W&M ScholarWorks W&M ScholarWorks

Mason School of Business Articles Mason School of Business

Summer 6-28-2012

Product Choice and the Importance of Aesthetic Design Given the Product Choice and the Importance of Aesthetic Design Given the

Emotion‐laden Trade‐off between Sustainability and Functional Emotion laden Trade off between Sustainability and Functional

Performance Performance

Michael G. Luchs College of William and Mary, michael.luchs@mason.wm.edu

Jacob Brower Queen's University

Ravindra Chitturi Lehigh University

Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.wm.edu/businesspubs

Part of the Other Business Commons

Recommended Citation Recommended Citation Luchs, M. G., Brower, J., Chitturi, R. (2012). Product Choice and the Importance of Aesthetic Design Given the Emotion‐laden Trade‐off between Sustainability and Functional Performance. Mason School of Business Publications. 29(6), 903-916. 10.1111/j.1540-5885.2012.00970.x

This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Mason School of Business at W&M ScholarWorks. It has been accepted for inclusion in Mason School of Business Articles by an authorized administrator of W&M ScholarWorks. For more information, please contact scholarworks@wm.edu.

Product Choice and the Importance of Aesthetic Design Giventhe Emotion-laden Trade-off between Sustainability andFunctional Performance*Michael G. Luchs, Jacob Brower, and Ravindra Chitturi

This paper investigates the trade-off decision that consumers face when choosing between a product that is perceivedto be more sustainable (i.e., more socially and environmentally responsible) and another product that instead isperceived to offer superior functional performance. Prior research has demonstrated that consumers often believe thatthere is a trade-off between sustainability and performance, and in some cases, this trade-off may be real and not justperceived. The objectives of the current research are to understand the mediators and moderators of this trade-offchoice and to illustrate one specific way in which to use this understanding to promote the consumption of relativelymore sustainable products despite a perceived performance trade-off.

Two separate studies were conducted. The first employed a student-based sample, whereas the second employed anationally representative online sample. In both studies, participants were presented with a choice between twoconsumer products. One product was depicted as having superior sustainability characteristics (and average func-tional performance), and the other product was depicted as having superior functional performance (and averagesustainability characteristics). Participants were asked to imagine that they were leaning toward choosing one productover the other, and then rated the degree to which they were feeling a set of possible emotions. Following these ratings,participants chose one of the products. The results suggest that consumers presented with such a trade-off will tend tochoose the product with superior functional performance over the product with superior sustainability characteristics,due to feelings of distress, until a minimum threshold of functional performance is achieved. The current research alsoshows that choice given this trade-off depends upon the degree to which consumers value sustainability that, in turn,is mediated by consumers’ feelings of confidence and guilt.

Further, based on an understanding of the emotions mediating choice in this context, the authors demonstrate howthe effective use of product aesthetic design can improve the relative choice likelihood of sustainable products.Specifically, the authors demonstrate that superior aesthetic design has a disproportionately positive effect on thechoice likelihood of sustainability-advantaged (versus performance-advantaged) products due to the effect that supe-rior aesthetic design has on overcoming the potential lack of confidence in sustainable products. These findingshighlight the specific value of aesthetic product design in the context of marketing sustainable products and suggest thatit is especially important for firms interested in marketing sustainable products to also develop market-leading productaesthetic design capabilities.

Introduction

W hile many businesses recognize the value ofadopting sustainable practices, and develop-ing and promoting sustainable products,

many also recognize the risk given the wide gap betweenconsumers’ articulated support of sustainability and the

disproportionately low levels of actual “sustainable con-sumption” (UNEP, 2005). There are a variety of potentialreasons for this gap between articulated values and con-sumption behavior including price premiums and thegeneral lack of availability of sustainable products.However, prior research has also shown that there areother product-specific reasons for this gap. For example,Luchs, Naylor, Irwin, and Raghunathan (2010) demon-strate that consumers often believe that there is a trade-offbetween a product’s sustainability and its level of func-tional performance. In some cases, this trade-off may bereal and not just perceived. Therefore, it is important tounderstand the choice that consumers will make between

Address correspondence to: Michael G. Luchs, The College of Williamand Mary, School of Business Administration, Williamsburg, Virginia23187. E-mail: michael.luchs@mason.wm.edu. Tel: (757) 221-2906.

* The authors gratefully acknowledge the financial support of the Centerfor Customer Insight and Marketing Solutions (CCIMS) at the Universityof Texas at Austin.

J PROD INNOV MANAG 2012;29(6):903–916© 2012 Product Development & Management AssociationDOI: 10.1111/j.1540-5885.2012.00970.x

a product with superior sustainability characteristics (andaverage functional performance) and a product withsuperior functional performance (and average sustain-ability characteristics). Further, it is important to findways to encourage consumption of relatively more sus-tainable products, even when these choices depend uponaccepting some degree of a trade-off with functional per-formance.

Our research, therefore, seeks to address several ques-tions in this context. First, given such a choice, whichproduct will consumers choose and what moderates thischoice? Second, what emotions mediate this choice? Thisinterest in emotions is motivated by prior research thathighlights the importance of emotions in the context ofproduct trade-offs in general (Luce, Bettman, and Payne,2001) as well as specific calls for research on the emo-tional dimensions of sustainable consumption (Peattie,

2010, p. 207). Third, how can choice likelihood for prod-ucts with superior sustainability be improved despite atrade-off, real or perceived, with functional performance?The current research addresses these questions across twostudies, including one study using a nationally represen-tative sample within the United States, and employs thecontext of a trade-off within the product categories ofshoes (study 1) and cell phones (study 2). The resultssuggest that consumers presented with such a trade-offwill tend to choose the product with superior functionalperformance over the product with superior sustainabil-ity, due to feelings of distress, until a minimum thresholdof functional performance is achieved. However, thischoice also depends upon the degree to which consumersvalue sustainability. The importance of sustainability toconsumers is reflected in the degree to which they feelguilty and/or confident when making a choice in thiscontext. Further, the current research demonstrates howthe effective use of product aesthetic design can improvethe relative choice likelihood of sustainable products byattenuating the potential deficit in confidence felt towardthese products.

Theory and Hypotheses

Choice Given a Trade-off between Sustainabilityand Functional Performance

Many consumers are likely to be supportive of theconcept of sustainable consumption, at least when it doesnot require them to compromise on other consumptionobjectives such as meeting product performance needs.However, consumption choices often involve trade-offs.Indeed, prior research has demonstrated that consumersoften expect a trade-off between product sustainabilityand functional performance (Luchs et al., 2010). Thecurrent overall research objective is to understand how atrade-off between sustainability and functional perfor-mance affects consumers’ emotional responses and sub-sequent choices.

