Visual Typicality and Novelty

Visual typicality is the similarity to the appearance that most consumers associate with the product category (Garber, 1995). For example, a chair with four legs looks more typical than a one-legged chair does. Visual typicality has been found to positively influence aesthetic preference. Visual novelty pertains to the originality of a design. Visual typicality and novelty are negatively correlated, and people tend to prefer designs with an optimal combination of both, such as a table lamp with a typical overall shape but novel material (Hekkert, Snelders, & van Wieringen, 2003). Such products look familiar but also slightly different and thereby interesting.

Although in general visual typicality with a touch of novelty seems to be preferred, for some products or people a more distinctive design is better. This is the case for products for which prestige or exclusiveness is important, such as sports cars. Also, people with a high need to distinguish themselves (i.e., a high “need for uniqueness”) tend to prefer atypical designs. An atypical appearance can also help to differentiate products from competitors or from a negative category image, such as for a wheelchair. A distinctive appearance can help in communicating new functional attributes, as in the Dyson bladeless fan (see Figure 20.2). In addition, visual novelty tends to lower perceptions of usability and heighten perceptions of performance quality (Mugge & Schoormans, 2012a, 2012b).

Often to the frustration of designers, consumers tend to dislike novel designs at first sight, and react negatively to those in concept tests. Repeated exposure increases ease of processing and thereby aesthetic liking (Reber, Winkielman, & Schwarz, 1998). Indeed, repeated exposure increases the perceived attractiveness of innovative designs, but not of more typical designs (Carbon & Leder, 2005). So in order to get a valid assessment of consumer liking, companies should use repeated exposure or allow consumers time to get used to novel designs.

Visual Design Principles

General visual design principles such as complexity, symmetry, unity, and proportion influence aesthetic preference. Research shows that, in general, people aesthetically prefer low (but not too low) complexity, high symmetry, high unity, and good proportions. Unity indicates a congruity among the elements in a design. The proportion of the length to width of a product can influence purchase intentions (Raghubir & Greenleaf, 2006). Aesthetic preference for specific proportions (e.g., the “golden ratio”) has been proposed, but there is little evidence for this; the proportions that consumers value depend on the kind of product.

Next to aesthetic preference, these visual design principles also influence the perception of other types of product value. For example, higher visual unity in a design increases perceived product quality (Veryzer & Hutchinson, 1998), as does higher visual complexity (Creusen, Veryzer, & Schoormans, 2010). Visual complexity indicates functional complexity to consumers. In addition, visual complexity lowers perceived ease of use when people want few functionalities (no “bells and whistles”), but increases usability impressions for people desiring many functionalities. The level of visual complexity in a design should be determined with care, as people generally dislike complexity. Lower symmetry increases the perceived ease of use of a product, probably because differentiation in button placing, shape, and size—that is, less symmetry—helps the user to distinguish these buttons in use (Creusen et al., 2010).

Size, Shape, and Color

The influence of shape on product value perceptions has been shown in the previous section about visual design principles, but there are more ways in which shape influences perceptions. For example, product or package shape influences the perception of stability (Murdoch & Flurscheim, 1983), and thereby perceived ease of use. For instance, a tapered form with a large base looks stable compared to a small and tall product. Although the product is designed to be stable, consumers might conclude it is not after seeing it, and choose another product. Curved products are in general preferred to angular ones (e.g., Bar & Neta, 2006), although such preferences may change over time. For example, cars shifted from angular shapes in the 1980s to more organic shapes in the 1990s and beyond. However, square or angular products more easily fit into a corner than rounded forms, and may be preferred for this ease of use-related reason (Creusen & Schoormans, 2005). Also, people attach symbolic associations to certain product shapes (Schmitt & Simonson, 1997). For example, rounded shapes tend to look soft and feminine, while angular and straight forms tend to look dynamic and masculine.

Large shapes are perceived as powerful and strong, while small shapes appear delicate and weak. In addition, bigger objects look heavier (Walker, Francis, & Walker, 2010). The way size is evaluated varies strongly with cultural and regional norms (Schmitt & Simonson, 1997). Product size also influences more indirect consequences of use, such as whether the product fits in a drawer, which could be important for consumers (Creusen & Schoormans, 2005). In addition, package container height influences volume perceptions of consumers (e.g., Raghubir & Krishna, 1999).

