National and Regional Cultures

Culture is a lens through which people view a phenomenon, apprehend and assimilate it (McCracken, 1986). It has been said that beauty is partially in the eyes of the culture and not of the individual (Berlyne, 1971). Cultures influence how people see the world and impact how they visually appreciate the design of a product. Thus, the culture of a given individual is likely to significantly guide his or her aesthetic tastes.

Hofstede (1980) proposed a tool to classify cultures according to their values. This helps us to understand how cultures can systematically differ in terms of aesthetic preferences. Below, I present three cultural dimensions that vary across cultures and that may influence an individual's aesthetic response¹ (Table 21.1):

• Individualism/collectivism. Western countries are traditionally more individualistic cultures (North America and Europe), whereas Eastern and African countries tend to be more collectivistic.
• Masculinity/femininity. Masculine cultures value competitiveness and materialism (Japan is one of the most masculine country). Feminine cultures value quality of life and happiness (the Nordic countries are known to be highly feminine countries in this respect).
• Long-term orientation/short-term orientation. This dimension refers to the extent to which a country gives importance to the past and tradition. Countries that score high on this dimension will tend to have a pragmatic approach and encourage modernism. On the opposite countries that score low prefer to maintain traditions and norms.

In Japan and China, designs that foster social harmony will be appreciated more because they fit with the collectivist view of these countries. For instance, symmetric and balanced designs will be favored because these are factors for harmonious design (Henderson, Cote, Leong, & Schmitt, 2003). In individualistic countries such as the United States (which scores 100 out of 100 on this value!), creativity is highly valued. In this context, new, innovative designs will have a better chance of being accepted (Henderson et al., 2003; Schmitt & Simonson, 1997). Time orientation also can influence people's visual tastes. Countries that give a lot of importance to their history and that value their past, such as China, and also Europe (“the old continent”), will place higher value on traditional designs with long life expectancy (think of the longevity and success of the Channel No. 5 fragrance for instance).

Henderson et al. (2003) also found that American consumers tended to favor angular shapes, whereas their Asian counterparts favor rounded shapes. An explanation of this fact can be found in the work of Zhang, Feick, and Price (2006). Zhang et al. found that rounded versus angular shapes preferences could be linked to self-construal. More specifically, an independent self-construal (i.e., the self is defined as independent of others) is associated with confrontation, whereas an interdependent self-construal (i.e., the self is defined as interdependent with others) is associated with conflict avoidance. Independent individuals who value confrontation perceive angular shapes as more attractive and rounded shapes as less attractive than individuals with interdependent self-construal do. Angular shapes reflect conflict and dynamism and are also often associated with masculine cultures. Feminine cultures, however, are often believed to favor more rounded, soft shapes. When thinking about developing a product, the choice of angular shapes may receive less approval in a feminine culture that values harmony in life than in a masculine culture (Schmitt & Simonson, 1997).

These are just guidelines: what of a country such as Japan, which scores high on masculinity and low on individualism? According to Hofstede, masculinity prevails over collectivism in Japan, yet a careful look at the values and culture needs to be taken before launching a new product in a culture with seemingly contradictory values.

There are also differences among cultures in color associations. For instance, in Western society, which is more individualistic, white stands for purity and brides are mostly dressed in white. In Japan, white is the color used for mourning and grieving (Whitfield & Wiltshire, 1983).

Cultures influence design beyond visual aesthetics by affecting the role of a product. Across countries, different lifestyles impact the designing of products. Bike designs, for example, differ in the United States and in the Netherlands. In the United States, roads are wider and people are used to having cars to travel around. In the United States, bikes are leisure products, used with family or friends on the weekends to ride through the countryside. North American bikes need to be robust to respond to those outdoor activities. In the Netherlands, the roads are quite narrow. The average traveling distance is shorter, and people have developed the habit of traveling by bike, which is also quicker in case of traffic jams. In the Netherlands and most of the Nordic countries, urban residents use their bikes individually as a means of transport. Dutch bikes are lighter, more practical, that is, more adapted to city riding than North American ones. In France and in the United Kingdom, bikes need to answer to both activities at the same time, thus contributing to the success of hybrid bike designs such as the successful Decathlon's B'Twin of France (as shown in Figure 21.2).

American bikes are traditionally designed for outdoor activities, whereas Dutch bikes must respond to urban transportation needs. In France and in the United Kingdom, where both activities are equally important, hybrid bikes are very successful (Figure 21.2).