Previous research might suggest that consumers wouldchoose sustainability over performance. Chitturi, Raghu-nathan, and Mahajan (2007) studied the emotional andbehavioral consequences of choice situations involving atrade-off between utilitarian/functional performance andhedonics/aesthetics. They demonstrated that in a “loss–loss” scenario, in which consumers must choose betweentwo products—neither of which is sufficient on bothdimensions—consumers will choose the product withrelatively superior functional performance over theproduct with relatively superior hedonics. They argue that

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCHES

Dr. Michael G. Luchs is an assistant professor at the College of Williamand Mary’s Mason School of Business. He earned his Ph.D. from theUniversity of Texas at Austin in 2008. Dr. Luchs also earned an M.S. inmarketing from the University of Texas at Austin, an M.B.A. from theUniversity of Virginia’s Darden Graduate School of Business, as well asa B.S.E. in mechanical engineering and a B.A. in psychology from TuftsUniversity. Prior to earning his Ph.D., Dr. Luchs worked for over adecade as a consultant and as a manager in industry specializing in newproduct development and product management. His research interestsinclude product sustainability, sustainable consumption, and productdesign. He has published in Journal of Marketing, JPIM, Journal ofPublic Policy and Marketing, Journal of Consumer Policy, and Journalof Research for Consumers.

Dr. Jacob Brower is an assistant professor at the Queen’s School ofBusiness at Queen’s University. He earned his Ph.D. from the Universityof Texas at Austin in 2011. Dr. Brower also earned an M.S. in marketingfrom the University of Texas at Austin, an M.A. in economics fromSyracuse University, and a B.A. in economics at the State University ofNew York College at Geneseo. Prior to earning his Ph.D., Dr. Browerworked for several years as a consultant and market research analystspecializing in brand management and tracking. His research interestsinclude corporate reputation and brand management, corporate socialresponsibility, and sustainability.

Dr. Ravindra Chitturi is an associate professor of marketing at LehighUniversity. Prior to joining Lehigh University, Ravi worked for severalyears with hi-tech firms such as Intel and IBM. Ravi was a team memberof the Intel Microprocessor design team in Santa Clara, California, andthe IBM PowerPC Microprocessor design team in Austin, Texas. Mostrecently, he was head of engineering at a hi-tech startup in Dallas, Texas.Ravi has a Ph.D. and an Executive M.B.A. from the McCombs Schoolof Business, The University of Texas at Austin. He also holds a bach-elor’s degree in electrical and electronics engineering from NationalInstitute of Technology, India. Ravi has published in Journal of Mar-keting Research, Journal of Marketing, and Psychology and Marketing.His research interests include design, innovation, emotions, brand man-agement, and sustainability.

904 J PROD INNOV MANAG M. G. LUCHS ET AL.2012;29(6):903–916

functional performance is relatively closer to being anecessity, and aesthetics is relatively closer to being aluxury. Further, fulfillment of necessities before indulg-ing in luxuries is considered a moral obligation (Berry,1994; Chitturi et al., 2007). Therefore, contemplating atrade-off of functional performance in favor of aestheticsleads to feelings of guilt which, in turn, motivates thechoice of superior functional performance over superiorhedonics/aesthetics.

In the current context, when choosing between sus-tainability and functional performance, consumers arelikely to perceive the situation as a trade-off betweenfulfilling a morally superior goal of sustainable consump-tion (Irwin and Baron, 2001) and, relatively speaking,fulfilling a morally inferior goal of functional perfor-mance. As such, choosing a product with superior sus-tainability may reduce guilt given that, in this case, itis the morally superior option. Therefore, one mightexpect consumers to choose the product with superiorsustainability.

However, choosing the product with relatively supe-rior sustainability might also increase distress given that,in this context, consumers are forgoing a satisfactorylevel of functional performance. This prediction is basedon regulatory focus theory (Higgins, 2001) that suggeststhat not fulfilling prevention (versus promotion) focusedgoals, such as functional performance, leads to “agitationemotions” such as distress. Thus, one might expect con-sumers to choose superior functional performance oversuperior sustainability to minimize distress. This predic-tion would be consistent with prior research that hasdemonstrated that individuals place a greater weight onthe functional attributes of a product in determiningproduct preference than on the ethical attributes whenmaking trade-offs between products (Auger, Devinney,Louviere, and Burke, 2008). Once the product achieves asatisfactory level of functional performance, however, itwould be plausible to expect feelings of distress todecrease significantly such that consumers will be rela-tively more likely to choose the product with superiorsustainability in an effort to minimize the feeling of guiltassociated with compromising on sustainability. In otherwords, consistent with Chitturi et al.’s (2007) demonstra-tion of the principle of functional precedence, a similarfunctional precedence effect is predicted whereby con-sumers in a loss–loss scenario will choose functionalperformance over sustainability. However, in contrast toChitturi et al. (2007), in the current context involving atrade-off between sustainability and functional perfor-mance, consumers choosing performance over sustain-ability would be choosing the morally inferior option, and

would be doing so in an effort to reduce feelings ofdistress. Only when a satisfactory level of functional per-formance has been achieved, thereby reducing feelings ofdistress, will consumers’ focus shift to reducing guilt bychoosing the morally superior sustainable product.

H1a: The choice between a product with superior func-tional performance (and inferior sustainability charac-teristics) and a product with superior sustainabilitycharacteristics (and inferior functional performance)exhibits a functional precedence effect whereby func-tional performance is chosen over sustainability until asatisfactory threshold level of functional performance isachieved.

H1b: When neither product in the choice set providesboth a satisfactory threshold level of functional perfor-mance and a satisfactory level of sustainability, thechoice of a product with relatively superior functionalperformance over a product with relatively superior sus-tainability is mediated by feelings of distress.

The Moderating Role of Sustainability Importance

One factor likely to have an important impact on judg-ment and product choice behavior in the current contextis the importance that the individual places on sustain-ability. Specifically, previous work has shown that con-sumers who believe that sustainability-related issues areimportant have higher evaluations of individual compa-nies known to be socially responsible as well as a greaterperception of personal congruence with the company’sobjectives (Sen and Bhattacharya, 2001); are more likelyto respond favorably to socially responsible actions byfirms (Bhattacharya and Sen, 2003); are likely to demon-strate greater willingness to pay for ethical products(Trudel and Cotte, 2009); and place greater weight onethical and sustainable attributes when making choices(Auger et al., 2008). Collectively, these results suggestthat consumers who believe that sustainability is impor-tant are likely to place a greater value on products withsuperior sustainability. Therefore, when consumers con-template choosing a product with superior functionalperformance over one with superior sustainability, theyare likely to feel greater guilt as the importance thatthey place on sustainability increases thereby increasingthe likelihood of choosing the product with superiorsustainability.

