Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
www.emeraldinsight.com/0309-0566.htm
Product value
importance
1437
Received January 2008
Revised July 2008
November 2008
February 2009
Accepted February 2009
Robert W. Veryzer
Robert Veryzer Research, and
Introduction
Product design is acknowledged as an important marketing variable (e.g. Dumaine,
1991; Kotler, 2003; Lorenz, 1986; Roy, 1994; Pilditch, 1976; Thackara, 1997; Yamamoto
and Lambert, 1994). To be successful in todays increasingly competitive marketplace,
EJM
49,9/10
1438
the appearance of new products has to match the preferences of consumers: consumers
must like the looks of a product. In other words, companies need to take into account
the aesthetic preferences of consumers when they make decisions about the appearance
of their products. So, it is not surprising that much of the research into consumer
perception of product appearance has centered on aesthetic appreciation. In this
literature, visual organization principles are often mentioned as influencers of
aesthetic preferences. These are general design principles or qualities, such as
complexity, unity, symmetry and proportion. According to the existing literature,
people generally prefer low (but not too low) complexity, high unity and high
symmetry, and have a preference for specific proportions that differs between product
types (e.g. Berlyne, 1971; Hekkert et al., 1994; Lauer, 1979; Lewalski, 1988; Veryzer and
Hutchinson, 1998). As an example, these preferred design principle levels are, in our
opinion, reflected in Bang & Olufsen products, a Danish brand for audio and video
products that is well known for its good aesthetics.
Consumer researchers have made important advances into understanding the
cognitive and emotional reactions of consumers to product design and appearance (e.g.
Bloch, 1995; Creusen and Schoormans, 2005; Crilly et al., 2004; Veryzer and Hutchinson,
1998). Relevant marketing literature stresses that the appearance of a product not only
influences the aesthetic value of a product, but also the perceived functional and
ergonomic product value (Bloch, 1995; Creusen and Schoormans, 2005; Veryzer, 1995).
Therefore, visual design principles might be expected to not only influence aesthetic
preferences, but also the perception of ease of use, functionality, and quality (see
Veryzer and Hutchinson, 1998). For example, to make something look easy to use, the
number of controls (such as buttons) should be minimized, as more controls make a
product look more complex (Norman, 1988). A complex design will therefore negatively
influence consumers perception of ease of use. To get a more complete and valid
insight into the relationship between design and consumer product preference, the
impact of a design on consumer perception of all types of product value not only
aesthetic value should be taken into account. Up until now, research into the
influence of visual design principles has mainly focused on aesthetic value. In this
study, we investigate whether the preferred level of visual design principles depends
on the type of product value aesthetic value, functionalities and quality (i.e.
functional value), and ergonomic value (i.e. ease of use; see Creusen and Schoormans,
2005) that is important to consumers. If this is the case, the preferred level of visual
design principles in a durable product context might differ from the existing findings
from the literature. This is an important addition to current knowledge about the
influence of product appearance on consumer preference, and has implications for
managers overseeing aspects of product development relating to aligning the design
effort with target customers and determining specific product design executions.
Thus in order to design a preferred product in terms of appearance, the question
needs to be answered as to how the different design principles influence the perception
of different types of product value. In this article we will begin to address this question
for two important visual design principles:
(1) complexity; and
(2) symmetry (Berlyne, 1971; Lauer, 1979; Murdoch and Flurscheim, 1983).
We will indicate that the preferred level of complexity and symmetry in a design
depends on the type of product value that is important to consumers aesthetic value,
functionalities, quality, or ease of use. This information will help companies in attuning
the appearance of their product offerings to consumer preference. Furthermore,
although preferences for visual complexity and symmetry have been investigated in
the literature, they have not yet been addressed in a durable product context. Most of
the research into the influence of these principles is done with simple, artificial
nonsense stimuli and concerning aesthetic value only. Only a few authors have
investigated the influence of design characteristics on aesthetic preference for products
(e.g. Hekkert, 1995; Veryzer, 1993; Veryzer and Hutchinson, 1998). As useful and
important as results from previous studies are, there is a need to investigate how
design principles apply in a (more) realistic product context. For example, unlike the
case for artificial nonsense stimuli, perceived ease of use and number of functionalities
play a role in preference for product designs. In this article we address the important
issue of how visual complexity and symmetry influence consumer product preference
for realistic product concepts, in which, next to aesthetic value, aspects such as ease of
use, functionalities and quality are also important for consumers.
