Product Value

Product value importance andconsumer preference for visual

complexity and symmetryMarielle E.H. Creusen

Section Marketing and Consumer Research,Department of Product Innovation and Management,

Faculty of Industrial Design Engineering, Delft University of Technology,Delft, The Netherlands

Robert W. VeryzerRobert Veryzer Research, and

Jan P.L. SchoormansSection Marketing and Consumer Research,

Department of Product Innovation and Management,Faculty of Industrial Design Engineering, Delft University of Technology,

Delft, The Netherlands

Abstract

Purpose Product design is an important marketing variable. Most literature about consumerpreference for product design focuses on aesthetic product value. However, the appearance of aproduct also influences consumer perception of functionalities, quality, and ease of use. This papertherefore, seeks to assess how preference for visual complexity and symmetry depends on the type ofproduct value that is important to people.

Design/methodology/approach In a conjoint study the utility of visual complexity andsymmetry in determining preference for eight VCR pictures are assessed (n 422). These utilities areused as dependent variables in regression analyses with the different product values (aesthetic,functionalities, quality, and ease of use) as independent variables.

Findings The effects of visual complexity and symmetry on consumers preferences depend on theproduct value to which consumers paid attention.

Research limitations/implications To increase insight into the relationship between design andconsumer product preference, the impact of a design on consumer perception of all types of productvalue not only aesthetic value should be taken into account.

Originality/value This research has direct implications for managers overseeing aspects ofproduct development relating to aligning the design effort with target customers and determiningspecific product design executions.

Keywords Product design, Consumer psychology, Consumer behaviour, Visual perception

Paper type Research paper

IntroductionProduct design is acknowledged as an important marketing variable (e.g. Dumaine,1991; Kotler, 2003; Lorenz, 1986; Roy, 1994; Pilditch, 1976; Thackara, 1997; Yamamotoand Lambert, 1994). To be successful in todays increasingly competitive marketplace,

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/0309-0566.htm

Product valueimportance

1437

Received January 2008Revised July 2008

November 2008February 2009

Accepted February 2009

European Journal of MarketingVol. 49 No. 9/10, 2010

pp. 1437-1452q Emerald Group Publishing Limited

0309-0566DOI 10.1108/03090561011062916

the appearance of new products has to match the preferences of consumers: consumersmust like the looks of a product. In other words, companies need to take into accountthe aesthetic preferences of consumers when they make decisions about the appearanceof their products. So, it is not surprising that much of the research into consumerperception of product appearance has centered on aesthetic appreciation. In thisliterature, visual organization principles are often mentioned as influencers ofaesthetic preferences. These are general design principles or qualities, such ascomplexity, unity, symmetry and proportion. According to the existing literature,people generally prefer low (but not too low) complexity, high unity and highsymmetry, and have a preference for specific proportions that differs between producttypes (e.g. Berlyne, 1971; Hekkert et al., 1994; Lauer, 1979; Lewalski, 1988; Veryzer andHutchinson, 1998). As an example, these preferred design principle levels are, in ouropinion, reflected in Bang & Olufsen products, a Danish brand for audio and videoproducts that is well known for its good aesthetics.

Consumer researchers have made important advances into understanding thecognitive 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 onlyinfluences the aesthetic value of a product, but also the perceived functional andergonomic product value (Bloch, 1995; Creusen and Schoormans, 2005; Veryzer, 1995).Therefore, visual design principles might be expected to not only influence aestheticpreferences, but also the perception of ease of use, functionality, and quality (seeVeryzer and Hutchinson, 1998). For example, to make something look easy to use, thenumber of controls (such as buttons) should be minimized, as more controls make aproduct look more complex (Norman, 1988). A complex design will therefore negativelyinfluence consumers perception of ease of use. To get a more complete and validinsight into the relationship between design and consumer product preference, theimpact of a design on consumer perception of all types of product value not onlyaesthetic value should be taken into account. Up until now, research into theinfluence of visual design principles has mainly focused on aesthetic value. In thisstudy, we investigate whether the preferred level of visual design principles dependson 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 visualdesign principles in a durable product context might differ from the existing findingsfrom the literature. This is an important addition to current knowledge about theinfluence of product appearance on consumer preference, and has implications formanagers overseeing aspects of product development relating to aligning the designeffort with target customers and determining specific product design executions.