On the other hand, functional attributes fulfill preven-tion goals (Chernev, 2004) leading to “quiescent emo-tions” such as increased confidence (Higgins, 1997).Choosing the product with superior functional perfor-mance is likely to evoke greater confidence given that it

SUSTAINABILITY AND AESTHETIC DESIGN J PROD INNOV MANAG 9052012;29(6):903–916

is, by definition, more likely to provide high levels offunctional performance (Chitturi et al., 2007). The differ-ence in confidence between the two options may belower, however, as the perceived importance of sustain-ability increases because consumers who highly valuesustainability may not be as influenced by informationabout the lower functional performance of the sustainableproduct due to a halo effect (Asch, 1946; Nisbett andWilson, 1977; Thorndike, 1920). Overall, one couldexpect the likelihood of choosing the product with supe-rior functional performance over the product with supe-rior sustainability to be moderated by individualdifferences in the perceived importance of sustainabilityand mediated, in turn, by the differential levels of feelingsof guilt and confidence.

H1c: Consumer choice between a product with superiorfunctional performance and a product with superior sus-tainability characteristics is moderated by the degree towhich sustainability issues are perceived to be importantsuch that the likelihood of choosing the product withsuperior sustainability characteristics (functional per-formance) increases as sustainability importanceincreases (decreases).

H1d: The moderating effect of sustainability importanceon choice is mediated by the anticipatory emotions ofguilt and confidence such that:

• Contemplating a choice of the product with superiorfunctional performance over the product with superiorsustainability characteristics evokes greater guilt assustainability importance increases.

• Contemplating a choice of the product with superiorfunctional performance over the product with superiorsustainability characteristics evokes greater confi-dence as sustainability importance decreases.

Aesthetic Design and Sustainability

Finally, the current research addresses one specific wayfor firms to improve the likelihood that consumers willchoose sustainable products given a trade-off with func-tional performance. If, as hypothesized, guilt and confi-dence mediate consumers’ choices in the current context,marketers could decide to promote sustainable productsthrough either guilt appeals and/or by increasing therelative confidence that consumers feel toward sustain-able products. Prior research suggests, however, that theeffectiveness of guilt appeals may be limited (Bennett,1998; Thøgersen, 2005). On the other hand, it is possiblethat efforts to increase the relative confidence in thesustainable product will be productive—if they can be

realized in the first place. The question, then, is whatcan marketers do to increase the relative confidence insustainable products? This question is especially rel-evant, and challenging, in the current context in whichexplicit information is provided about the relative infe-riority of the sustainable product in terms of functionalperformance.

Creusen and Schoormans (2005) suggest that a prod-uct’s appearance, or aesthetic design, can influence infer-ences about the product’s quality and/or functionalperformance (see also Bloch, 1995; Hoegg and Alba,2011). Specifically, superior aesthetic design may serveas a cue from which consumers infer that the product alsohas superior functional performance, thereby increasingthe relative confidence that consumers feel as they con-template choosing the product. Similarly, superior aes-thetic design may affect confidence in a product due to ahalo effect (Asch, 1946; Nisbett and Wilson, 1977;Thorndike, 1920). While a superior aesthetic designcould be expected to benefit either product in the currentcontext, it is plausible that the product with superiorsustainability characteristics (versus superior functionalperformance) is more likely to benefit from the potentialadvantages of superior aesthetic design—at least as far asconfidence is concerned. While the product with superiorfunctional performance is already perceived to have ahigh level of performance that, as discussed previously,leads to greater confidence, the product with superiorsustainability is perceived as relatively performance defi-cient. Therefore, to the degree that aesthetic design caninfluence consumers’ confidence, the sustainable productwill benefit most from the addition of a superior aestheticdesign.

H2a: In the context of product choice given a trade-off,the effect of an aesthetic design advantage depends onthe type of trade-off such that it will improve choicelikelihood of a product with superior sustainability char-acteristics (and inferior functional performance) morethan it will improve choice likelihood of a product withsuperior functional performance (and inferior sustain-ability characteristics).

H2b: The moderated effect of an aesthetic design advan-tage in the context of a trade-off between functionalperformance and sustainability is mediated by increasedconfidence.

Please refer to Figure 1 for a conceptual model thatdepicts the aforementioned hypotheses of the factors pre-dicting product choice given a trade-off between func-tional performance and sustainability.

906 J PROD INNOV MANAG M. G. LUCHS ET AL.2012;29(6):903–916

Study 1: Choice Given a Trade-off betweenSustainability and Functional Performance

The objective of study 1 was to begin testing the concep-tual model, depicted in Figure 1, of the factors influenc-ing consumers’ choice between a product with a superiorsustainability rating and a product with a superior func-tional performance rating. Specifically, study 1 sought to

demonstrate that given a trade-off, consumers will choosea product with a superior functional performance ratingover a product with a superior sustainability rating due tofeelings of distress, until an acceptable threshold of func-tional performance has been achieved. Further, study 1sought to demonstrate that choice given this trade-off alsodepends on the degree to which participants believe thatsustainability issues are important and that this modera-tion, in turn, is mediated by differences in the anticipatoryemotions of guilt and confidence experienced as partici-pants contemplate their options.

Study Participants and Procedure

One hundred nineteen undergraduate students participatedin this study in exchange for course extra credit. The studywas conducted online, using a third-party survey develop-ment software package.As shown in Figure 2, participantswere presented with a choice between two pairs of shoesthat were described as differing along two dimensions:functional performance and sustainability. These productscorecards were modeled after actual scorecards used by aprominent international shoe manufacturer to communi-cate the sustainability attributes of their shoes (http://community.timberland.com/Earthkeeping/Green-Index).

ChoiceSustainability

importance

Sustainability-

functional

performance

trade-off

Confidence

Aesthetic

design

Guilt

Goal/threshold

Distress

H1a

H1b

H1d

H1c

H2a

H2b

H1d

Figure 1. Conceptual Model of Choice Given a Trade-offbetween Sustainability and Functional Performance

0 10

0 10

Durab i l i t y

Cons t ruc t ion

00 10

Env ironm ent a l Responsib i l i t y

00 10

Soc ia l Responsib i l i t y

Shoe A Sc orec ard

9

9

5

5

PERFORMANCE

SUSTAINABILITY

0 10

0 10

Durab i l i t y

Cons t r uc t ion

00 10

Env ironm ent a l Responsib i l i t y

00 10

Soc ia l Responsib i l i t y

Shoe B Sc orec ard

5

5

9

9

PERFORMANCE

SUSTAINABILITY

EXCELLENTPOOR

EXCELLENTPOOR

EXCELLENTPOOR

EXCELLENTPOOR

EXCELLENTPOOR

EXCELLENTPOOR

EXCELLENTPOOR

EXCELLENTPOOR

Figure 2. Study 1: Illustrative Stimuli Using Shoe Product Category

SUSTAINABILITY AND AESTHETIC DESIGN J PROD INNOV MANAG 9072012;29(6):903–916

In addition, participants were instructed to assume that thepairs of shoes did not differ with respect to their cost,attractiveness, or level of comfort.