In this research we focus on durable products, for which all types of product value
aesthetic value, functionalities and quality and ergonomic value are expected to play
a role for consumers to some extent. For fast-moving consumer goods, aesthetic value
and functionalities might play some role, but to a much lesser extent than for durable
products. For fast-moving consumer products, drawing attention and ease of
categorization will be more important roles for product appearance or package (Garber
et al., 2000).
In the next section, we will briefly explain the visual design principles complexity
and symmetry. After that, hypotheses about the influence of product value type
importance aesthetic value, functionalities, quality, and ease of use on preferences
for visual complexity and symmetry in the design of a durable product are posited.
Next, we present a study in which the relation between the importance of the product
value types (for consumers) and their preferences for visual complexity and symmetry
are assessed. After that the results are presented, followed by managerial and research
implications.
Visual complexity and symmetry
In this section we briefly explain visual complexity and symmetry and their relation to
consumer preference before moving on to the hypotheses, where the relationship of
complexity and symmetry with specific types of product value is discussed.
Several authors have described one or more visual organization principles or
structural principles of design (e.g. Arnheim, 1974; Berlyne, 1971; Gombrich, 1979;
Lauer, 1979; Lewalski, 1988; Loebach, 1976; Muller, 2001; Murdoch and Flurscheim,
1983; Schmitt and Simonson, 1997; Veryzer, 1993). Among the most frequently
mentioned visual design principles are complexity and symmetry.
According to Berlyne (1971), a larger number of independently selected elements
and less similarity among these elements make a pattern more complex. Muller (2001)
cites a school of predominantly German theoreticians (e.g. Birkhoff) and Gestalt
psychologists who believed that a high degree of ordering and low complexity lead to
aesthetic preference. However, according to Berlyne (1971), there is an inverted
Product value
importance
1439
EJM
49,9/10
1440
H1. Subjects who attach more importance to aesthetics show less preference for a
visually complex product design.
In general, people aesthetically prefer high symmetry. This has been found for abstract
patterns and for faces (e.g. Berlyne, 1971; Jacobsen and Hofel, 2002; Lauer, 1979;
Rentschler et al., 1999; Rhodes, 2006). Symmetry provides order and relieves tension
(Schmitt and Simonson, 1997). As symmetry seems to have a basic appeal (Berlyne,
1971; Lauer, 1979), it is often used in designs. However, the appeal of symmetry in real
products, although often mentioned (e.g. Murdoch and Flurscheim, 1983; Schmitt and
Simonson, 1997), has not yet been investigated experimentally. In this study, it will be
investigated as to whether symmetry is indeed also aesthetically preferred for
products. Several authors mention that complete symmetry may be too monotonic and
thereby boring; a touch of asymmetry can be appealing by adding an element of
uniqueness, which may create a greater sense of interest (e.g. Murdoch and Flurscheim,
1983; Schmitt and Simonson, 1997). In reality, highly symmetric products are almost
never completely symmetrical to the extent that they look boring. So we expect that
subjects for whom aesthetics is an important factor determining their product
preference will in general prefer a more symmetric to a less symmetric product.
H2. Subjects who attach more importance to aesthetics more strongly prefer a
symmetric product design.
