The Effects of Innovative Visual Design on Consumer Attitude

Abstract

Innovative visual design plays an important role in marketing for attracting consumers’ attention in-store. Drawing upon thinking styles and design literature, this research investigates how consumers’ different thinking styles influence their evaluations of and attitudes toward the innovative visual design via perceived functional innovativeness. Findings indicate that consumers with a holistic (vs. analytic) thinking style, who integrate perspectives and open-mindsets, show more favorable attitudes toward a product with an innovative visual design. The results emphasize the mediating role of visually hinted functional innovativeness on the effect of a holistic thinking style on consumer attitudes.

Keywords

innovative product design visual aesthetics visual innovativeness holistic thinking information processing

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Ahluwalia

(2008). How far can a brand stretch? Understanding the role of self-construal. Journal of Marketing Research, 45(3), 337–350

Aiken

L. S.

West

S. G.

(1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. SAGE. https://doi.org/10.1080/00031305.1972.10478934

Batra

Ahtola

O. T.

(1991). Measuring the hedonic and utilitarian sources of consumer attitudes. Marketing Letters, 2, 159–170. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00436035

Black

C. D.

Baker

M. J.

(1987). Success through design. Design Studies, 8(4), 207–216. https://doi.org/10.1016/0142-694X(87)90017-2

Bloch

P. H.

(1995). Seeking the ideal form: Product design and consumer response. Journal of Marketing, 59(3), 16–29. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224299505900302

Bloch

P. H.

(2011). Product design and marketing: Reflections after fifteen years. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 28(3), 378–380. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5885.2011.00805.x

Bloch

P. H.

Brunel

F. F.

Arnold

T. J.

(2003). Individual differences in the centrality of visual product aesthetics: Concept and measurement. Journal of Consumer Research, 29(4), 551–565. https://doi.org/10.1086/346250

Borgida

Nisbett

R. E.

(1977). The differential impact of abstract vs. concrete information on decisions. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 7, 258–271. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.1977.tb00750.x

Brunel

F. F.

Kumar

(2007). Design and the Big Five: Linking visual product aesthetics to product personality. Advances in Consumer Research, 34, 238–239. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=buh&AN=27997711&site=eds-live&authtype=ip,uid

10.

Chiu

L.-H.

(1972). A cross-cultural comparison of cognitive styles in Chinese and American children. International Journal of Psychology, 7(4), 235–242. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207597208246604

11.

Choi

Dalal

Kim-Prieto

Park

(2003). Culture and judgement of causal relevance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84(1), 46–59. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.84.1.46

12.

Choi

Koo

Choi

J. A.

(2007). Individual differences in analytic vs. holistic thinking. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33(5), 691–705. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167206298568

13.

Clement

(2007). Visual influence on in-store buying decisions: An eye-track experiment on the visual influence of packaging design. Journal of Marketing Management, 23(9–10), 917–928. https://doi.org/10.1362/026725707X250395

14.

Clement

Aastrup

Forsberg

S. C.

(2015). Decisive visual saliency and consumers’ in-store decisions. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 22, 187–194. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2014.09.002

15.

Clement

Kristensen

Grønhaug

(2013). Understanding consumers’ in-store visual perception: The influence of package design features on visual attention. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 20(2), 234–239. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2013.01.003

16.

Creusen

M. E. H.

Schoormans

J. P. L.

(2005). The different roles of product appearance in consumer choice. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 22(1), 63–81. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0737-6782.2005.00103.x

17.

Crilly

Moultrie

Clarkson

P. J.

(2004). Seeing things: Consumer response to the visual domain in product design. Design Studies, 25(6), 547–577. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2004.03.001

18.

Crozier

(1994). Manufactured pleasures: Psychological responses to design. Manchester University Press.

19.

Goode

M. R.

Dahl

D. W.

Moreau

C. P.

(2013). Innovation aesthetics: The relationship between category cues, categorization certainty, and newness perceptions. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 30(2), 192–208. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5885.2012.00995.x

20.

Hagtvedt

Patrick

V. M.

(2014). Consumer response to overstyling: Balancing aesthetics and functionality in product design. Psychology and Marketing, 31(7), 518–525. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.20713

21.

Hayes

A. F.

(2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. Guilford Press.

22.

Hoegg

Alba

J. W.

Dahl

D. W.

(2010). The good, the bad, and the ugly: Influence of aesthetics on product feature judgments. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 20(4), 419–430. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcps.2010.07.002

23.

Holbrook

Batra

(1987). Assessing the role of emotions as mediators of responses to consumer advertising. Journal of Consumer Research, 14(3), 404–420. https://doi.org/10.1086/209123

24.

Holbrook

M. B.

Moore

W. L.

(1981). Feature interactions in consumer judgments of verbal versus pictorial presentations. Journal of Consumer Research, 8(1), 103–113. https://doi.org/10.1086/208846

25.

Homburg

Schwemmle

Kuehnl

(2015). New product design: Concept, measurement, and consequences. Journal of Marketing, 79, 41–56. https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1509/jm.14.0199

26.

Hong

J. H.

Byun

K. A.

(2020). Communicating design innovativeness: The role of design information presentation on attitudes depending on different thinking styles. Journal of Marketing Communications, 26(4), 394–413. https://doi.org/10.1080/13527266.2018.1511627

27.