Participants were asked to imagine that they needed tochoose between these two pairs of shoes, assuming one ofthe following two scenario manipulations. Participants inthe high goal condition (see Appendix) were presentedwith a scenario in which functional performance andsustainability were both very important. In this scenario,the choice presented to them represented a loss-loss sce-nario in which neither option would satisfy their need forboth high-functional performance and high sustainability(see Chitturi et al., 2007, for an example of this method-ology). In the low goal condition, participants were pre-sented with a scenario in which lower levels of bothfunctional performance and sustainability would be suf-ficient. In this condition, the choice represented a gain–gain scenario in which both options would at least satisfytheir needs along both dimensions. The order of presen-tation of the two shoe scorecards was counterbalanced onthe left versus right of the screen. Therefore, this studyused a 2 (goal: low versus high) versus 2 (order: superiorfunctional performance option on the left [right], superiorsustainability option on the right [left]) design.

After reviewing the information about their respectivechoice scenarios, the participants were asked to imaginethat they were leaning toward choosing shoe A and wereinstructed to indicate the intensity with which they werefeeling distress, guilt, and confidence. This protocol, con-sistent with that used by Chitturi et al. (2007) in a relatedtrade-off context, was instrumental in the current effort toidentify which emotions mediated their choice (i.e., antici-patory emotions) as opposed to which emotions theythought might result from a given choice (i.e., anticipatedemotions). Participants rated the intensity of these emo-tions on a 1 (not at all) to 9 (very high) scale. After theirratings for shoe A, participants provided similar ratingsassuming that they were leaning toward choosing shoe B.

After rating their anticipatory emotions, participantswere asked to make a choice between the two pairs ofshoes. This choice served as the focal-dependentmeasure. Before making this choice, participants werereminded about the specifics of the scenario within whichthey were making their choice. Finally, participants wereasked to rate how important environmental issues andsocial issues were to them.

Results

Prior to the analysis, given that the placement of the shoeshad been counterbalanced on the left versus right, all of

the product ratings were converted such that the pair ofshoes with superior functional performance (hence, “per-formance shoes”) was always anchored at the low end ofthe scale (-4), and the pair of shoes with superior sus-tainability (hence, “sustainable shoes”) was alwaysanchored at the high end of the scale (+4), with zero asthe neutral point. As a first step, the ratings of functionalperformance and sustainability were analyzed to confirmthe intended manipulations. The mean rating for func-tional performance, Mfunc = -2.90, was significantlylower than the midpoint of zero, F(1, 118) = 308.33,p < .0001, indicating that participants correctly identifiedwhich pair of shoes had superior functional performance.Similarly, the mean rating for sustainability, Msust = 2.89,was significantly higher than the midpoint of zero, F(1,118) = 227.59, p < .0001, indicating that participantscorrectly identified which pair of shoes had superiorsustainability.

Next, the focal dependent measure of shoe pair choicewas analyzed to determine which pair of shoes was,overall, more likely to be chosen. Of the 119 participantsin this study, 74 chose the performance shoes whereasonly 44 chose the sustainable shoes. This overall prefer-ence for performance over sustainability was significant,c2 = 7.89, p < .01, suggesting that, at least in situationssimilar to the current context, consumers may chooseperformance over sustainability. Choice did, however,depend on the goal scenario, c2 = 4.38, p < .05, such thatwhile participants in the loss–loss scenario stronglyfavored the performance shoes over the sustainable shoes(44:17), c2 = 11.09, p < .001, participants in the gain–gain scenario were indifferent between the two pairs ofshoes (27:31), c2 = .28, p = not significant (ns). Thus, insupport of H1a, choice given this trade-off exhibited afunctional precedence effect such that performance waschosen over sustainability only until a satisfactory thresh-old of functional performance had been achieved.

To analyze the role of the anticipatory feeling of dis-tress with respect to this functional precedence effect, adifference score for distress was created by subtractingparticipants’ rating of this emotion when leaning towardthe sustainable shoes from their rating when leaningtoward the performance shoes. While overall participantsdid not feel a difference in distress while leaning towardchoosing either shoe, Mdist = .08, F(1, 118) = .11, p = ns,distress did depend upon the goal condition, F(1,117) = 5.58, p = .02. Specifically, in the loss–loss condi-tion, participants felt significantly more distress whenleaning toward the sustainable (versus performance)shoes, Mdist = .59, F(1, 60) = 3.88, p = .05. However, inthe gain–gain condition, there was no significant differ-

908 J PROD INNOV MANAG M. G. LUCHS ET AL.2012;29(6):903–916

ence in the distress evoked by either option, Mdist = -.47,F(1, 57) = 1.96, p = ns. Distress, in turn, predictedchoice, c2 = 10.25, p = .001. To test the hypothesizedmediation of the goal condition on choice by distress(H1b), a bootstrap mediation analysis was performedusing the approach and syntax provided by Preacher andHayes (2008), which others have argued is a superiorapproach for mediation analysis (Zhao, Lynch, and Chen,2010), especially when analyzing data with relativelysmall sample sizes (Preacher and Hayes, 2008). Theanalysis suggested that the effect of goal on choice was,indeed, mediated by distress. Specifically, the indirecteffect of goal through distress on choice was negativeand significant at the 95% confidence level (mean ofindirect effect A ¥ B = -.1484, bias corrected and accel-erated lower confidence interval [CI] = -.3554, upperCI = -.0208), such that the greater likelihood of choosingthe performance shoes in the loss–loss scenario (versusthe gain–gain scenario) was due to the increased distressthat participants felt in this scenario.

Next, a score for each participant’s sustainabilityimportance was created by averaging the ratings for theimportance of environmental issues and social issues. Asexpected, choice did depend upon sustainability impor-tance, c2 = 7.49, p < .01. Specifically, and in support ofH1c, the likelihood of choosing the sustainable shoesincreased as sustainability importance increased.