Concerning functionalities, we expect the following. A visually complex product will
look more technologically complex; more controls lead people to infer that there are
more functionalities (Norman, 1988). We therefore expect subjects for whom
functionalities are important to have more preference for a visually complex design
than subjects who attach less importance to functionalities. We did not find any
literature in which a relation between symmetry and perception of functionality is
proposed. Indeed, we could not think of any reason why symmetry would influence the
perceived amount of functionalities. Whether the same number of controls is divided
symmetrically or asymmetrically over the product surface is unlikely to influence the
number of functionalities people infer the product to have. Therefore we do not pose a
hypothesis concerning the influence of symmetry on perceived functionality and
indeed we check in our study whether no significant relationship is found:
H3. Subjects who attach more importance to functionalities, more strongly prefer
a visually complex product design.
There is almost no literature concerning the influence of visual design principles on
quality perception. Veryzer and Hutchinson (1998) found a positive influence of unity
on the perception of product quality. A possible reason for this effect might be that
high unity gives consumers the impression that a company has paid attention to the
product and its design, and this could engender a high quality impression in
consumers. When this would be the case, one could argue that high symmetry and less
complexity (increasing a sense of order) might possibly have the same positive effect
on quality perception. In stores, the more expensive audio equipment (e.g. the brands
Bang & Olufsen and Loewe) indeed often has a simple, non-cluttered, design. However,
for complexity one could also envision an effect in the opposite direction, so that higher
complexity heightens perceived quality. More controls make a product look more
complex (Norman, 1988). As it has more controls, people may expect a complex looking
Product value
importance
1441
EJM
49,9/10
1442
product to have many functionalities (see also H3). People could interpret a product
having many functionalities as a more high end product. While they may not want
the larger number of functionalities per se, more functionalities may signal a more
high end product and thereby higher quality to them. Creusen (2006) indeed found
that the perceived amount of functionalities increased the perceived quality for a coffee
maker. As a product with more functionalities tends to look more complex, we
therefore expect that higher visual complexity heightens perceived product quality. As
we did not find any literature that specifically addresses the influence of symmetry and
visual complexity on perceived quality, here we offer hypotheses to begin this inquiry:
H4. Subjects who attach more importance to product quality, more strongly prefer
a symmetric product design.
H5. Subjects who attach more importance to product quality, more strongly prefer
a visually complex product design.
We expect that visual complexity influences perceived ergonomic product value that
is, perceived ease of use. A less complex product looks easier to use and understand, as
a smaller number of controls (making the product look less complex) makes the
product look easier to use (Norman, 1988). We therefore expect that visual complexity
lowers the impression that the product is easy to use. Concerning symmetry, Murdoch
and Flurscheim (1983) note that a symmetrical arrangement of controls on a product
contributes to an impression of order and tidiness, but that an asymmetrical
arrangement may be ergonomically preferable. Their remark is made concerning large
products (a bus and large computer system) where of course positioning of controls has
more ergonomical consequences. So on the one hand, one could expect that more
symmetry makes the product look more orderly and thereby clearer/easier to use. On
the other hand, differentiation between elements and in the form as a whole (i.e. less
symmetry) may increase perceived ease of use, as one can imagine that buttons can be
better distinguished from each other when not arranged symmetrically. Symmetry
would lead to uniformity in button shape and placement, which makes it more difficult
to locate a specific button. Differences between parts for product-user interaction may
give clues for operation. As there has been no research into this relation and opposite
influences can be hypothesized, we do not pose a hypothesis concerning the influence
of symmetry on perceived ergonomic product value:
H6. Subjects who attach more importance to ease of use show less preference for a
visually complex product design.
Methodology
First, we will give a brief overview of the methodology used. An orthogonal factorial
stimulus design was used so that we could independently assess the influence of
complexity and symmetry on consumer design preferences. Product alternatives with
different combinations of low and high complexity and symmetry were rated by
consumers to assess their preferences. By means of conjoint analysis, their utility for
visual symmetry and complexity could be assessed. Subjects also indicated the
importance of aesthetic, functional, and ergonomic product value in their product
preference ratings. In this way, the influence of the importance of each type of product
value on the utility for visual symmetry and complexity could be assessed.