Thus in order to design a preferred product in terms of appearance, the questionneeds to be answered as to how the different design principles influence the perceptionof different types of product value. In this article we will begin to address this questionfor two important visual design principles:

(1) complexity; and

(2) symmetry (Berlyne, 1971; Lauer, 1979; Murdoch and Flurscheim, 1983).

EJM49,9/10

1438

We will indicate that the preferred level of complexity and symmetry in a designdepends 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 attuningthe appearance of their product offerings to consumer preference. Furthermore,although preferences for visual complexity and symmetry have been investigated inthe literature, they have not yet been addressed in a durable product context. Most ofthe research into the influence of these principles is done with simple, artificialnonsense stimuli and concerning aesthetic value only. Only a few authors haveinvestigated the influence of design characteristics on aesthetic preference for products(e.g. Hekkert, 1995; Veryzer, 1993; Veryzer and Hutchinson, 1998). As useful andimportant as results from previous studies are, there is a need to investigate howdesign principles apply in a (more) realistic product context. For example, unlike thecase for artificial nonsense stimuli, perceived ease of use and number of functionalitiesplay a role in preference for product designs. In this article we address the importantissue of how visual complexity and symmetry influence consumer product preferencefor realistic product concepts, in which, next to aesthetic value, aspects such as ease ofuse, 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 playa role for consumers to some extent. For fast-moving consumer goods, aesthetic valueand functionalities might play some role, but to a much lesser extent than for durableproducts. For fast-moving consumer products, drawing attention and ease ofcategorization will be more important roles for product appearance or package (Garberet al., 2000).

In the next section, we will briefly explain the visual design principles complexityand symmetry. After that, hypotheses about the influence of product value typeimportance aesthetic value, functionalities, quality, and ease of use on preferencesfor 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 productvalue types (for consumers) and their preferences for visual complexity and symmetryare assessed. After that the results are presented, followed by managerial and researchimplications.

Visual complexity and symmetryIn this section we briefly explain visual complexity and symmetry and their relation toconsumer preference before moving on to the hypotheses, where the relationship ofcomplexity and symmetry with specific types of product value is discussed.

Several authors have described one or more visual organization principles orstructural 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 frequentlymentioned visual design principles are complexity and symmetry.

According to Berlyne (1971), a larger number of independently selected elementsand less similarity among these elements make a pattern more complex. Muller (2001)cites a school of predominantly German theoreticians (e.g. Birkhoff) and Gestaltpsychologists who believed that a high degree of ordering and low complexity lead toaesthetic preference. However, according to Berlyne (1971), there is an inverted


1439

U-shaped relationship between attractiveness and visual complexity, as very lowcomplexity stimuli tend to be viewed as being unappealing or even dull.

Symmetrical balance has a seemingly basic appeal (Berlyne, 1971; Lauer, 1979).Murdoch and Flurscheim (1983) add that symmetry suggests a state of order, but thatsome asymmetry can often create a greater sense of interest. A touch of asymmetry canbe appealing by adding an element of uniqueness (Schmitt and Simonson, 1997).Symmetry is often mentioned as the simplest case of balance (e.g. Lauer, 1979). Lauer(1979) describes balance as equal visual weight at both sides of an axis, so that there isa sense of equilibrium. In symmetrical balance, shapes are repeated in the sameposition on either side of an axis. Asymmetrical balance is more subtle (Lauer, 1979), inthat the visual weight and eye attraction of two sides are balanced but with differentelements. Preference for symmetry has been found for human faces (see Rhodes, 2006)and for simple artificial images (e.g. Rentschler et al., 1999).