Cultures cannot be reduced to national or regional boundaries. Not every North American consumer likes innovative product designs, nor does every African like traditional ones. Culture is a complex, multilevel phenomenon. In order to understand a consumer, one must grasp the many influences on which his identity is built, among which (but certainly not exhaustively) are social class and consumer culture.

The Concept of Class

The French sociologist Pierre Bourdieu established in his book Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgment of Taste (1979, English trans. 1984) that thanks to the cultural capital we inherit our tastes are defined by the social class in which we are born. He found that abstract paintings were highly valued by the “petite bourgeoisie,” for instance, in order to differentiate their tastes from those of the working class. The working class favored pictures of everyday life such as a first communion or a folklore dance, which they understood and identified with. Though Bourdieu has had many critics, his analysis remains intriguing and relevant. A too visually complex, abstract product will probably not be appealing to the working class. However, individuals who wish to belong to the social elite will probably disregard trivial or very common products and favor distinguished ones. This phenomenon can explain the achievement of Nespresso®, the successful coffee machine and capsule manufacturer. The aesthetic of Nespresso is very peculiar, both product-wise (neat, elegant) and distribution-wise (flagship stores with a doorman). This specific design is associated with upper-class tastes and can be considered snobby by those who do not identify with it. Indeed, owning a Nespresso machine is a sign of social status in Europe today. Bourdieu has shown that taste has a lot to do with the social origins of an individual.

Holbrook (1999, 2005) studied taste and expertise and found a strong correlation between the two. People with expertise have the ability to define what is of good taste and what is not. Taste can be defined as: “An individual's consistent and appropriate response to aesthetic consumption objects through any of the five senses that is highly correlated with some external standard” (Hoyer & Stokburger-Sauer, 2012). The correlation between taste and external standards, defined by experts, helps us understand the work of Bourdieu (1984 [1984]). It is the upper class of society that has the “knowledge” and “expertise” in term of tastes. The lower class, with lower cultural background will, with time, transfer its tastes to the standards established by “experts.” However, the standard of beauty of the upper class will by that time already be elsewhere. Thus, there will always be a distinction in taste between people of different social class (Bourdieu, 1984 [1984]).

Subcultures of Consumption

The subculture of consumption is yet another frame affecting visual preferences. People who follow a specific type of consumption are likely to adopt its aesthetics standards (Schouten & McAlexander, 1995). This is the case for Goths, for instance, whose community has its own aesthetics in clothes, music, and way of life (Schilt, 2007). Individuals who identify with this particular culture of consumption will value products with design congruent to the community's standards. In the case of Goths, for instance, there is a preference for the color black for clothing, or dark objects with sharp metal to express dramatization of the self. When designing a store for that target, for instance, designers need to be intentional given that individuals who identify with the Gothic community might feel less at ease in a store playing loud pop music than they would in one playing Lou Reed's albums. Aesthetic standards are present in many subcultures or communities, such as the gay and lesbian community, bikers, rockers, punks, and hipsters, for example.

Culture is a multilevel, complex phenomenon. It is important to always ask yourself a few questions regarding your future user's culture before thinking about developing a product (see Figure 21.3).

Centrality of Visual Product Aesthetics

Bloch, Brunel, and Arnold (2003) postulated that individual's aesthetic preferences differed depending on the importance of a product's visual appearance in one's life. They named this characteristic the centrality of visual product aesthetics and developed a conceptual model and a scale to measure this variable. What the centrality of visual product aesthetics (CVPA) exactly refers to is “the overall level of significance that visual aesthetics hold for a particular consumer in his/her relationships with products” (Bloch et al., 2003). This concept can be explained through three subdimensions: value, acumen, and response (Figure 21.4).

1. Value. This subdimension refers to the importance given by someone to a product's design in general. This is the extent to which people believe design has the ability to enhance “quality of life, both personally and for society in general” (Bloch et al., 2003). For example, do you agree that “beautiful product design make our world a better place”? This subdimension will measure the extent to which individuals believe that product appearance can improve their personal and the society's well-being. Designers, artists, and probably anyone with a sensibility for art are likely to score high on this dimension. In the example we used at the beginning, we can guess that both Cate and Jenny might score high on this dimension, as they are both careful in choosing their clothes and their furniture.
2. Acumen. This subdimension assesses the ability to evaluate, to identify, and to categorize a product design. Some people are likely to have a higher aesthetic awareness than others. These individuals are expected give greater weight to design elements in product decision making. People who work in a highly aesthetic environment may show more design acumen than others. Jenny works in a fashion consultancy, is surrounded every day by highly aesthetic products and clothes; discussions around her are revolving around artistic or visual issue. We can guess that due to her working environment she will score higher than Cate on this dimension.
3. Response. This dimension measures the level of aesthetic response to product designs. It consists of both psychological response (enjoyment, affect, etc.) and physical (behavioral) response (approach, willingness to buy, etc.) (Bloch, 1995). Good design is often said to provoke impulse buying. Some individuals will be more prone to act on their feelings toward a product. Those persons often engage more with their possessions and build strong relationships with them. They will not see a product as a mere “dead object” but will grant it a personal intrinsic life. This is perhaps more the case for Cate, who likes vintage clothes and furniture: she gives importance to the historical value and significance of the product.

