ACR Competitive Paper

1The Influence of Prototypicality and Level of Exposure on Consumers' Responses to Product Designs: Field Evidence from German Car BuyersJan R. Landwehr Daniel Wentzel Andreas Herrmann* 2*Jan R. Landwehr is Assistant Professor of Marketing, Center for Customer Insight, University of St. Gallen, Switzerland (e-mail: [email protected]). Daniel Wentzel is Assistant Professor of Marketing, Center for Customer Insight, University of St. Gallen, Switzerland (e-mail: [email protected]).. Andreas Herrmann is Professor of Marketing, Center for Customer Insight, University of St. Gallen, Switzerland (e- mail: [email protected]). 3The Influence of Prototypicality and Level of Exposure on Consumers' Responses to Product Designs: Field Evidence from German Car BuyersABSTRACTExisting research on product design has suggested that a design's prototypicality is an important determinant of consumers' aesthetic responses. Furthermore, most studies have measured consumers' reactions to designs varying in prototypicality after a single exposure. In reality, however, consumers have multiple opportunities to observe a product before making a decision. In this research, we investigate if the positive effect of prototypicality is moderated by the level of exposure. More specifically, we postulate that more prototypical designs will lose in aesthetic appeal after multiple exposures, whereas less prototypical designs will gain in aesthetic appeal. Two studies focusing on German car buyers provide converging support for this prediction. 4EXTENDED ABSTRACTIn recent years, a growing number of industries have begun to regard product aesthetics as a fundamental part of their competitive strategy (Cox and Cox 2002). Yet, there is surprisingly little research that relates specific components of a product's design to consumers' aesthetic responses (Bloch 1995). Put differently, very few studies have investigated why some product designs are considered to be more aesthetically pleasing than others (for exceptions see, Cox and Cox 2002; Veryzer and Hutchinson 1998). One factor that has been investigated as a potential determinant of consumers' aesthetic responses is a design's prototypicality. That is, product designs that are typical of their general category have been found to elicit more positive evaluations than product designs that are atypical of their category (e.g., Veryzer and Hutchinson 1998). However, there are numerous examples showing that some products succeed in the marketplace precisely because their designs are unique and revolutionary. How can one account for this apparent discrepancy? One explanation may be based on the fact that most studies have only measured participants' reactions to designs varying in prototypicality after a single exposure. However, consumers usually have multiple opportunities to observe a product before making a decision. Considering decision processes of this kind is important since research from other areas demonstrates that the aesthetical appeal of a stimulus is influenced by the level of exposure (Bornstein 1989). Therefore, this research examines if and to what extent the relationship between a design's prototypicality and consumers' preferences is moderated by the extent of exposure. The most common explanation for the positive effects of prototypicality is based on the concept of fluency, which refers to the cognitive ease that people experience when processing a stimulus. Research in this area has shown that stimuli that are more prototypical can be processed more fluently than stimuli that are less prototypical (Winkielman et al. 2006). Fluency, in turn, may be hedonically marked and may elicit positive affect that is subsequently transferred to the stimulus (Winkielman and Cacioppo 2001). From this perspective, products with prototypical designs should be preferred over products with atypical designs. Current theorizing, however, also indicates that fluency-based affect emerges at very early stages of information processing (Winkielman et al. 2003). Hence, if consumers only have a single opportunity to observe a product, the fluency signal is a very relevant information for forming a judgment. When, however, consumers have multiple exposures, they may be able to extract additional information from the product, such that the fluency signal is not the only information available (Novemsky et al. 2007). This, in turn, may affect how consumers respond to different designs. Whereas prototypical designs may initially elicit a positive response, they may feel boring once all their features have been extracted. Atypical designs, however, may still feel interesting after multiple exposures. Consequently, we postulate that more prototypical designs will lose in aesthetic appeal after multiple exposures, whereas less prototypical designs will gain in aesthetic appeal. Two studies focusing on German car buyers were conducted to test this prediction. 5Study 1 experimentally manipulated the prototypicality of a car's design (prototypical, not prototypical) and the level of exposure (3, 6, 9 exposures). We also examined two different car segments (compact cars and mid-size executive cars) to increase the generalizability of our findings. To create car designs that varied in terms of their prototypicality, we relied on image morphing techniques. To this end, we took standardized pictures of 16 compact cars and 12 mid-size executive cars and created two different morphs out of these images for each segment. One of the morphs was particularly typical of its segment, whereas the other was particularly atypical. Afterwards, we asked a total of 306 German car buyers to evaluate these images and manipulated the level of exposure. The results confirmed our predictions and showed that the relationship between prototypicality and aesthetic liking is moderated by the extent of exposure. Whereas prototypical car designs began to lose in aesthetic appeal after 9 exposures, atypical car designs were considered more attractive with increasing amounts of exposure. Study 2 sought to enhance the external validity of these findings by examining if the interaction