HypothesesProduct appearance influences consumer perception of aesthetic, symbolic, functional,and ergonomic product value (Bloch, 1995; Creusen and Schoormans, 2005). Wetherefore expect that consumer preferences for visual design principles depend on thevalue that is important to these consumers in buying a certain product. Here we specifyexpectations for the influences of visual complexity and symmetry on perceivedaesthetic, functional (functional value consists of functionalities and quality; Creusenand Schoormans, 2005), and ergonomic product value. Symbolic value is not explicitlyincluded, as the preference for visual design principles will depend on the specificsymbolic association that someone values. For example, when someone values a chicand business-like looking product, visual complexity may decrease preference, whilefor someone who likes a playful or a hi-tech looking product, visual complexity mayheighten preference. However, with regard to product appearance, symbolic andaesthetic value are often intertwined in a consumers evaluation (Creusen andSchoormans, 2005), and therefore part of the preferred symbolic value will be includedin the judgment about aesthetic value.

The relationship between visual complexity and aesthetic value as discussed in theliterature is not entirely clear. Berlyne (1971) proposes an inverted U-shaped relationbetween complexity and aesthetic preference, and ample evidence for this relationshiphas been found (see Hekkert and Leder, 2008). However, other, mainly monotonic,relationships have been observed as well, especially when the stimulus material wasmore meaningful (namely real artworks) than the simple artificial stimuli used in moststudies (Hekkert and Leder, 2008). According to Hekkert (1995), Berlynes model haslimited explanatory value for meaningful objects, such as products. However, this hasnever been tested for products. So following Hekkerts notion, only a small or nosignificant effect of complexity on aesthetic preference should be found for products. Inthis study we will test whether Berlynes theory also applies to real products.According to Berlynes theory (Berlyne, 1971) people will aesthetically prefer lowvisual complexity, although not too low, as then stimuli become unappealing or dull.Real products, as opposed to artificial nonsense stimuli, are not extremely low in visualcomplexity, as they will at least have some buttons or a display. Therefore they will noteasily be perceived as being too dull. We therefore expect that subjects for whomaesthetics is important will prefer a less complex product:

EJM49,9/10

1440

H1. Subjects who attach more importance to aesthetics show less preference for avisually complex product design.

In general, people aesthetically prefer high symmetry. This has been found for abstractpatterns 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 realproducts, although often mentioned (e.g. Murdoch and Flurscheim, 1983; Schmitt andSimonson, 1997), has not yet been investigated experimentally. In this study, it will beinvestigated as to whether symmetry is indeed also aesthetically preferred forproducts. Several authors mention that complete symmetry may be too monotonic andthereby boring; a touch of asymmetry can be appealing by adding an element ofuniqueness, which may create a greater sense of interest (e.g. Murdoch and Flurscheim,1983; Schmitt and Simonson, 1997). In reality, highly symmetric products are almostnever completely symmetrical to the extent that they look boring. So we expect thatsubjects for whom aesthetics is an important factor determining their productpreference will in general prefer a more symmetric to a less symmetric product.

H2. Subjects who attach more importance to aesthetics more strongly prefer asymmetric product design.

Concerning functionalities, we expect the following. A visually complex product willlook more technologically complex; more controls lead people to infer that there aremore functionalities (Norman, 1988). We therefore expect subjects for whomfunctionalities are important to have more preference for a visually complex designthan subjects who attach less importance to functionalities. We did not find anyliterature in which a relation between symmetry and perception of functionality isproposed. Indeed, we could not think of any reason why symmetry would influence theperceived amount of functionalities. Whether the same number of controls is dividedsymmetrically or asymmetrically over the product surface is unlikely to influence thenumber of functionalities people infer the product to have. Therefore we do not pose ahypothesis concerning the influence of symmetry on perceived functionality andindeed we check in our study whether no significant relationship is found:

H3. Subjects who attach more importance to functionalities, more strongly prefera visually complex product design.