The authors showed that high-CVPA individuals evaluate highly aesthetic products as more pleasing and, have a more positive attitude toward them and a higher purchase intention for these products. In the world of fashion, these individuals are more likely to be opinion leaders and fashion innovators than low-CVPA individuals, who most likely tend to be fashion followers (Workman & Caldwell, 2007). It is crucial to understand, when developing a product, if the targeted users have higher or lower centrality of visual product aesthetics. Low-CVPA individuals discriminate less strongly between aesthetically pleasing and not pleasing products. They presented no differences in behavioral and purchase intentions between low- and high-aesthetic products with same utility (Bloch et al., 2003). In short, people who have the ability to enjoy more complex designs and for whom aesthetics in life is important will be more difficult to please. Those who do not might look at other criteria as primary influencers such as price or function when buying a product.

Visualizing Tendency

Morris Holbrook (1986) argued for the importance of the role of personality variables in affecting aesthetic response. He identified personality variables that can promote variety in aesthetic judgments such as the tendency to process information visually or verbally, the tendency to be more romanticist or classicist, and gender. His research showed that as personalities differ so do aesthetic judgments. Visualizers, for instance, will give more importance to holistic patterns when processing information (Holbrook, 1986). Holbrook found that these persons were more represented among romanticists, which means that visualizers are more likely to enjoy complex designs than those with verbalizing processing tendencies. Bloch et al. (2003) confirmed this with a study showing higher scores for visualizers on the centrality of visual product aesthetics. Holbrook identified visualizers as also being more strongly represented amongst women. Those visualizing women, for instance, in terms of fashion choices, will prefer “plain jackets and (at most) one isolated or two nonadjacent set(s) of stripes” (Holbrook, 1986). Visualizers have a more holistic view of the outfit and thus give more importance to the combination of elements around the jacket. Verbalizing women, however, who do not have such a holistic view, will prefer “plaid jackets.” The difference between visualizers and verbalizers is less important for men; in the end they “play it safe by disliking clashing designs.” Finally, and not surprisingly, classicists might prefer products with more neat designs, while romanticists may prefer more stylish, ornate designs. These results are to be taken with care. It would be inaccurate to suggest that all men dislike clashing designs, for instance.

Need for Uniqueness and Optimal Stimulation Level

The need to distinguish oneself from others is a strong determinant of behavior toward objects (Snyder & Fromkin, 1980). The products we own are used every day in the slow construction of identity; they are bought, consumed, displayed, and destroyed in order to build who we are (Belk, 1988). For some individuals who feel a need to be unique, the product they buy will play a much important role. These individuals will put more care into choosing a product: “Is it unique enough for me?” Snyder and Fromkin (1980) showed that these individuals tend to prefer novel or unusual products that reflect their unique personalities. Not surprisingly, Bloch et al. (2003) found that people who score high on the CVPA scale are also the ones who will seek more unique products.

For the majority of people, however, the optimal level of stimulation (OSL) needed to feel arousal is moderate (Berlyne, 1960). For some people, however, this optimal level is greater; they need more stimulation than others to feel stimulated in their everyday lives. These individuals have been identified as “high optimum stimulation levels (OSL) individuals” (Steenkamp & Baumgartner, 1992). The authors found that these consumers will engage in more variety-seeking behavior as they get bored more quickly by a product. They also are more risk-seeking individuals. Raju (1980) studied the relationship between OSL and personality and demographic traits. High-OSL individuals are attracted to new or unusual stimuli or situation. They may, for instance, work in highly stimulating environments such as museums, theatres, and art schools. Drawing their attention requires greater visual stimuli and higher creativity in the designing of a product. In terms of demographics, younger, educated, and employed people seem to have a higher OSL (Raju, 1980). To decorate her home interior, Jenny, who works in a design consultancy, may prefer original and innovative furniture that will offer her psychological benefits such as risk, variety, or novelty.