Subjects
A questionnaire including pictures of the experimental stimuli products was sent to
each of 512 members of a consumer household research panel affiliated with a leading
European University. The gender, age, and education of the panel members was
known. The percentage of male subjects was 54.3. Ages ranged between 17 and 84
years, with a mean age of 49.9 years. About 33 per cent of the subjects were in each of
three educational groups, i.e. low, medium and high. Low education level includes
primary school, lower vocational training and lower secondary education; medium
education includes medium level vocational training and higher secondary education;
and high education includes higher vocational training and university education (for
clarity we use general terms, as specific schools differ according to country).
Product value
importance
1443
Figure 1.
An overview of the VCR
pictures that are used in
the study. The mean
preference scores are listed
underneath each picture
EJM
49,9/10
1444
VCRs have this system in Europe) and these characters were made consistent across all
of the VCRs. To prevent the effect of color confounding the effect of the visual design
principles on preference, the pictures were presented in black-and-white. As VCRs are
not colorful products (most are black, grey, or metallic), presenting them in black and
white did not greatly reduce the realism of the pictures.
In order to find product alternatives suited to fill the orthogonal factorial design,
pretests were conducted with students in their third or fourth year of study and
graduates in industrial design engineering. These subjects had been trained in visual
design principles in the course of their studies, which made them well suited to judge
stimuli on the amount in which they complied with specific visual design principles.
Booklets containing black-and-white pictures of VCRs were presented to the subjects (in
class or personally), who scored them with respect to the visual design principles. Four
pictures were presented on one page. First, one visual design principle was briefly
described, after which all pictures followed. Underneath each picture was a seven-point
scale of which only the end-poles were labeled, namely low [complexity/symmetry]-high
[complexity/symmetry]. After this, the same procedure was followed for the second
visual design principle. To diminish order effects, two different orders of the visual
design principles and two orders of VCR pictures were used (i.e. four different booklets in
total). Based on the resulting mean scores, pictures were divided into low, medium and
high symmetry and complexity. In order to fill the cells of the research design, VCRs
with all combinations of low and high complexity and symmetry were needed.
The pre-tests highlighted some interesting relationships among visual design
principles as evidenced on actual products, as well as patterns for this class of
products. For example, in the first pre-test, using 52 pictures of real VCRs, complexity
correlated negatively with symmetry (r 20:60, p , 0:001). Most VCRs fitted into
the low complexity-high symmetry cell, some in the high complexity-low symmetry
cell, only one in the high-high cell and none in the low-low cell. This suggests that in
addition to many products being designed according to these rules, the principles do
not seem to be entirely independent. Based on the results of the first pre-test, VCR
pictures that almost fitted in certain cells of the design were slightly adjusted using
computer graphics software (e.g. aspects such as the number and type of buttons or the
display size were changed based on an investigation of the product characteristics that
influenced ratings on the principles in the first pre-test) in order to make them
consistent with specific cells of the design. In order to prevent a confounding influence
of color or shade on preference only darker colored VCRs were included in the stimulus
set (like many electronic products, VCRs tend to be predominantly silver or black).
Furthermore, in order to heighten the robustness of the findings from this experiment,
two operationalizations of stimuli (i.e. VCR products) for each cell in the experimental
design were sought. We succeeded in varying complexity and symmetry relatively
independent from each other, as their correlation was no longer significant in the last
pretest (r 20:31, NS). Through the series of pretests the stimulus set of eight VCR
product designs was developed and finalized for the 2 (low/high complexity) 2
(low/high symmetry) orthogonal factorial design (with two products for each cell).
Procedure
Questionnaires with pictures of eight VCRs (the experimental stimuli) were sent to
respondents homes. They had to indicate their preference for each VCR on a
Product value
importance
1445
EJM
49,9/10
that all means significantly differ from each other, except for quality and ease of use,
and ease of use and aesthetics. Correlations between the different value types range
from 2 0.311 (p , 0:001) for aesthetic value and ease of use, to 0.340 (p , 0:001) for
aesthetic value and quality impression. This means for example that for someone who
valued ease of use, aesthetics tended to be less important.
1446
Figure 2.