Color influences aesthetic appreciation, symbolic associations, ease of use, and quality perceptions. In addition, it can grab attention and is used to foster company and brand identity and recognition (Elliot & Maier, 2014; Schmitt & Simonson, 1997). An example of a usage-related perception is that darker objects look heavier than more brightly colored ones (Walker et al., 2010). In addition, buttons that contrast in color from a product's casing make it easier to locate controls, which might, for example, be important for an alarm clock. Bright or colorful packages can imply low quality, whereas the use of low saturated colors suggests higher quality (Scott & Vargas, 2007). The colors of food and their packages establish taste expectations (e.g., Hoegg & Alba, 2007). Some associations with color seem to be relatively constant, although the desirability and meaning of a color depend on the object (e.g., a coffeemaker or a table lamp) and the style of this object (e.g., modern or classic) (e.g., Labrecque, Patrick, & Milne, 2013). The effect of a color depends on the rest of the product, as an aesthetic judgment is found to be holistic. For example, the salmon pink color of the Philips Alessi coffeemaker (see Figure 20.1) suits this product, but not a more typically shaped coffeemaker. Furthermore, there are large differences in the experience of form and color between individuals, cultures, times, and contexts. So consumer associations with color should best be tested in the right context with the actual target group.

Product Category-Related Factors

The product aspects that are important to consumers, and thereby the influence of different roles of the product appearance, depend on the type and amount of consumers' purchase motivation and the social significance of the product category (see Table 20.2).

1. Type of purchase motivation. Two main types of purchase motivation can be distinguished, namely utilitarian and expressive motivation, of which the latter can be subdivided into hedonic and symbolic motivation (e.g., Park & Mittal, 1985). For a product that is mainly bought for utilitarian reasons, such as a power drill, functional performance is of main importance to the buyer. When hedonic motivation is the main reason for purchase, sensory enjoyment is important to consumers, such as when buying ice cream, a DVD, or a nice picture to put on the wall. Symbolic purchase motivation indicates the desire to enhance your self-esteem and/or project a desired image to others by means of the product, such as a watch or a handbag. Many products have both utilitarian and expressive significance for consumers. Think of a car: performance aspects, such as fuel consumption, and hedonic and symbolic aspects, such as an attractive styling that fits the kind of person you want to be, both play a role.
2. Importance of the product. Consumers are more involved in the purchase decision for a car or a pair of shoes than for a stapler or a carton of milk, and therefore will put more effort into making a decision about such a product. Consumer involvement differs between product categories that are low in purchase risk—such as consumer packaged goods—and more expensive or socially significant product categories. When the product is not important to them, consumers want to minimize their effort in making a purchase decision. Attention drawing and ease of categorization based on the product's appearance will be influential in such a case, as consumers will only look at product alternatives that either draw their attention or are easily identified because of their typical look (see Garber, 1995). People often buy the same brand out of habit, so for well-known brands it is not wise to change their design too much, as people might no longer recognize the product. This could lead to the choice of another brand. In addition, consumers with little interest or product knowledge in a certain product category tend to use easy-to-spot product characteristics, such as price or brand name, as cues for quality. The appearance of a product can be such a quality cue (Dawar & Parker, 1994). This means that product form is more often used as a cue for quality for products in which consumers are less involved or when they have little product knowledge, such as in the case of more radically new products. Because of their lack of interest or knowledge in interpreting more detailed information, the impression about the product quality that the appearance of the product gives consumers can be rather influential.
3. Social significance of products. Both expressive and functional product aspects are found to be more important for socially significant products (Creusen, 2010). These are products that are used in public rather than in private. For example, a car, chair, or coffeemaker can be seen by other people on the street or visiting your home. However, only few people will see your alarm clock, bathroom scale, or shaving device. The importance of aesthetic and symbolic aspects, functionalities, ease of use, and quality is found to be higher for socially significant products.

Note: Shaded cells indicate a higher relative influence.