There is almost no literature concerning the influence of visual design principles onquality perception. Veryzer and Hutchinson (1998) found a positive influence of unityon the perception of product quality. A possible reason for this effect might be thathigh unity gives consumers the impression that a company has paid attention to theproduct and its design, and this could engender a high quality impression inconsumers. When this would be the case, one could argue that high symmetry and lesscomplexity (increasing a sense of order) might possibly have the same positive effecton quality perception. In stores, the more expensive audio equipment (e.g. the brandsBang & 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 highercomplexity heightens perceived quality. More controls make a product look morecomplex (Norman, 1988). As it has more controls, people may expect a complex looking


1441

product to have many functionalities (see also H3). People could interpret a producthaving many functionalities as a more high end product. While they may not wantthe larger number of functionalities per se, more functionalities may signal a morehigh end product and thereby higher quality to them. Creusen (2006) indeed foundthat the perceived amount of functionalities increased the perceived quality for a coffeemaker. As a product with more functionalities tends to look more complex, wetherefore expect that higher visual complexity heightens perceived product quality. Aswe did not find any literature that specifically addresses the influence of symmetry andvisual complexity on perceived quality, here we offer hypotheses to begin this inquiry:

H4. Subjects who attach more importance to product quality, more strongly prefera symmetric product design.

H5. Subjects who attach more importance to product quality, more strongly prefera visually complex product design.

We expect that visual complexity influences perceived ergonomic product value thatis, perceived ease of use. A less complex product looks easier to use and understand, asa smaller number of controls (making the product look less complex) makes theproduct look easier to use (Norman, 1988). We therefore expect that visual complexitylowers the impression that the product is easy to use. Concerning symmetry, Murdochand Flurscheim (1983) note that a symmetrical arrangement of controls on a productcontributes to an impression of order and tidiness, but that an asymmetricalarrangement may be ergonomically preferable. Their remark is made concerning largeproducts (a bus and large computer system) where of course positioning of controls hasmore ergonomical consequences. So on the one hand, one could expect that moresymmetry makes the product look more orderly and thereby clearer/easier to use. Onthe other hand, differentiation between elements and in the form as a whole (i.e. lesssymmetry) may increase perceived ease of use, as one can imagine that buttons can bebetter distinguished from each other when not arranged symmetrically. Symmetrywould lead to uniformity in button shape and placement, which makes it more difficultto locate a specific button. Differences between parts for product-user interaction maygive clues for operation. As there has been no research into this relation and oppositeinfluences can be hypothesized, we do not pose a hypothesis concerning the influenceof symmetry on perceived ergonomic product value:

H6. Subjects who attach more importance to ease of use show less preference for avisually complex product design.

MethodologyFirst, we will give a brief overview of the methodology used. An orthogonal factorialstimulus design was used so that we could independently assess the influence ofcomplexity and symmetry on consumer design preferences. Product alternatives withdifferent combinations of low and high complexity and symmetry were rated byconsumers to assess their preferences. By means of conjoint analysis, their utility forvisual symmetry and complexity could be assessed. Subjects also indicated theimportance of aesthetic, functional, and ergonomic product value in their productpreference ratings. In this way, the influence of the importance of each type of productvalue on the utility for visual symmetry and complexity could be assessed.

EJM49,9/10

1442

SubjectsA questionnaire including pictures of the experimental stimuli products was sent toeach of 512 members of a consumer household research panel affiliated with a leadingEuropean University. The gender, age, and education of the panel members wasknown. The percentage of male subjects was 54.3. Ages ranged between 17 and 84years, with a mean age of 49.9 years. About 33 per cent of the subjects were in each ofthree educational groups, i.e. low, medium and high. Low education level includesprimary school, lower vocational training and lower secondary education; mediumeducation includes medium level vocational training and higher secondary education;and high education includes higher vocational training and university education (forclarity we use general terms, as specific schools differ according to country).