An overview of significant
influences of product
value importance on
preference for symmetry
and complexity
Product value
importance
1447
EJM
49,9/10
1448
Managerial and research implications
This study investigated the influence of the visual design/organization principles of
complexity and symmetry on consumers product preferences. People generally
preferred a VCR that exhibited low complexity and high symmetry, which agrees with
findings in the literature. The amount of visual complexity influenced the perception of
all types of product value, namely aesthetics, functionalities, quality, and ease of use.
This was in agreement with our hypotheses. However, the amount of variance
explained by the importance of the product value types in the preference for symmetry
was only small. Only the importance of ease of use influenced preference for symmetry.
This means that symmetry does not significantly influence the perception of aesthetics,
functions, and quality according to our study. We indeed expected importance of
functionalities to not have an influence on preference for symmetry. However, we
expected importance of quality to have a positive influence on preference for symmetry
(although there were no findings on this relationship in the literature). For aesthetic
value, a preference for symmetry is found in the literature (e.g. Berlyne, 1971; Jacobsen
and Hofel, 2002; Lauer, 1979). These findings were based on artificial stimuli and
human faces. Our study indicates that these findings may not transfer to products;
although there was a marginal influence of importance of aesthetic value on preference
for symmetry, this influence is much smaller than can be expected from the existing
literature. Further research is needed to replicate this finding for other kinds of
products.
The effect of symmetry and visual complexity on consumers preferences differed
depending on the product value that was important to these consumers in making their
preference judgments: aesthetics, functionalities, quality, or ease of use. This adds to
the existing literature that has primarily focused on aesthetic value in assessing
consumer preference for design. Since the appearance of a product can also influence
the perceived functional and ergonomic value as well as the perceived quality of a
product, managers overseeing new product development are well served by taking
these effects into account. In this study, preference for symmetry was found to decrease
when ease of use was more important to subjects. Preference for complexity increased
when functionalities and quality were more important, and decreased when aesthetics
and ease of use were more important to subjects (see Figure 2). These findings
illustrate that it is beneficial to emphasize the most important type of product value in
the development of a product (design) and its appearance. It is difficult if not
impossible to optimize a products appearance for each type of product value
simultaneously, as the best design differs according to product value. For example,
when aesthetics are important consumers prefer a less complex product, while more
complexity is preferred when functional value (i.e. functionalities and quality) is
important to them. Therefore it is useful to focus on the most important or beneficial
product value in designing a product, without ignoring the other types of product
value. Of course care should be taken that a product is not perceived negatively with
respect to the other product value types. When the main type of value that is important
for the product and the desired target market is emphasized during product
development, the design can be attuned to this, leading to a better communication of
product advantage to consumers.
Specific implications for practice on the amount of visual complexity and symmetry
to apply in determining the appearance of a product follow from the results of this
study. When aesthetics are important to consumers, a product low in complexity will
be preferred. Although in the literature a preference for symmetry is indicated for
human faces and artificial stimuli, we did not find a significantly higher preference for
symmetry in design with higher importance of aesthetics (although there was a
statistical trend). When consumers want a medium or large number of functions, a
more complex looking product will be preferred. This sounds logical, as visual
complexity indicates functional complexity for consumers (see Norman, 1988).
However, one has to take care to not design a product so as to exhibit too much visual
complexity as this study showed that people in general dislike visual complexity. It
was shown that when product quality is important to consumers, they dislike complex
designs to a lesser extent. Finally, less symmetry in a product design was found to
heighten an impression of ease of use. Indeed, one can imagine that different buttons
can be better distinguished from each other when not arranged symmetrically, as
symmetry would create uniformity in button shape and placement (see Hypotheses
section). The relation between importance of ease of use and preference for complexity
differs with the number of functions that people prefer. When people desire a small
number of functions, preference for complexity decreases with importance of ease of
use. When people desire a large number of functions, preference for complexity
increases with importance of ease of use. In our study, most subjects wanted a small or
medium number of functions on a VCR (small number: 28 percent, medium number:
55.7 percent, large number, 15.9 percent). The preferred number of functions, and thus
the amount of complexity that people prefer, may differ by product category and
country.