The next step was to determine what effect, if any,anticipatory guilt and confidence had on choice andwhether differences in the intensity of these emotionscould explain the effects of sustainability importance onchoice. Similar to the treatment of distress, differencescores for guilt and confidence were created by subtract-ing participants’ rating of each emotion when leaningtoward the sustainable shoes from their rating whenleaning toward the performance shoes. Contemplatinga choice of the performance shoes versus contemplating achoice of the sustainable shoes led to significantly moreguilt (Mguilt = -2.57, F[1, 118] = 88.50, p < .0001) yetsignificantly greater confidence (Mconf = -1.02, F(1,118) = 14.10, p < .001) for participants overall. However,whether or not participants rated the intensity of theseemotions differently for the performance shoes versus thesustainable shoes depended on their sustainability impor-tance rating. Specifically, the degree to which participantsfelt more guilt while leaning toward the performanceshoes (versus the sustainable shoes) depended signifi-cantly on sustainability importance, F(1, 117) = 4.37,p < .04, such that participants felt less guilt as their sus-tainability importance decreased. Indeed, a spotlightanalysis (Irwin and McClelland, 2003) suggested that

while participants at a high level of sustainabilityimportance (6.0/7.0) felt more guilt about leaning towardthe performance shoes, F(1, 117) = 78.85, p < .0001,those at a low level of sustainability importance (2.0/7.0)did not, F(1, 117) = 1.99, p = ns. Further, the degree towhich participants felt more confident while leaningtoward the performance shoes (versus the sustainableshoes) also depended on sustainability importance, F(1,117) = 19.58, p < .0001. However, the pattern wasreversed such that participants at a high level of sustain-ability importance (6.0/7.0) did not feel more confidentabout either pair of shoes, F(1, 117) = 1.46, p = ns, butthose at a low level of sustainability importance (2.0/7.0)felt more confident when leaning toward the performanceshoes (versus the sustainable shoes), F(1, 117) = 30.91,p < .0001.

The next step was to determine whether the intensityof these anticipatory emotions predicted choice and, if so,whether these emotions could explain the effects of sus-tainability importance on choice. Choice was indepen-dently predicted by both guilt, c2 = 9.84, p < .01, andconfidence, c2 = 11.72, p < .001, such that participantswere more likely to choose the performance shoes asconfidence in the performance shoes (versus the sustain-able shoes) increased, but were more likely to choose thesustainable shoes as guilt induced by the performanceshoes (versus the sustainable shoes) increased. A boot-strap test of mediation (Preacher and Hayes, 2008) con-firmed that differences in both confidence and guiltsimultaneously mediated the effect of sustainabilityimportance on choice. Specifically, the indirect effect ofsustainability importance through confidence on choicewas positive and significant at the 95% confidence level(mean of indirect effect A ¥ B = .2403, bias corrected andaccelerated lower CI = .0641, upper CI = .4627) as wasthe indirect effect of sustainability importance throughguilt on choice (mean of indirect effect A ¥ B = .1289,bias corrected and accelerated lower CI = .0113, upperCI = .3613), thereby supporting H1d.

Discussion

The results from study 1 suggest that given a choicebetween a product with superior functional performance(and average sustainability characteristics) and a productwith superior sustainability characteristics (and averagefunctional performance), consumers will choose func-tional performance over sustainability until a minimumthreshold of functional performance is met; further, thisresult was shown to occur due to feelings of distress.Once this threshold has been met, choice depends on the

SUSTAINABILITY AND AESTHETIC DESIGN J PROD INNOV MANAG 9092012;29(6):903–916

degree to which sustainability is important to consumers.Further, the moderating effect of sustainability impor-tance is due to differences in the intensity of the antici-patory emotions of confidence and guilt experiencedwhile considering a trade-off in this context.

Study 2: The Effect of Aesthetic Design onChoice Given a Trade-off betweenSustainability and Functional Performance

The primary objective of study 2 was to demonstrate aspecific way that managers can apply the conceptualmodel depicted in Figure 1 to improve the marketperformance of sustainable products in the face of a trade-off—whether real or perceived—with functional perfor-mance. In particular, study 2 addressed the question ofwhether superior product aesthetic design, known to be asignificant factor predicting product choice (Bloch, 1995),is especially important in the context of marketing sustain-able products. Specifically, study 2 sought to demonstratethat (1) superior aesthetic design improves the choicelikelihood of sustainability-advantaged products morethan it improves the choice likelihood of performance-advantaged products, and (2) that this effect is due to thedisproportionately positive effect that superior aestheticdesign has on confidence in choosing the sustainability-advantaged product. A second objective of study 2 was toreplicate findings from study 1 in a different productcategory (cell phones) with a nationally representativesample. In addition to providing a substantively differentproduct context, the cell phone category is also one inwhich information about relative product sustainabilityis now readily available on the Internet for hundredsof different product models, increasing the externalvalidity of this context (e.g., http://www.goodguide.com/categories/332304-cell-phones##products).

Study Participants and Procedure

Three hundred eight participants were recruited by athird-party vendor with the objective of providing anationally representative sample within the United States.Forty-four states were represented in the study. Forty-four percent of participants were between the ages of 18and 34, with the remaining 56% between the ages of 35and 85. The ratio of male to female participants was49:51, with a similar ratio within each of the age groups(age was measured within 10-year bands). The study wasconducted online, using a third-party survey developmentsoftware package. The stimuli and procedure were

similar to those used in study 1, with the followingchanges. First, the product context was changed to that ofa choice of cell phones to determine whether the effectsdemonstrated in study 1 would replicate in a differentproduct category. Second, a new factor was added instudy 2: product aesthetic design. In one condition, theperformance (sustainability) advantaged cell phone waspaired with a superior (inferior) aesthetic design. Inanother condition, the aesthetic design advantage wasreversed. In a third, control condition, no aestheticdesigns were shown. A pretest was used to identify a cellphone with a superior aesthetic design and one with aninferior aesthetic design.

Participants were presented with the trade-off scenariousing a scorecard format, as illustrated in Figure 3, similarto the one used in study 1. Before providing any productratings, participants were told to “[a]ssume that these cellphones cost the same and have the same features (e.g.,camera phone) and same calling plans. The only differ-ences between these cell phones are identified in thescorecards below . . .” After providing ratings of the inten-sity of guilt and confidence they felt while considering oneoption (and then the other), participants indicated theirchoice. Next, they provided a series of relative ratings forthe cell phones indicating which had a superior aestheticdesign (“more visually appealing”), which had superiorfunctional performance, which was more sustainable, andwhich they believed cost more. Finally, they providedresponses for the three “sustainability importance” ques-tions used in study 1 as well as demographic information.

Results

The same data conversion protocol from study 1 was usedsuch that the performance-advantaged cell phone (hence,“performance phone”) was always anchored at the low endof the scale (-4), and the sustainability-advantaged cellphone (hence, “sustainable phone”) was always anchoredat the high end of the scale (+4). As a first step, the ratingsof functional performance and sustainability were ana-lyzed to confirm the intended manipulations. As expected,the mean rating for functional performance, Mperf = -2.23,was significantly lower than the midpoint of zero, F(1,307) = 282.90, p < .0001, and the mean rating for sustain-ability, Msust = 1.71, was significantly higher than the mid-point of zero, F(1, 307) = 134.82, p < .0001. The nextanalysis was conducted across all three conditions toprovide further evidence for the results shown in study 1,followed by the focal analysis of the effect of aestheticdesign on product choice given a trade-off between func-tional performance and sustainability.