Stimuli and pretestsEight realistic pictures of video recorders (VCRs) were used as stimuli (see Figure 1).VCRs were chosen as stimuli because their design can be adequately represented in 2D,and thus in a printed questionnaire, as most buttons and other information are on thefront side. Furthermore, a wide variety of VCRs were available on the market and thiswas thought to be conducive to meeting the requirements of the experimental design,particularly filling the cells of the orthogonal factorial design. At the time of research,although DVD players were also available, most people still used a VCR. However,findings for VCRs will generalize to other black box electronic products, such asaudio equipment and DVD players, as they also have a rectangular shape with buttonsand a display. Pictures of VCRs were collected from the internet and from productbrochures, supplemented with digital pictures taken of actual VCRs in store displays.The picture quality (number of pixels) and size were standardized across the stimulusset. To prevent an influence of brand name on product preference, brand names werereplaced by the fictitious brand name VCR. In addition, textual functionalinformation that was not present on all VCRs (such as show view) was deleted inorder to avoid a potential confound. The label VHS was present on all VCRs (as all

Figure 1.An overview of the VCRpictures that are used in

the study. The meanpreference scores are listed

underneath each picture


1443

VCRs have this system in Europe) and these characters were made consistent across allof the VCRs. To prevent the effect of color confounding the effect of the visual designprinciples on preference, the pictures were presented in black-and-white. As VCRs arenot colorful products (most are black, grey, or metallic), presenting them in black andwhite 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 andgraduates in industrial design engineering. These subjects had been trained in visualdesign principles in the course of their studies, which made them well suited to judgestimuli 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 (inclass or personally), who scored them with respect to the visual design principles. Fourpictures were presented on one page. First, one visual design principle was brieflydescribed, after which all pictures followed. Underneath each picture was a seven-pointscale of which only the end-poles were labeled, namely low [complexity/symmetry]-high[complexity/symmetry]. After this, the same procedure was followed for the secondvisual design principle. To diminish order effects, two different orders of the visualdesign principles and two orders of VCR pictures were used (i.e. four different booklets intotal). Based on the resulting mean scores, pictures were divided into low, medium andhigh symmetry and complexity. In order to fill the cells of the research design, VCRswith all combinations of low and high complexity and symmetry were needed.

The pre-tests highlighted some interesting relationships among visual designprinciples as evidenced on actual products, as well as patterns for this class ofproducts. For example, in the first pre-test, using 52 pictures of real VCRs, complexitycorrelated negatively with symmetry (r 20:60, p , 0:001). Most VCRs fitted intothe low complexity-high symmetry cell, some in the high complexity-low symmetrycell, only one in the high-high cell and none in the low-low cell. This suggests that inaddition to many products being designed according to these rules, the principles donot seem to be entirely independent. Based on the results of the first pre-test, VCRpictures that almost fitted in certain cells of the design were slightly adjusted usingcomputer graphics software (e.g. aspects such as the number and type of buttons or thedisplay size were changed based on an investigation of the product characteristics thatinfluenced ratings on the principles in the first pre-test) in order to make themconsistent with specific cells of the design. In order to prevent a confounding influenceof color or shade on preference only darker colored VCRs were included in the stimulusset (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 experimentaldesign were sought. We succeeded in varying complexity and symmetry relativelyindependent from each other, as their correlation was no longer significant in the lastpretest (r 20:31, NS). Through the series of pretests the stimulus set of eight VCRproduct designs was developed and finalized for the 2 (low/high complexity) 2(low/high symmetry) orthogonal factorial design (with two products for each cell).

ProcedureQuestionnaires with pictures of eight VCRs (the experimental stimuli) were sent torespondents homes. They had to indicate their preference for each VCR on a

EJM49,9/10

1444

seven-point scale ranging from little preference to a lot of preference. As in thepretests presented earlier in this paper, the VCRs were presented in black-and-white,with four pictures on a page. A preference scale was underneath each picture. Threedifferent VCR orders were used to minimize order effects on the results.