Product categories can be classified based on the general level of involvement and the extent to which this involvement is expressive and/or utilitarian (e.g., Ratchford, 1987; Voss, Spangenberg, & Grohmann, 2003). Examples of low-involvement utilitarian products are insecticide and paper towels. Some low-involvement expressive products are pizza and greeting cards. Cameras and washer/dryers are high-involvement utilitarian products, and high-involvement expressive products include sports cars and wallpaper. Although this gives some general idea of how product form will influence consumer evaluation (see Table 20.2), more specific insight is needed for utilitarian aspects. Product appearance can influence the perceived utilitarian product value by showing functional features, ease of use, and performance quality, and the relative importance of these aspects differs between product categories (Creusen, 2010).

The Type of Consumer

Personality characteristics, demographic characteristics, and the amount of product knowledge influence the product aspects that are important to consumers, and thereby the information that the appearance of a product should ideally provide (see Table 20.3). In addition, the type of purchase motivation and the importance of a certain product (treated in the previous section) also differ between individuals; some people are more involved in the purchase of a computer than others, and some people pay more attention to the aesthetic value of a product than others.

1. Personality characteristics. People differ in the importance they attach to visual product aesthetics, which can be assessed by the CVPA (centrality of visual product aesthetics) scale (Bloch, Brunel, & Arnold, 2003). People scoring higher on this scale (such as design professionals) attach more importance to the aesthetic value of a product and are more able to evaluate aesthetics (see Chapter 21). Another personality variable that influences the importance of aesthetic and symbolic product value is need for uniqueness (Hunt, Radford, & Evans, 2013). Consumers with high uniqueness needs want to feel distinct from others and often prefer distinctive and novel-looking designs (Bloch, 1995), thus paying more attention to the aesthetic and symbolic value of a product.

2. Demographic characteristics. The importance of several product aspects differs with gender, age, education level, and income.

   Expressive product aspects are found to be more important for females (e.g., Williams, 2002). Females indicate a higher importance of the aesthetic attractiveness of products and of the product portraying the correct image to others or themselves (i.e., symbolic value) than males. In addition, females indicate that many functionalities and ease of use are more important than males do (Creusen, 2010).

   Younger people are found to attach more importance to expressive product aspects (Henry, 2002), although Creusen (2010) showed that this effect seems to be restricted to the symbolic aspects of socially significant products. As said earlier, portraying the correct image (i.e., symbolic value) is more important for publicly used products, but this appears to be the case for younger people only; the image you portray apparently becomes less important when getting older. Furthermore, in general, many functionalities, ease of use, and high product quality seem to be more important to older people. For ease of use this is obvious, as cognitive and physical abilities diminish with age.

   Different effects have been found for education level and relatedly for social class (for which education is a good predictor), which might be due to the different countries investigated. In Australia and the United States, higher social class is found to heighten attention to taste and self-expression in buying products (Henry, 2002; Holt, 1998). However, in the Netherlands, higher-educated people are found to attach less importance to symbolic product value and education does not seem to influence the importance of aesthetic aspects. In addition, higher-educated people indicate product quality to be more important. Also, for income the results differ. In the Netherlands, no effect of income level on the importance of aesthetic aspects was found, while higher income people paid more attention to symbolic product aspects, ease of use, product quality, and whether the product has many functionalities (Creusen, 2010). In the United States, increasing income was found to decrease attention to functional purchase criteria, especially for less socially relevant products (Williams, 2002). So the effects of education level and income are equivocal and may differ between countries/cultures.

3. Amount of product knowledge. Similar to involvement, a lack of product knowledge promotes the use of cues for quality, as consumers are less able to evaluate all product information. Therefore, the quality impression communicated through the appearance of a product will be more influential when consumers have less product knowledge or are less involved in the product category (see Table 20.2). Product knowledge differs between individual consumers depending on factors such as their interest in the product. In addition, product knowledge may differ between product categories; for example, consumer knowledge of a really new product will in general be low.

Note: “+”: a positive influence has been found; “-”: a negative influence has been found; “?”: different results have been found across studies/countries.

CVPA = centrality of visual product aesthetics; SSP = socially significant products.