910 J PROD INNOV MANAG M. G. LUCHS ET AL.2012;29(6):903–916

Replicating results from study 1. For the initial set ofanalyses, the data were analyzed across all three of theconditions. Replicating the results from study 1, partici-pants were more likely to choose functional performanceover sustainability, c2 = 42.83, p < .0001. Also, althoughparticipants felt more confidence when contemplating achoice of the performance cell phone (versus sustainablecell phone), Mconf = -.65, F(1, 307) = 21.83, p < .0001,they also felt more guilt, Mgui = -.45, F(1, 307) = 12.23,p < .001. Overall, participants did not rate the cell phonesas different with respect to cost, F(1, 307) = .74, p = ns.

Next, a score was created for each participant’s sus-tainability importance rating by averaging the ratings forimportance of environmental issues and social issues(Cronbach’s alpha = .85). Once again, and in support ofH1c, choice depended on sustainability importance,c2 = 9.87, p < .01, such that the likelihood of choosingsustainability over functional performance increased assustainability importance increased. Further, the degreeto which participants differentially experienced the emo-tions of confidence and guilt also depended on sustain-ability importance, F(1, 306) = 13.74, p < .001 and F(1,306) = 9.46, p < .01, respectively. Finally, based on abootstrap mediation analysis (Preacher and Hayes, 2008),both confidence and guilt simultaneously mediated theeffect of sustainability importance on choice at the 99%confidence level, consistent with H1d and the patternobserved in study 1 (mean of indirect effect A ¥ B forconfidence = .2336, bias corrected and accelerated lowerCI = .0010, upper CI = .5223; mean of indirect effectA ¥ B for guilt = .0696, bias corrected and acceleratedlower CI = .0090, upper CI = .1905).

The differential effect of an aesthetic designadvantage. The focal analysis began by consideringthe neutral condition on its own (i.e., no aestheticdesign information provided) to demonstrate that theperformance-advantaged phone already enjoys the “bene-fit of the doubt” with respect to assumptions aboutaesthetic design. As expected, participants believed thatthe performance-advantaged phone also had a better aes-thetic design than the sustainability-advantaged phone,F(1, 98) = 13.74, p < .001; in addition, participants feltmore confident in the performance-advantaged phone,F(1, 98) = 16.84, p < .0001. These findings raise thequestions of how, if at all, will ratings of the aestheticdesign and confidence depend on which phone is actuallypresented with a superior (versus inferior) aestheticdesign and how will these factors, in turn, influencechoice? Specifically, because the performance-advan-taged phone appears to already have an advantage withrespect to assumptions about aesthetic design and con-fidence, will an explicit aesthetic design advantagebenefit the sustainability-advantaged cell phone morethan it benefits the performance-advantaged cell phone?To answer these questions, a set of analyses was con-ducted comparing pairs of conditions that differed withrespect to the aesthetic design provided with each productoption.

First, ratings from the baseline condition (i.e., no aes-thetic design provided for either phone) were comparedwith the condition in which the performance cell phone(sustainable cell phone) received the superior (inferior)aesthetic design. As shown in Figure 4 (panel A), whilethe manipulation of aesthetic design between conditions

Figure 3. Study 2: Illustrative Stimuli Using Cell Phone Product Category

SUSTAINABILITY AND AESTHETIC DESIGN J PROD INNOV MANAG 9112012;29(6):903–916

had the expected effect on evaluations of the aestheticdesign, F(1, 209) = 61.32, p < .0001, it had no significanteffect on confidence, F(1, 209) = .10, p = ns, nor guilt,F(1, 209) = .00, p = ns. Consequently, there was no dif-ference in choice likelihood between these conditions,c2 = .04, p = ns. In other words, given that participantsalready presumed that the performance cell phone wassuperior with respect to aesthetic design and that thisoption already made them feel more confident and, there-

fore, already had an advantage with respect to choice, theexplicit aesthetic design advantage did not improvechoice likelihood for the performance cell phone.

Next, ratings of the baseline condition were comparedwith the condition in which the sustainable cell phone(performance cell phone) received the superior (inferior)aesthetic design. The expected outcome was that thesustainability-advantaged cell phone would benefit morefrom the aesthetic design advantage with respect to

−3.00 −2.00 −1.00 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00

Cost

Guilt

Confidence

Aesthetic design

(A)

(B)

No aesthetic design (baseline)

Performance product has superior

aesthetic design

ns

∗∗∗∗

∗∗∗∗

Conditions statistically

different?

∗ p <.05

∗∗ p <.01

∗∗∗ p <.001

∗∗∗∗ p <.0001

ns

−3.00 −2.00 −1.00 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00

Cost

Guilt

Confidence

Aesthetic design

Option w/performance advantage Option w/sustainability advantage

Option w/performance advantage Option w/sustainability advantage

No aesthetic design (baseline)

Sustainable product has superior

aesthetic design ∗

∗∗∗∗

∗∗∗∗

Conditions statistically

different?

∗ p <.05

∗∗ p <.01

∗∗∗ p <.001

∗∗∗∗ p <.0001

ns

Figure 4. (A) Study 2: Superior (Inferior) Aesthetic Design Matched with Superior Functional Performance (Sustainability).(B) Study 2: Superior (Inferior) Aesthetic Design Matched with Superior Sustainability (Functional Performance)

912 J PROD INNOV MANAG M. G. LUCHS ET AL.2012;29(6):903–916

confidence, and choice, given that this phone is otherwiseviewed by participants as inferior on these dimensions.

As shown in Figure 4 (panel B), the manipulation ofaesthetic design between conditions had the expectedeffect on evaluations of the aesthetic design, F(1,194) = 43.84, p < .0001. As expected, and in support ofH2a, in this context, there was a significant difference inchoice likelihood between these conditions, c2 = 7.72,p < .01, such that the sustainable cell phone was morelikely to be chosen when it was given an explicit aestheticdesign advantage (versus baseline condition). In supportof H2b, a bootstrap test of mediation (Preacher andHayes, 2008) suggested that the aforementioned differ-ence in choice between these conditions was mediatedby the difference in evaluations of aesthetic design atthe 99% confidence level (mean of indirect effectA ¥ B = .2629, bias corrected and accelerated lowerCI = .0872, upper CI = .5871). Further, and in support ofH2b, the positive effect of aesthetic design on choicewas, in turn, mediated by confidence at the 99% confi-dence level (mean of indirect effect A ¥ B = .1681, biascorrected and accelerated lower CI = .0589, upperCI = .3353).

Finally, in contrast to the previous findings (in study 1and study 2 across all conditions combined) suggestingthat participants chose the performance phone over thesustainable phone, within the condition in which the sus-tainable cell phone had an explicit aesthetic designadvantage, both cell phones were equally likely to bechosen, c2 = 1.24, p = ns. In other words, the explicitaesthetic design advantage given to the sustainable cellphone appears to have compensated for the erstwhiledisadvantage it faced (relative to the performance-advantaged cell phone) with respect to aesthetic design,confidence, and choice.

