is valued from an aesthetic point

of view, but a larger size is chosen by some subjects

because it looks more solid and reliable (i.e., func-

tional value). So when something is changed in the

product appearance in order to improve its perform-

ance on one role, this has implications for the per-

formance on other roles.

Managerial Implications

The appearance of a product can influence consumer

choice in different ways. Distinguishing these different

appearance roles will help managers to make better

use of product appearance as a marketing tool.

Focus on the Most Important Appearance Roles

To use the potential of product appearance fully in

influencing consumer choice, the appearance should

communicate the central consumer advantage to con-

sumers and should fit the product’s market position-

ing (see also Just and Salvador, 2003). To make

optimal use of product appearance, the marketing

department or product development team should con-

sider explicitly the impression they want the appear-

ance to communicate. The most important value to

consumers in purchasing a specific kind of product

should be the starting point in the design of the prod-

uct appearance (Bruce and Whitehead, 1988). There-

fore, it is recommended that product designers know

in an early stage whether aesthetics, ease of use, tech-

nical quality, or features are most important in the

brand choice for the target group of consumers. For

the product shape, colors, materials, and configura-

tion that are preferred—or that engender positive

product perceptions—depend on the product value

that is important to the consumer. For example, a

larger size may make a product look more old-fash-

ioned and crude, more solid and stable, less easy to


77

store, easier to operate (as buttons are bigger or far-

ther apart), and heavier in weight. Whether a larger

size is preferable therefore will depend on whether

aesthetic value, technical quality, or ease of use is

more important to consumers.

Different appearances can be made for groups of

consumers that differ in the product value that is most

important in their choice. For example, people who

need glasses may prefer an alarm clock with buttons

that have a bright contrasting color as opposed to the

casing, so they can locate the buttons better in a dark

room. Other people may dismiss such a product on

aesthetic grounds.

Are Design Guidelines Valuable?

Several influences of appearance characteristics, such

as color and form, on the perception of certain kinds

of product value have been mentioned in the literature

or are intuitive. Subjects in the present study also

mentioned such influences. For example, a bigger

product looks more solid, bright colors may diminish

a quality impression, and a large number of buttons

decreases the impression of ease of use (Norman,

1988). What is the value of such design guidelines?

Is it useful to investigate such influences?

Although product designers intuitively will feel

how to engender a certain impression, the present au-

thors think that research into the influence of specific

appearance elements on the perception of certain

kinds of product value may help them in this. How-

ever, the intuition of the designer remains essential, as

the effect of combining separate characteristics into a

whole cannot be predicted. Furthermore, the value of

such guidelines differs for different kinds of product

values. The influence of appearance characteristics on

the perception of utilitarian aspects, such as quality,

ease of use, and functionality, probably will be similar

over product categories, persons, and countries. Peo-

ple will agree that larger buttons are easier to operate

and that a product with a display looks more func-

tionally complex than one without a display. So for

functional and ergonomic value, such guidelines are

reliable, and general research into the influence of

specific appearance characteristics on their perception

will be useful. However, there will be more difference

between consumers in aesthetic and symbolic percep-

tion, since such matters of taste and experience are

more subjective. A large size makes a certain product

look modern according to one consumer and old-

fashioned according to another. In the present study,

many subjects mentioned that roundedness looks

modern and friendly and that angularity looks old-

fashioned and cheap. However, this may be specific

for the product category, the year, or the country in

which the study is conducted. One should keep in

mind that the aesthetic and symbolic value of a prod-

uct may differ between cultures and in time and even

may depend on the context (the available product al-

ternatives or the store surroundings). General design

guidelines therefore will be less reliable for the aes-

thetic and symbolic roles of the product appearance.

Testing with consumers therefore is even more im-

portant for aesthetic and symbolic value, especially as

these roles seemed to be the most influential—at least

in the present study.

Testing the Appearance with Consumers

To make sure that the appearance of a new product

has a positive influence on product choice, this should

be tested with consumers. One should assess whether

consumer perceptions of the functional, ergonomic,

aesthetic, and symbolic value of a new product on the

basis of its appearance are positive and correct. This

can be done by asking consumers to judge the func-

tionalities, quality, ease of use, and aesthetic and

symbolic value of the product on the basis of its ap-

pearance only. Because there are cultural, social, and

personal influences on design taste (Bloch, 1995), it is

important to use the correct target group in such

a test.

If a design does not engender the right impression

on one of these aspects, one might ask consumers how

to improve it (e.g., ‘‘why do you think the quality of

this product is low?’’). Consumers are able to do this

for functional and ergonomic aspects; they are able to

indicate that a display is too small, that buttons are

too close together, or that certain features are un-

wanted. But consumers have more difficulty in indi-

cating how aspects such as quality impression and

aesthetic and symbolic value can be improved, as

these aspects concern the overall impression of the

appearance. The effect of changes in appearance char-

acteristics on the whole product impression is difficult

to imagine for consumers. For a consumer, the value

of certain characteristics, such as color, may change

when the rest of the product changes (cf. Holbrook

and Moore, 1981). With one product style, blue may

be the most attractive color, while with another style,



green may work better, so consumers have to see a

change in appearance in order to judge it adequately.