Brand Strength and Image

Brand strength is an important cue for product quality. Product appearance has a bigger influence on perceived product quality for a weak as opposed to a strong (i.e., well-known and positively valued) brand, implying that communicating high quality by means of the appearance of products is especially important for a weak as opposed to a strong brand (Page & Herr, 2002).

Product appearance is a powerful communicator of brand image and identity to consumers and can be used for brand identification. For example, many car brands are recognizable from their visual design as they use similar elements over subsequent models. Brands should strategically decide whether the visual appearance of a new product should be similar to other products in their portfolio, and similar to previous products of the brand (Person, Snelders, Karjalainen, & Schoormans, 2007). Creating visual brand recognition is more important for a strong brand than for a weak brand, as a strong brand wants to be easily recognized and to transfer the positive brand associations to new products.

The visual design of products can also be used to express the core values of a brand (e.g., Karjalainen & Snelders, 2010). Orth and Malkewitz (2008) distinguished several key types of holistic package designs that fit certain types of brands. For example, exciting brands should have contrasting designs, while sophisticated brands should have natural or delicate designs.

Phase of the Product Life Cycle

The way in which product form impacts consumers differs with the phase of the product life cycle (PLC) that the product is in (Bloch, 1995; Luh, 1994). During introduction, attracting consumer attention by using a fresh form may be essential. However, the appearance should not look too new as this makes it more difficult for consumers to categorize the product, which might have negative effects (Goode, Dahl, & Moreau, 2013). In this stage, the target market often comprises high-income pioneer users, who want the product to be visible and conspicuous to others (Luh, 1994). In addition, the design should communicate superior functionality and safe operation. As many consumers have low product knowledge, product form may have a stronger influence as a cue for quality (see Table 20.2). This means that a novel form will be beneficial in this stage (see Table 20.1). In the growth phase, functions become more standardized and criteria such as ease of use or quality may become more important. In addition, product form and styling should be acceptable to more mainstream consumers. In the maturity phase, differentiation becomes important. Design may become important in emphasizing performance improvements (Bloch, 1995) and there is an emphasis on intuitively understandable operation or on aesthetic value (Luh, 1994). The needs for self-expression, and thus the symbolic value of the appearance, will be more important. In the decline phase, most of the expectations from the maturity phase should be maintained (Luh, 1994).

Table 20.4 provides an overview of ways in which product form is likely to be influential in different stages of the PLC. An empty cell does not mean that this role is not important in that phase; the influence of different product appearance roles also depends on other factors (see the previous sections).

Culture and Time

Culture- and time-related differences have been found in symbolic associations and aesthetic preferences for product designs (Bloch, 1995; Crilly, Moultrie, & Clarkson, 2004; see also Chapter 21). However, the influence of culture and time on the perception of other types of product value is rarely investigated. There are probably greater differences in perceived aesthetic and symbolic product value between cultures and times than in perceptions of functional performance and ease of use, as these are less subjective (Creusen & Schoormans, 2005). For example, most people will agree that larger buttons are easier to operate. But although functional perceptions may be relatively similar between cultures and times, preferences may differ. For example, more buttons on a product tend to make it look more technologically advanced and less easy to use (Norman, 1988). Some cultures may have a greater preference for technologically advanced and complicated products than others, although not much research has been done in this area.

Context Factors

The context of the purchase situation influences the relative importance of certain types of product value. For example, a matching environment can emphasize the aesthetic value of a product (e.g., Bloch, 1995) and heighten its importance for the consumer. Indeed, products are sometimes displayed in a matching environment with other products in the same style or colors, so that they look their best. It is therefore important to take the environment in which the product will be sold, including competitor products, into account in designing a product and its appearance. For example, in general, bright colors draw consumer attention. But when many competitors use bright colors, the use of darker colors might be a better way to draw consumer attention. In addition, categorization of a design can also be influenced by the context of product presentation—either in store or in advertising—as the context can, for example, influence how typical a design looks. An illustration is that typical-looking product designs are perceived as especially typical in an atypical context (Blijlevens, Gemser, & Mugge, 2012). Furthermore, the aesthetic context of one's home may influence the aesthetic value of a product for consumers, as they may want it to fit their home interior (e.g., Bloch, 1995). Someone may like the way a certain product looks, but not buy it because the colors do not fit in their home.