Discussion

Study 2 replicates key findings from study 1 in a differentproduct context and with a nationally representativesample within the United States. Specifically, study 2demonstrated that choice given a trade-off between aproduct with superior functional performance (andaverage sustainability) and a product with superior sus-tainability (and average functional performance) dependson the importance that participants place on sustainabilityissues that, in turn, influences the degree to which theyexperience confidence and guilt when contemplatingtheir options.

The primary objective of study 2, however, was todemonstrate one way in which to improve the choice

likelihood of sustainable products. In addition to theeffect that sustainability importance had on confidence,the current research demonstrates that confidence canalso be influenced by aesthetic design. However, in thecontext of a trade-off between functional performanceand sustainability, this benefit is not shared equally byboth products. These results show that with respect tochoice in this context, a performance-advantaged productdoes not appear to benefit from an explicit aestheticdesign advantage as participants already endow thisoption with this advantage. On the other hand, asustainability-advantaged (albeit performance disadvan-taged) product does benefit significantly from a superioraesthetic design that increases confidence and, in turn,increases choice likelihood. Simply put, these resultsshow that an aesthetic design advantage is especiallyimportant for sustainable products.

General Discussion

While interest in product sustainability has grown inrecent years, both within the business and academic com-munities, there is still much to learn about consumers’responses to products that are promoted as superior withrespect to their relative environmental and/or social sus-tainability. The need for additional research is highlightedby the pervasive gap between consumers’ typically posi-tive attitudes toward sustainable consumption and thedisproportionately low levels of adoption of sustainableproducts.

One factor that may contribute to this attitude–behavior gap is the belief by many consumers that there isan inherent trade-off between sustainability and func-tional performance, at least in some product categories(Luchs et al., 2010). Given that consumers may perceivesuch a trade-off or that some products may actuallypresent such a trade-off, the current research sought tounderstand the factors that predict choice in this context.Another objective of the current research was to demon-strate one specific way in which an understanding ofthese factors could be used by managers to improve themarket performance of sustainable products in the face ofa trade-off with functional performance. The insightsgained from the current research are illustrated in theconceptual model depicted in Figure 1. Following is asummary of the theoretical contributions and managerialimplications.

Theoretical Contributions

The current research findings advance our understandingof consumers’ responses given a choice between a

SUSTAINABILITY AND AESTHETIC DESIGN J PROD INNOV MANAG 9132012;29(6):903–916

product with superior sustainability characteristics (andaverage functional performance) and a product withsuperior functional performance (and average sustain-ability characteristics) in several ways, as illustrated inFigure 1. First, the current research suggests that choicein this context exhibits a functional precedence effect,whereby functional performance (versus sustainability) isweighted more heavily until a satisfactory threshold levelof functional performance is achieved. Further, thecurrent results suggest that this functional precedenceeffect is mediated by distress. In contrast to prior researchthat has demonstrated analogous threshold effects in thecontext of a trade-off between utilitarian/functional per-formance and hedonics/aesthetics (Chitturi et al., 2007),the current research shows that in the context of a trade-off between sustainability and performance, consumerstend to choose the morally inferior alternative, in this casefunctional performance, until a satisfactory thresholdlevel of functional performance is achieved. Thus, thecurrent research demonstrates both a unique thresholdeffect and qualifies prior research that argued that productchoice given a trade-off is predicted by the moral supe-riority of the alternatives.

Second, the current research shows that choice given atrade-off between sustainability and functional perfor-mance also depends upon the degree to which consumersbelieve that the general issue of sustainability is impor-tant. This finding conceptually replicates prior research(e.g., Bhattacharya and Sen, 2003) in a different, product-specific context and, importantly, identifies mediators ofthe effect of sustainability importance on choice. Specifi-cally, the results suggest that as the importance that con-sumers place on sustainability decreases, they areincreasingly likely to feel greater confidence toward aproduct with a performance advantage (versus sustain-ability advantage), thereby increasing the likelihood thatthey will choose a performance-advantaged product; thisgreater relative confidence may disappear, however, assustainability importance increases. On the other hand, assustainability importance increases, consumers areincreasingly likely to experience greater relative guiltwhen considering the choice of performance over sus-tainability, thereby increasing the likelihood that they willchoose the sustainability-advantaged product; this greaterrelative guilt may disappear, however, as sustainabilityimportance decreases.

Third, the current research suggests that in the con-text of a trade-off between functional performanceand sustainability, consumers may presume that theperformance-advantaged product also has an aestheticdesign advantage. The authors believe that this is the first

demonstration of this specific inference in this context.This finding complements prior research that has shownthe reverse, i.e., that consumers make inferences aboutproduct function based on product form (e.g., Bloch,1995; Creusen and Schoormans, 2005; Hoegg and Alba,2011). Thus, sustainable products may suffer from aninferred aesthetic design disadvantage relative to prod-ucts with a functional performance advantage. As aconsequence, however, the current research suggeststhat an explicit aesthetic design advantage has a dispro-portionately positive effect on choice likelihood forsustainability-advantaged (albeit performance disadvan-taged) products and provides evidence for the mediationof this effect. Specifically, the results from study 2suggest that an aesthetic design advantage has a greaterpositive effect on the choice likelihood of sustainability-advantaged products (versus performance-advantagedproducts) due to the disproportionate positive effect it hason increasing confidence in choosing the sustainableproduct.

Managerial Implications

The current research has several important implicationsfor managers interested in developing and promoting“sustainable products”; these implications relate tomarket segmentation and targeting, marketing promotion,and product design. First, the current research suggeststhat some consumers may be willing to sacrifice somedegree of functional performance for sustainability.However, the current research also suggests that even forconsumers that believe that product sustainability isimportant and, potentially, worthy of some degree oftrade-off, products must still meet a minimum thresholdof acceptable performance. In other words, sustainabilityfor the sake of sustainability alone is simply not appeal-ing, even to those consumers who care the most aboutthese issues. Thus, even for firms that focus exclusivelyon segments of the market that are especially supportiveof sustainability, such as the “LOHAS” segment(LOHAS, 2010), it is critical to reassure these consumersthat the product meets a minimum acceptable level offunctional performance. This implies that an importanttask for managers in this situation is to understand whatspecifically this minimum threshold is, which willdepend on both the product category as well as thecontext of product usage, and to explicitly communicatethat this threshold (or better) has been met.

Second, the current research suggests that beyondmeeting a threshold level of functional performance, animportant determinant of choice in this context is the

914 J PROD INNOV MANAG M. G. LUCHS ET AL.2012;29(6):903–916

degree to which consumers believe that sustainabilityissues are important, which in turn influences the degreeto which they feel confident and/or guilty when consid-ering a choice of performance over sustainability. Forexample, the results suggest that as the importance thatconsumers place on sustainability decreases, their relativelack of confidence in the sustainable product optionincreases. Thus, for firms interested in promoting sustain-able products to segments of the market that are not asstrongly dedicated to sustainability, that is, the massmarket, it is especially important to find ways in which toimprove the confidence consumers feel toward theseproducts.