Keller

P. A.

Block

L. G.

(1997). Vividness effects: A resource-matching perspective. Journal of Consumer Research, 24(3), 295–304. https://doi.org/10.1086/209511

28.

Kühnen

Hannover

Schubert

(2001). The semantic-procedural interface model of the self: The role of self-knowledge for context-dependent versus context-independent modes of thinking. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80(3), 397–409. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.80.3.397

29.

Landwehr

J. R.

Wentzel

Herrmann

(2013). Product design for the long run: Consumer responses to typical and atypical designs at different stages of exposure. Journal of Marketing, 77(5), 92–107. https://doi.org/10.1509/jm.11.0286

30.

Lee

M. P.

Bertini

Zauberman

Ariely

(2015). Money, time, and the stability of consumer preferences. Journal of Marketing Research, 52(2), 184–199.

31.

Liu

K. J.

Chen

H. (Allan)

Balachander

(2017). The effects of products’ aesthetic design on demand and marketing-mix effectiveness: The role of segment prototypicality and brand consistency. Journal of Marketing, 81(1), 83–102. https://doi.org/10.1509/jm.15.0315

32.

Manning

K. C.

Bearden

W. O.

Madden

T. J.

(1995). Consumer innovativeness and the adoption process. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 4(4), 329–345.

33.

Markus

H. R.

Kitayama

(1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98, 224–253. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.98.2.224

34.

Meade

A. W.

Craig

S. B.

(2012). Identifying careless responses in survey data. Psychological Methods, 17(3), 437–455. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0028085

35.

Meyers-Levy

Tybout

(1989). Schema congruity as basis for product evaluation. Journal of Consumer Research, 16(1), 39–54. https://doi.org/10.1086/209192

36.

Monga

A. B.

John

D. R.

(2007). Cultural differences in brand extension evaluation: The influence of analytic versus holistic thinking. Journal of Consumer Research, 33(4), 529–536. https://doi.org/10.1086/510227

37.

Monga

A. B.

John

D. R.

(2008). When does negative brand publicity hurt? The moderating influence of analytic versus holistic thinking. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 18(4), 320–332. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcps.2008.09.009

38.

Monga

A. B.

John

D. R.

(2010). What makes brands elastic? The influence of brand concept and styles of thinking on brand extension evaluation. Journal of Marketing, 74(3), 80–92. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.74.3.80

39.

Moon

Miller

D. R.

Kim

S. H.

(2013). Product design innovation and customer value: Cross-cultural research in the United States and Korea. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 30(1), 31–43. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5885.2012.00984.x

40.

Moon

Park

Kim

(2015). The importance of an innovative product design on customer behavior: Development and validation of a scale. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 32(2), 224–232. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpim.12172

41.

Nisbett

R. E.

Peng

Choi

Norenzayan

(2001). Culture and systems of thought: Holistic versus analytic cognition. Psychological Review, 108(2), 291–310. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295x.108.2.291

42.

Page

Herr

P. M.

(2002). An investigation of the processes by which product design and brand strength interact to determine initial affect and quality judgments. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 12(2), 133–147. https://doi.org/10.1207/153276602760078668

43.

Peng

Nisbett

R. E.

(1999). Culture, dialectics, and reasoning about contradiction. American Psychologist, 54(9), 741–754. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.54.9.741

44.

Peracchio

L. A.

Tybout

A. M.

(1996). The moderating role of prior knowledge in schema-based product evaluation. Journal of Consumer Research, 23(3), 177–192. https://doi.org/10.1086/209475

45.

Radford

S. K.

Bloch

P. H.

(2011). Linking innovation to design: Consumer responses to visual product newness. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 28(Suppl. 1), 208–220. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5885.2011.00871.x

46.

Ramsey

R. P.

Deeter-Schmelz

D. R.

(2008). An assessment of the psychometric properties of the style-of-processing (Sop) scale: How do we measure individuals’ verbal/visual information-processing preferences? The Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 16(1), 41–55. https://doi.org/10.2753/MTP1069-6679160103

47.

Rubera

(2015). Design Innovativeness and product sales’ evolution. Marketing Science, 34(1), 98–115. https://doi.org/10.1287/mksc.2014.0875

48.

Stanton

S. J.

Townsend

J. D.

Kang

(2016). Aesthetic responses to prototypicality and uniqueness of product design. Marketing Letters, 27(2), 235–246. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11002-015-9368-8

49.

Gao

(2014). Strategy compatibility: The time versus money effect on product evaluation strategies. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 24(4), 549–556.

50.

Tesser

Bau

J. J.

(2002). Social psychology: Who we are and what we do. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 6(1), 72–85. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327957PSPR0601_4

51.

Verganti

(2008). Design, meanings and radical innovation: A research agenda. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 25(5), 436–456. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5885.2008.00313.x

52.

Yamamoto

Lambert

D. R.

(1994). The impact of product aesthetics on the evaluation of industrial products. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 11(4), 309–324. https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-5885.1140309

53.

Zhu

R. (Juliet)

Meyers-Levy

(2009). The influence of self-view on context effects: How display fixtures can affect product evaluations. Journal of Marketing Research, 46(1), 37–45. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkr.46.1.37

54.

Zmuda

(2011). Skinny Pepsi can launch is heavy with controversy. Advertising Age. https://adage.com/article/news/skinny-pepsi-launch-heavy-controversy/148982