between prototypicality and exposure also affects sales. To this end, we calculated a prototype similarity score for each of the 28 cars in our sample (Winkielman et al. 2006). Furthermore, we assumed that the extent of exposure would be determined by how long a car has been available on the market. Again, the results confirmed our hypothesis. While sales for prototypical cars increase rapidly in the first years, they reach a peak fairly quickly, after which sales drop again at a rapid rate. Atypical cars, however, take a much longer time to reach their peak. At the same time, they also show a slower rate of decline, such that they are sold successfully for longer periods of time than cars that are prototypical. This research makes several contributions to the literature. Firstly, our studies show that the effect of design prototypicality is moderated by the level of exposure. Assuming that consumers have multiple exposures to a product before making a decision, atypical designs may eventually be more successful than very prototypical designs. Secondly, our studies also contribute to the literature on fluency and consumer choice. Research in this area has typically found that consumers are more likely to choose a product when they experience feelings of fluency (Schwarz 2004). Building on these findings, our studies suggest that fluency effects are more likely to be observed when consumers have limited opportunity to process a product in great depth, but may be less pronounced with increasing amounts of exposure. REFERENCESBenson, Philip J. and Daniel I. Perret (1993), "Extracting Prototypical Facial Images from Exemplars," Perception, 22 (3), 257-62.Berlyne, Daniel E. (1970), "Novelty, Complexity, and Hedonic Value," Perception and Psychophysics, 8 (November), 279-86.Bloch, Peter H. (1995), "Seeking the Ideal Form: Product Design and Consumer Response," Journal of Marketing, 59 (July), 16-29.Bornstein, Robert F. (1989), "Exposure and Affect: Overview and Meta-Analysis of Research, 1968-1987," Psychological Bulleting, 106 (2), 265-89.Bornstein, Robert F., Amy R. Kale, and Karen R. Cornell (1990), "Boredom as a Limiting Condition on the Mere Exposure Effect," Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58(5), 791-800.Carbon, Claus-Christian and Helmut Leder (2005), "The Repeated Evaluation Technique (Ret). A Method to Capture Dynamic Effects of Innovativeness and Attractiveness," Applied Cognitive Psychology, 19 (5), 587-601.Cox, Dena and Anthony D. Cox (2002), "Beyond First Impressions: The Effects of Repeated Exposure on Consumer Liking of Visually Complex and Simple Product Designs," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 30 (2), 119-30.Deffenbacher, Kenneth A., Thomas Vetter, John Johanson, and Alice J. O'Toole (1998), "Facial Aging, Attractiveness, and Distinctiveness," Perception, 27 (10), 1233-43. 7Fitzmaurice, Garrett M., Nan M. Laird, and James H. Ware (2004), Applied Longitudinal Analysis, Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.Golder, Peter N. and Gerard J. Tellis (2004), "Growing, Growing, Gone: Cascades, Diffusion, and Turning Points in the Product Life Cycle " Marketing Science, 23 (2), 207-18.Hekkert, Paul and Piet C. W. van Wieringen (1990), "Complexity and Prototypicality as Determinants of the Appraisal of Cubist Paintings," British Journal of Psychology, 81 (4), 483-95.Kreuzbauer, Robert and Alan J. Malter (2005), "Embodied Cognition and New Product Design: Changing Product Form to Influence Brand Categorization," Journal of Product Innovation Management, 22 (2), 165-76.Langlois, Judith H. and Lori A. Roggman (1990), "Attractive Faces Are Only Average," Psychological Science, 1 (2), 115-21.Martindale, Colin and Kathleen Moore (1988), "Priming, Prototypicality, and Preference," Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 14 (November), 661-70.Mitchell, Russ (1999), "Maximizing Imacs," U.S. News & World Report, January 18, 43-45.Novemsky, Nathan, Ravi Dhar, Norbert Schwarz, and Itamar Simonson (2007), "Preference Fluency in Choice," Journal of Marketing Research, 44 (3), 347-56.Page, Christine and Paul M. Herr (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), 133-47.Perret, D. I., K. A. May, and S. Yoshikawa (1994), "Facial Shape and Judgments of Female Attractiveness," Nature, 368 (6468), 239-42. 8Pocheptsova, Anastasiya, Aparna A. Labroo, and Ravi Dhar (2009), "When Products Feel Special: Low Fluency Leads to Enhanced Desirability," Advances in Consumer Research, 36.Reber, Rolf, Norbert Schwarz, and Piotr Winkielman (2004), "Processing Fluency and Aesthetic Pleasure: Is Beauty in the Perceiver's Processing Experience?," Personality & Social Psychology Review, 8 (4), 364-82.Schwarz, Norbert (2004), "Metacognitive Experiences in Consumer Judgment and Decision Making," Journal of Consumer Pyschology, 14 (4), 332-48.Tellis, Gerard J. and Joseph Johnson (2007), "The Value of Quality," Marketing Science, 26 (6), 758-73.Veryzer, Robert W. and J. Wesley Hutchinson (1998), "The Influence of Unity and Prototypicality on Aesthetic Responses to New Product Designs," Journal of Consumer Research, 24 (March), 374-94.Winkielman, Piotr and John T. Cacioppo (2001), "Mind at Ease Puts a Smile on the Face: Psychophysiological Evidence That Processing Facilitation Increases Positive Affect," Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81 (6), 989-1000.Winkielman, Piotr, Jamin Halberstadt, Tedra Fazendeiro, and Steve Catty (2006), "Prototypes Are Attractive Because They Are Easy on the Mind," Psychological Science, 17 (9), 799-806.Winkielman, Piotr, Norbert Schwarz, Tedra Fazendeiro, and Rolf Reber (2003), "The Hedonic Marking of Processing Fluency: Implciations for Evaluative Judgment," in The Psychology of Evaluation: Affective Processes in Cognition and Emotion, ed. Jochen Musch and Karl Christoph Klauer, Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, 189-217.

ACR Competitive Paper

Details

Download

Copyright

We respect the copyrights and intellectual property rights of all users. All uploaded documents are either original works of the uploader or authorized works of the rightful owners.

Support