After indicating their preference for the eight VCRs, respondents indicated theextent to which several types of product value played a role in their judgments. Theyrated the role that aesthetic value, functionalities and quality (i.e. functional productvalue), and ergonomic product value had played in their judgments on seven-pointscales with end-points labeled only, ranging from completely no role to a very bigrole. The importance of aesthetic value was assessed by asking: Did it play a role inyour judgments whether you find the video recorder aesthetically attractive? (note: allquestions originally appeared in Dutch; approximate English translations appearhere). The importance of functionalities was assessed by means of the question: Did itplay a role in your judgments whether the video recorder seems to have a lot offunctions?. After this, the question followed whether one preferred few functions, anaverage number of functions, or many functions on a VCR. The question assessingimportance of quality was: Did it play a role in your judgments whether the videorecorder gives a high quality impression?. The importance of ergonomic value wasassessed by asking: Did it play a role in your judgments whether the video recorderseems to be easy to operate?. Note that we used words such as seems instead of is,as otherwise many people might answer that they are unable to judge that aspect onthe basis of only seeing the products appearance. Furthermore, it accentuated that thequestions were about the judgments that subjects had just made and not about a VCRpurchase in general. Three different orders of these product value questions were used.

Finally, respondents were asked whether their household possessed a VCR.Subjects received a small gift to thank them for their time and effort.

ResultsOf the 431 questionnaires returned (84 percent), 422 were completely filled in and wereused for data analysis. The VCR pictures and their mean preference scores are inFigure 1. The relative importance of the two visual design principles in determiningpreference, and the preferred level of each visual design principle (high or low), wascomputed by means of conjoint analysis. The two visual design principles were foundto have a significant influence on preference, as indicated by the high correlationbetween observed and estimated preferences (conjoint analysis: Pearsons R 0:91,p , 0:001). Complexity was most important in subjects product evaluations. This canbe seen in comparing the averaged importance scores, which is the difference betweenthe highest and lowest utility score and gives insight into the relative influence of thefactors. The average importance for complexity is 67.14, for symmetry it is 32.39. Ingeneral, respondents preferred low complexity and high symmetry in a VCR; the meanutility for (high) complexity is 20.58, for (high) symmetry it is 0.18.

Many subjects indicated that aesthetics played an important role for them inindicating their VCR design preferences (M 5:42 on a seven-point scale, SD 1:66),ease of use was also considered important by many (M 5:07, SD 1:97), qualityplayed a role in their judgments (M 4:84, SD 1:69), number of functions scored abit lower (M 3:74, SD 2:03). These mean values differ significantly from eachother (repeated measures ANOVA: F 64:96, p , 0:001). Post hoc comparisons show


1445

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 rangefrom 20.311 (p , 0:001) for aesthetic value and ease of use, to 0.340 (p , 0:001) foraesthetic value and quality impression. This means for example that for someone whovalued ease of use, aesthetics tended to be less important.

Test of the hypothesesThe influence of the type of product value that is important to subjects on theirpreference for symmetry and complexity in a VCR design was tested by means ofregression analysis. The dependent variable was the utility for symmetry or the utilityfor complexity (as derived from the conjoint analysis), the independent variables werethe four product value type importance scores. The variance explained in theregression with symmetry as dependent variable is 2.3 percent (p , 0:05), and withcomplexity as dependent variable 16.1 percent (p , 0:001). Although linear relationsare posed in the hypotheses, relations between product value importance and preferredamount of symmetry and complexity may also be curvilinear. For some hypotheses,there was not much literature available as a basis for prediction. To get as clear aninsight as possible into the relation between product value importance and designpreference, we therefore looked at whether or not adding quadratic terms for theproduct value types to the model (in order to test for curvilinear effects) significantlyincreases the amount of variance explained. Adding quadratic terms for the productvalue types does not give a significant increase in R 2 for symmetry, but significantlyincreases the R 2 for complexity to 18.1 percent (F change 4; 409 2:49, p , 0:05).This increase is due to a curvilinear influence of ease of use importance scores (see thehypothesis test concerning ease of use below).