We expected that subjects would prefer more symmetry when aesthetic value and a
quality impression were important to them, but did not find support for this. A possible
explanation might be that for black box electronic products such as VCRs, symmetry
is only varied by buttons and surface elements, and the overall form stays rectangular
and thereby essentially symmetric. It may be that for products that differ more
strongly from each other in their overall shape than do VCRs, an effect of symmetry on
aesthetic value and on quality perception will be found (supporting H2 and H4).
A limitation of this research is that only one product category was investigated. We
used only one product category due to the requirements in filling an orthogonal
factorial design (needed in order to assess independently the influence of symmetry
and complexity). However, the current findings will likely generalize to other black
box electronic products such as hi-fi stereo equipment, DVD players and recorders,
and maybe also products such as microwave ovens. Another limitation, following from
the use of a factorial design, is that we restricted our investigation to low and high
symmetry and complexity designs only. Including a medium level would have
substantially increased the number of stimuli needed, and thus both greatly expanded
the difficulty of filling out the experimental design, as well as make the rating task
Product value
importance
1449
EJM
49,9/10
1450
overly burdensome for the consumer panel subjects. However, including a medium
level would have provided a more exact insight into the level of symmetry and
complexity consumers prefer. There will be limitations on the positive effect of
symmetry and negative effect of complexity, in that complete symmetry and lack of
complexity may be deemed too boring (e.g. Berlyne, 1971; Murdoch and Flurscheim,
1983; Schmitt and Simonson, 1997) to be produced as a marketable design, and there
will be a limit on the amount of complexity of a design intended to be used effectively
by people. However, we used realistic products as stimuli, so that this can be regarded
as a study of the utility of visual complexity and symmetry to consumers within a
realistic range. Within boundaries normally used in product design, the relations
summarized in Figure 2 are expected to hold. Replication across a wider range of
products will be needed to further verify these relationships. However, this work is
another necessary step in the effort to better understand these important (and
challenging to research) relationships between product value and design principles.
The amount of variance in the utility for symmetry that is explained by the
importance of the different product value types is rather low (although significant).
The conjoint analysis showed that symmetry has much less influence on design
preference than does complexity, which might explain that only two of the product
value types influenced utility for symmetry. As mentioned above, symmetry might be
more influential for products that differ more strongly in their overall shape than
black box electronic products such as VCRs. Furthermore, future research might
identify the influence of other visual design principles, such as proportion and unity
(e.g. Berlyne, 1971; Hekkert, 1995; Lauer, 1979; Raghubir and Greenleaf, 2006; Veryzer,
1993), on perception of the different types of product value.
Conclusion
In conclusion, these findings may help product managers and those involved in new
product development in understanding and researching the influences of visual design
principles and product value types on customer reactions to products. Given the
paucity of research that bears directly on the relationships between product value
perception and design principles, it is hoped that the study presented here will add to
the foundation of design research, and serve those charged with giving form to
products by providing an empirical basis for design decisions.
References
Arnheim, R. (1974), Art and Visual Perception: A Psychology of the Creative Eye, University of
California Press, Berkeley, CA.
Berlyne, D.E. (1971), Aesthetics and Psychobiology, Appleton-Century-Crofts, New York, NY.
Bloch, P.H. (1995), Seeking the ideal form: product design and consumer response, Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 59 No. 3, pp. 16-29.
Creusen, M.E.H. (2006), How to signal quality by means of product appearance, in Avlonitis,
G.J., Papavassiliou, N. and Papastathopoulou, P. (Eds), Proceedings of the 35th EMAC
Conference, EMAC, Athens.
Creusen, M.E.H. and Schoormans, J.P.L. (2005), The different roles of product appearance in
consumer choice, Journal of Product Innovation Management, Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 63-81.
Crilly, N., Moultrie, J. and Clarkson, P.J. (2004), Seeing things: consumer response to the visual
domain in product design, Design Studies, Vol. 25, pp. 547-77.