Furthermore, a consumer often will be unable to spec-

ify why she or he likes or dislikes a certain appear-

ance, which is descriptive of holistic judgments (see

Kemler Nelson, 1989; Mittal, 1988). For example,

most people probably are unaware of the influence of

visual organization principles on their judgments (see

Veryzer, 1993; Veryzer, 1999). A possible solution to

this problem is showing consumers a great deal of

pictures of products they can use to point out what

they mean or which products fit an intended impres-

sion. This may give the design team clues about how

to better engender a specific impression.

Future Research

The research method used in the present study only

gave insight into the conscious use of information by

consumers. The influence of attention drawing and

categorization, and perhaps the impression of quality,

also may take place subconsciously. This may explain

why only few subjects mentioned these appearance

roles. The influence of these roles on consumer prod-

uct choice may therefore have been underestimated.

Future research may give a more accurate insight

into the influence of these roles in consumer prod-

uct choice.

In addition, it will be interesting to investigate the

relative importance of the appearance roles in differ-

ent product categories. Aesthetics will be relatively

important for some types of products such as lamps

and furniture, while for other types of products such

as appliances, ease of use will be more important. But

for appliances that are visible in one’s home, aesthet-

ics probably also are important to consumers, as was

illustrated for the answering machines in this study.

Attention drawing and categorization (i.e., visual typ-

icality) probably are more influential for food prod-

ucts than for durables. Future research may give more

insight into this issue.

It was mentioned earlier that the value that is most

important to consumers should be the starting point

in the design of the product appearance. It may be

possible to distinguish groups of consumers that differ

in the importance they attach to each kind of product

value in general. Although this study was not focused

especially on this, it was found that females pay more

attention to whether the product fits into their home

than males. This might not only be the case for

answering machines but also for other product

categories. In addition, it often is assumed that old-

er people pay more attention to ease of use. The

present authors could not find any research that sup-

ports this assumption, and the question remains from

what age on people start paying more attention to

ease of use.

Also, the question remains to what extent the per-

ceptions that subjects mentioned on the basis of prod-

uct appearance generalize to other products (which

may differ for utilitarian and expressive product val-

ue, see above). Examples are that a rounded product

looks more modern, a square product looks more

solid but also old-fashioned, a larger product looks

more solid, and a modern rounded shape looks tech-

nologically superior (i.e., newer). The same goes for

consumers’ preferences. Many want a small number

of buttons, as many buttons are confusing. Further-

more, subjects liked a product in one color as opposed

to more colors and liked integrated buttons, which

make it a unified whole. As mentioned already, these

perceptions and preferences may differ in time be-

tween groups of consumers and between countries.

The extent to which this is the case is also an issue for

further research.

References

Alba, Joseph W. and Hutchinson, J. Wesley (1987). Dimensions ofConsumer Expertise. Journal of Consumer Research 13(4):411–454.

Bamossy, Gary, Scammon, Debra L. and Johnston, Marilyn (1983). APreliminary Investigation of the Reliability and Validity of an Aes-thetic Judgment Test. In: Advances in Consumer Research. RichardP. Bagozzi and Alice M. Tybout (eds.). Ann Arbor, MI: Associa-tion for Consumer Research, 685–690.

Belk, Russell W. (1988). Possessions and the Extended Self. Journal ofConsumer Research 15(2):139–168.

Berkowitz, Marvin (1987). Product Shape as a Design InnovationStrategy. Journal of Product Innovation Management 4(4):274–283.

Berlyne, David E. (1971). Aesthetics and Psychobiology. New York:Appleton-Century-Crofts.

Black, Caroline D. and Baker, Michael J. (1987). Success throughDesign. Design Studies 8(4):207–215.

Bloch, Peter H. (1995). Seeking the Ideal Form: Product Design andConsumer Response. Journal of Marketing 59(3):16–29.

Bruce, Margaret and Whitehead, Maureen (1988). Putting Design intothe Picture: the Role of Product Design in Consumer PurchaseBehavior. Journal of the Market Research Society 30(2):147–162.

Cohen, Joel B. and Basu, Kunal (1987). Alternative Models of Cate-gorization: Toward a Contingent Processing Framework. Journalof Consumer Research 13(4):455–472.

Dawar, Niraj and Parker, Philip (1994). Marketing Universals: Con-sumers’ Use of Brand Name, Price, Physical Appearance, andRetailer Reputation as Signals of Product Quality. Journal of Mar-keting 58(2):81–95.