Finally, the current research demonstrates one specificway in which firms can increase the confidence felttoward sustainable products. Specifically, this researchsuggests that superior product aesthetic design has a dis-proportionately positive effect on confidence and choicelikelihood for sustainable products. This finding is im-portant because it (1) shows a complementary, non-promotion-based approach for improving the confidencefelt toward sustainable products; (2) highlights the spe-cific value of aesthetic product design in the context ofmarketing sustainable products; and (3) suggests that it isespecially important for firms interested in marketingsustainable products to also develop market-leadingproduct aesthetic design capabilities.

Directions for Future Research

The current research findings suggest several directionsfor future research. First, the current research shows onespecific way in which firms can increase the relativeconfidence felt toward sustainable products: superior aes-thetic design. Future research should consider additionalways in which to improve the confidence felt towardproducts positioned as “sustainable” given the limitationsof conventional marketing promotion techniques inaddressing popular concerns about the phenomenon of“greenwashing.”

Finally, while the current research has focused onunderstanding consumer responses given a trade-offbetween sustainability and product performance, thereare likely other trade-off scenarios in the context of sus-tainability that are worth exploring, such as an explicittrade-off between sustainability and hedonics; forexample, product aesthetic design. More generally, untilproduct sustainability is treated by consumers asunequivocally positive, and as an expected attribute of aproduct—akin to product quality—significant ongoingresearch is needed to support managers and firms inter-

ested in marketing products that are more sustainablethan the majority of current, mainstream options.

References

Asch, S. E. 1946. Forming impressions of personality. Journal of Abnormaland Social Psychology 41 (3): 258–90.

Auger, P., T. M. Devinney, J. J. Louviere, and P. F. Burke. 2008. Do socialproduct features have value to consumers. International Journal ofResearch in Marketing 25 (3): 183–91.

Bennett, R. 1998. Shame, guilt and responses to non-profit and publicsector advertisements. International Journal of Advertising 17 (4):483–99.

Berry, C. J. 1994. The idea of luxury: A conceptual and historical investi-gation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Bhattacharya, C. B., and S. Sen. 2003. Consumer-company identification:A framework for understanding consumers’ relationships with compa-nies. Journal of Marketing 67 (2): 76–88.

Bloch, P. H. 1995. Seeking the ideal form: Product design and consumerresponse. Journal of Marketing 59 (3): 16–29.

Chernev, A. 2004. Goal-attribute compatibility in consumer choice.Journal of Consumer Psychology 14 (1&2): 141–50.

Chitturi, R., R. Raghunathan, and V. Mahajan. 2007. Form versus function:How the intensities of specific emotions evoked in functional versushedonic trade-offs mediate product preferences. Journal of MarketingResearch 44 (4): 702–14.

Creusen, M. E. H., and J. P. L. Schoormans. 2005. The different roles ofproduct appearance in consumer choice. Journal of Product InnovationManagement 22 (1): 63–81.

Higgins, E. T. 1997. Beyond pleasure and pain. American Psychologist 52(12): 1280–300.

Higgins, E. T. 2001. Promotion and prevention experiences: Relating emo-tions to nonemotional motivational states. In Handbook of affect andsocial cognition, ed. J. P. Forgas, 186–211. London: LawrenceErlbaum.

Hoegg, J., and J. W. Alba. 2011. Seeing is believing (too much): Theinfluence of product form on perceptions of functional performance.Journal of Product Innovation Management 28 (3): 346–59.

Irwin, J. R., and J. Baron. 2001. Response mode effects and moral values.Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 84 (2): 177–97.

Irwin, J. R., and G. H. McClelland. 2003. Negative consequences ofdichotomizing continuous predictor variables. Journal of MarketingResearch 40 (3): 366–71.

LOHAS. 2010. Lifestyles of health and sustainability. (accessed August 1,2011), Available at: http://www.lohas.com.

Luce, M. F., J. R. Bettman, and J. W. Payne. 2001. Emotional decisions.In Monographs of the journal of consumer research 1, ed. D. RoedderJohn. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Luchs, M. G., R. W. Naylor, J. R. Irwin, and R. Raghunathan. 2010. Thesustainability liability: Potential negative effects of ethicality onproduct preference. Journal of Marketing 74 (5): 18–31.

Nisbett, R. E., and T. D. Wilson. 1977. The halo effect: Evidence for theunconscious alteration of judgments. Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology 35 (4): 450–56.

Peattie, K. 2010. Green consumption: Behaviors and norms. Annual Reviewof Environment and Resources 35: 195–228.

Preacher, K. J., and A. F. Hayes. 2008. Asymptotic and resampling strate-gies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediatormodels. Behavior Research Methods 40 (3): 879–91.

Sen, S., and C. B. Bhattacharya. 2001. Does doing good always lead todoing better? Consumer reactions to corporate social responsibility.Journal of Marketing Research 38 (2): 225–43.

SUSTAINABILITY AND AESTHETIC DESIGN J PROD INNOV MANAG 9152012;29(6):903–916

Thøgersen, J. 2005. How may consumer policy empower consumers forsustainable lifestyles? Journal of Consumer Policy 28 (2): 143–78.

Thorndike, E. L. 1920. A constant error on psychological rating. Journal ofApplied Psychology 4 (1): 25–29.

Trudel, R., and J. Cotte. 2009. Does it pay to be good? MIT SloanManagement Review, January 8.

United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). 2005. Talk the walk:Advancing sustainable lifestyles through marketing and communica-tions. New York: UN Global Compact and Utopies.

Zhao, X., J. G. Lynch Jr., and Q. Chen. 2010. Reconsidering Baronand Kenny: Myths and truths about mediation analysis. Journal ofConsumer Research 37 (2): 197–206.

Appendix

High Goal Scenario

Now, imagine that you will be using these shoes daily onan extended assignment as a salesperson in Bhutan.Shoes that fit the shape and size of Western feet are hardto find in Bhutan and are very expensive, so assume that

this will be the only pair you have for your 12-monthassignment. While the shoes need to last for the durationof your assignment, their image is important too—thebusiness community in Bhutan is progressive withrespect to the need for corporate environmental and socialresponsibility and they are relatively knowledgeableabout the sustainability performance of different brands.

Low Goal Scenario

Now, imagine that you will be using these shoes onlyoccasionally on weekends. You plan to use these shoesfor doing simple errands (like getting laundry done,grocery shopping), doing light work around your houseor apartment (like mowing the lawn). Though you onlyplan on wearing them occasionally, you might also wearthem when you are just hanging out in your house orapartment.

916 J PROD INNOV MANAG M. G. LUCHS ET AL.2012;29(6):903–916