Dumaine, B. (1991), Design that sells and sells and . . ., Fortune, Vol. 11, March, pp. 56-61.
Garber, L.L. Jr, Burke, R.R. and Jones, J.M. (2000), The role of package color in consumer
purchase consideration and choice, Working Paper Series, Rep. No. 00-104, Marketing
Science Institute, Cambridge, MA.
Gombrich, E.H. (1979), The Sense of Order: A Study in the Psychology of Decorative Art, Cornell
University Press, Ithaca, NY.
Hekkert, P. and Leder, H. (2008), Product aesthetics, in Schifferstein, H.N.J. (Ed.), Product
Experience, Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp. 259-85.
Hekkert, P., Peper, C.E. and van Wieringen, P.C.W. (1994), The effect of verbal instruction and
artistic background on the aesthetic judgment of rectangles, Empirical Studies of the Arts,
Vol. 12, pp. 185-203.
Hekkert, P.P.M. (1995), Artful Judgements: A Psychological Inquiry into Aesthetic Preference for
Visual Pattern, Delft University of Technology, Delft.
Jacobsen, T. and Hofel, L. (2002), Aesthetic judgments of novel graphic patterns: analyses of
individual judgments, Perceptual and Motor Skills, Vol. 95 No. 3, pp. 755-66.
Kotler, P. (2003), Marketing Management, 11th ed., Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Lauer, D.A. (1979), Design Basics, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York, NY.
Lewalski, Z.M. (1988), Product Esthetics: An Interpretation for Designers, Design & Development
Engineering Press, Carson City, NV.
Loebach, B. (1976), Industrial Design: Grundlagen der Industrieproduktgestaltung, Verlag Karl
Thiemig, Munich.
Lorenz, C. (1986), The Design Dimension, Basil Blackwell, Oxford.
Muller, W. (2001), Order and Meaning in Design, Lemma, Utrecht.
Murdoch, P. and Flurscheim, C.H. (1983), Form, in Flurscheim, C.H. (Ed.), Industrial Design in
Engineering, The Design Council, Worcester, pp. 105-31.
Norman, D.A. (1988), The Psychology of Everyday Things, Basic Books, New York, NY.
Pilditch, J. (1976), Talk about Design, Barrie and Jenkins, London.
Raghubir, P. and Greenleaf, E.A. (2006), Ratios in proportion: what should the shape of the
package be?, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 70 No. 2, pp. 95-107.
Rentschler, I., Juttner, M., Unzicker, A. and Landis, T. (1999), Innate and learned components of
human visual preference, Current Biology, Vol. 9 No. 13, pp. 665-71.
Rhodes, G. (2006), The evolutionary psychology of facial beauty, Annual Review of Psychology,
Vol. 57, pp. 199-226.
Roy, R. (1994), Can the benefits of good design be quantified?, Design Management Journal,
Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 9-17.
Schmitt, B.H. and Simonson, A. (1997), Marketing Aesthetics: The Strategic Management of
Brands, Identity, and Image, The Free Press, New York, NY.
Thackara, J. (1997), Winners: How Successful Companies Innovate by Design, BIS, Amsterdam.
Veryzer, R.W. (1993), Aesthetic response and the influence of design principles on product
preferences, in McAlister, L. and Rothschild, M.L. (Eds), Advances in Consumer Research,
Association for Consumer Research, Provo, UT, pp. 224-9.
Veryzer, R.W. (1995), The place of product design and aesthetics in consumer research,
in Kardes, F.R. and Sujan, M. (Eds), Advances in Consumer Research, Association for
Consumer Research, Provo, UT, pp. 641-5.
Product value
importance
1451
EJM
49,9/10
Veryzer, R.W. and Hutchinson, J.W. (1998), The influence of unity and prototypicality on
aesthetic responses to new product designs, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 24 No. 4,
pp. 374-94.
Yamamoto, M. and Lambert, D.R. (1994), The impact of product aesthetics on the evaluation of
industrial products, Journal of Product Innovation Management, Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 309-24.
1452