79

Dickson, Peter R. (1994). Marketing Management. Orlando: TheDryden Press.

Dumaine, Brian (1991). Design that Sells and Sells and . . . . Fortune11:56–61 (March).

Engel, James F., Blackwell, Roger D. and Miniard, Paul W. (1995).Consumer Behavior. Orlando: The Dryden Press.

Feldman, Laurence P. (1995). Increasing the Usability of High-TechProducts through Design Research. Design Management Journal6(4):27–33 (Fall).

Garber, Lawrence L., Jr. (1995). The Package Appearance in Choice.In: Advances in Consumer Research. Frank R. Kardes and MitaSujan (eds.). Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research,653–660.

Garber, Lawrence L., Jr., Burke, Richard R. and Jones, J. Morgan(2000). The Role of Package Color in Consumer Purchase Consid-eration and Choice. Cambridge, MA: Marketing Science Institute,(Working Paper Series, Rep. No. 00-104).

Gemser, Gerda and Leenders, Mark A.A.M. (2001). How IntegratingIndustrial Design in the Product Development Process Impacts onCompany Performance. Journal of Product Innovation Management18(1):28–38.

Hammer, Norbert (1995). Testing Design via Eye-Movement Analy-sis—Perspectives and Problems. In: Successful Product Engineering:Testing for Optimal Design and Function. Berlin: ESOMAR,155–172.

Hekkert, Paul P.M. (1995). Artful Judgments: A Psychological Inquiryinto Aesthetic Preference for Visual Patterns. Delft: Delft Universityof Technology.

Hekkert, Paul, Snelders, Dirk and van Wieringen, Piet C.W. (2003).‘‘Most Advanced Yet Acceptable’’: Typicality and Novelty as JointPredictors of Aesthetic Preference in Industrial Design. BritishJournal of Psychology, 94(1):111–124.

Hirschman, Elizabeth C. and Holbrook, Morris B. (1982). HedonicConsumption: Emerging Concepts, Methods and Propositions.Journal of Marketing 46(3):92–101.

Holbrook, Morris B. (1980). Some Preliminary Notes on Research inConsumer Esthetics. In: Advances in Consumer Research. Jerry C.Olson (ed.). Ann Arbor, MI: Association for Consumer Research,104–108.

Holbrook, Morris B. and Moore, William L. (1981). Feature Interac-tions in Consumer Judgments of Verbal versus Pictorial Presenta-tions. Journal of Consumer Research 8(1):103–113.

Hoyer, Wayne D. (1984). An Examination of Consumer DecisionMaking for a Common Repeat Purchase Product. Journal of Con-sumer Research 11(3):822–829.

Just, Lily A. and Salvador, Rommel (2003). Conference Summary:Marketing Meets Design. Cambridge, MA: Marketing Science In-stitute (Working Paper Series, Rep. No. 03-001).

Kemler Nelson and Deborah G. (1989). The Nature and Occurrence ofHolistic Categorization. In: Object Perception: Structure and Proc-ess. Bryan E. Shepp and Soledad Ballesteros (eds.). Hillsdale, NJ:Erlbaum, 357–386.

Kotler, Philip and Rath, G. Alexander (1984). Design: A Powerfulbut Neglected Strategic Tool. Journal of Business Strategy 5(2):16–21.

Landon, E. Laird (1974). Self Concept, Ideal Self Concept, and Con-sumer Purchase Intentions. Journal of Consumer Research 1(2):44–51.

Levy, Sidney J. (1959). Symbols for Sale. Harvard Business Review37:117–119 (July–August).

Lloyd, Peter and Snelders, Dirk (2003). What Was Philippe StarckThinking of? Design Studies 24(3):237–253.

Lobach, Bernd (1976). Industrial Design: Grundlagen der Indus-trieproduktgestaltung. Muenchen: Verlag Karl Thiemig.

Loken, Barbara and Ward, James (1990). Alternative Approaches toUnderstanding the Determinants of Typicality. Journal of Consum-er Research 17(2):111–126.

Lorenz, Christopher (1986). The Design Dimension. Oxford: BasilBlackwell.

March, Artemis (1994). Usability: The New Dimension of ProductDesign. Harvard Business Review 72:144–149 (September–October).

McCracken, Grant (1986). Culture and Consumption: A Theo-retical Account of the Structure and Movement of the CulturalMeaning of Consumer Goods. Journal of Consumer Research13(1):71–84.

Meyers-Levy, Joan and Tybout, Alice M. (1989). Schema Congruity asa Basis for Product Evaluation. Journal of Consumer Research16(1):39–54.

Mittal, Banwari (1988). The Role of Affective Choice Mode in theConsumer Purchase of Expressive Products. Journal of EconomicPsychology 9(4):499–524.

Muller, Wim (2001). Order and Meaning in Design. Utrecht: Lemma.

Murdoch, Peter and Flurscheim, Charles H. (1983). Form. In: Indus-trial Design in Engineering. Charles H. Flurscheim (ed.). Worcester,UK: The Design Council, 105–131.

Norman, Donald A. (1988). The Psychology of Everyday Things. NewYork: Basic Books.

Nussbaum, Bruce (1988). Smart Design: Quality is the New Style.Business Week April 11:80–86.

Nussbaum, Bruce (1993). Hot Products: How Good Design Pays Off.Business Week June 7:40–43.

Olshavsky, Richard W. and Spreng, Richard A. (1996). An Explora-tory Study of the Innovation Evaluation Process. Journal of Prod-uct Innovation Management 13(6):512–529.

Pilditch, James (1976). Talk about Design. London: Barrie and Jenkins.

Rosch, Eleanor, Mervis, Carolyn B., Gray, Wayne D., Johnson, DavidM. and Boyes-Braem, Penny (1976). Basic Objects in Natural Cat-egories. Cognitive Psychology 8(3):382–439.

Roy, Robin (1994). Can the Benefits of Good Design Be Quantified?Design Management Journal 5(2):9–17 (Spring).

Schmitt, Bernd H. and Simonson, Alex (1997). Marketing Aesthetics:The Strategic Management of Brands, Identity, and Image. NewYork: The Free Press.

Schoormans, Jan P.L. and Robben, Henry S.J. (1997). The Effect ofNew Package Design on Product Attention, Categorization, andEvaluation. Journal of Economic Psychology 18(2–3):271–287.

Schurer, Arnold (1971). Der Einfluss Produktbestimmender Faktorenauf die Gestaltung. Clausthal-Zellerfeld: Boenecke-Druck.

Sirgy, M. Joseph (1982). Self-Concept in Consumer Behavior: A Crit-ical Review. Journal of Consumer Research 9(3):287–300.

Smith, Eric (1994). Good Design Is indeed Good Business. DesignManagement Journal 5(2):18–23 (Spring).

Solomon, Michael R. (1983). The Role of Products as Social Stimuli: ASymbolic Interactionism Perspective. Journal of Consumer Research10(3):319–329.

Srinivasan, V., Lovejoy, William S. and Beach, David. (1997). Inte-grated Product Design for Marketability and Manufacturing. Jour-nal of Marketing Research 34(1):154–163.

Sujan, Mita and Bettman, James R. (1989). The Effect of Brand Po-sitioning Strategies on Consumers’ Brand and Category Percep-tions: Some Insights from Schema Research. Journal of MarketingResearch 26(4):454–67.

Thackara, John (1997). Winners: How Successful Companies Innovateby Design. Amsterdam: BIS.

Veryzer, Robert W. (1999). A Nonconscious Processing Explanation ofConsumer Response to Product Design. Psychology & Marketing16(6):497–522.

Veryzer, Robert W., Jr. (1993). Aesthetic Response and the Influenceof Design Principles on Product Preferences. In: Advances in Con-sumer Research. Leigh McAlister and Michael L. Rothschild (eds.).Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research, 224–229.



Veryzer, Robert W., Jr. (1995). The Place of Product Design and Aes-thetics in Consumer Research. In: Advances in Consumer Research.Frank R. Kardes and Mita Sujan (eds.). Provo, UT: Associationfor Consumer Research, 641–645.

Veryzer, Robert W., Jr. and Hutchinson, J. Wesley (1998). The Influ-ence of Unity and Prototypicality on Aesthetic Responses to NewProduct Designs. Journal of Consumer Research 24(4):374–394.

Vihma, Susann (1995). Products as Representations: A Semiotic and Aes-thetic Study of Design Products. Helsinki: University of Art and Design.

Ward, James and Loken, Barbara (1988). The Generality of TypicalityEffects on Preference and Comparison: An Exploratory Test. In:

Advances in Consumer Research. Michael J. Houston (ed.). Provo,UT: Association for Consumer Research, 55–61.

Whitfield, Allan and Wiltshire, Tom (1983). Color. In: Industrial De-sign in Engineering. Charles H. Flurscheim (ed.). Worcester, UK:The Design Council, 133–157.

Whitfield, T.W.A. and Slatter, P.E. (1979). The Effects of Categoriza-tion and Prototypicality on Aesthetic Choice in a Furniture Selec-tion Task. British Journal of Psychology 70(1):65–75.

Yamamoto, Mel and Lambert, David R. (1994). The Impact of Prod-uct Aesthetics on the Evaluation of Industrial Products. Journal ofProduct Innovation Management 11(4):309–324.


81

Documents

Different Roles of Product Appearance in Consumer Choice