As we expected, the preference (i.e. utility) for symmetry and complexity was foundto differ depending on the product value to which consumers paid attention. Figure 2gives an overview of the significant (linear) influences of the importance scores for thetypes of product value on the utility for symmetry and complexity.

When aesthetic value was more important for subjects, they more strongly dislikedcomplexity in a VCR design (b 20:249, p , 0:001). This provides support for H1.

Figure 2.An overview of significantinfluences of productvalue importance onpreference for symmetryand complexity

EJM49,9/10

1446

Although there was a statistical trend (b 0:094, p 0:09), the importance ofaesthetic value had no significant influence on preference for symmetry. This meansthat the second hypothesis was not supported, despite there being at least a marginalindication of the relationship.

H3 is supported: when subjects paid more attention to functionalities, they showedmore preference for complex-looking VCRs (b 0:303, p , 0:001). When includinginteraction terms of functionalities with the dummy variables for the number offunctions that people prefer (a small number, a medium number, or a large number), onesees that this finding only holds for people who want a medium or large number offunctions on a VCR. The interaction of the functionalities importance score with thedummy variable indicating a preference for a small as opposed to a medium or largenumber of functions was significant (b 20:35, p , 0:001), while the interaction of thefunctionalities importance score with the dummy variable indicating a preference for alarge as opposed to a small or medium number of functions was not (b 0:09, NS). Themean utility for complexity for subjects for whom functionalities are important(functionality importance score .4) and who want a medium or large number offunctions is positive, namely 0.10 (while in general the utility for complexity is negative).We did not expect symmetry to influence the perception of functionality and thereforedid not posit a hypothesis about this. Indeed, there was no significant influence of theimportance of functionalities on the utility for symmetry (b 0:018, NS).

The importance of a high quality impression of a VCR did not significantlyinfluence the utility for symmetry (b 20:046, NS); this means that H4 was notsupported. The importance of a high quality impression did influence the utility forcomplexity (b 0:108, p , 0:05), supporting H5. Subjects who attach moreimportance to product quality show more preference for complexity in a design.Note, however, that the mean utility for complexity for subjects that paid attention toquality (quality importance score .4) is still negative (20.51), but somewhat lessnegative than for the other subjects.

We did not posit a hypothesis concerning the influence of symmetry on perceivedease of use, as we could imagine both a positive and a negative influence and there wasnothing about this in the literature. The influence proved to be negative, in that theutility for symmetry diminished when ease of use was more important to subjects(b 20:106, p , 0:05). This indicates that low symmetry designs are preferred bypeople for whom ease of use is important. H6, positing that the importance of ease ofuse is negatively related to the utility for visual complexity in a design, is supported(b 20:167, p 0:001). Thus, when ease of use was more important in subjectspreference judgments, low symmetry and low complexity were more preferred. But, asmentioned above, the quadratic term for ease of use significantly increased the R 2 forthe analysis with utility for complexity as a dependent variable. There is an inverseU-shaped relation between the importance of ease of use and a preference forcomplexity. However, the influence of ease of use importance on preference forcomplexity differs depending on the number of functions that people prefer: a small,medium, or large number. When interactions between the importance of ease of useand two dummy variables respectively indicating a preference for a small asopposed to a medium or large number of functions, and a preference for a large asopposed to a small or medium number of functions are added (both are significant),adding quadratic terms to this model does not significantly increase the amount of


1447

variance explained anymore. For subjects wanting a small number of functions,preference for complexity decreases when ease of use is more important. For subjectswanting a large number of functions, preference for complexity increases when ease ofuse is more important. As the number of subjects that want a large number offunctions is relatively small, the overall effect points to a negative relation betweenimportance of ease of use and preference for complexity.

Managerial and research implicationsThis study investigated the influence of the visual design/organization principles ofcomplexity and symmetry on consumers product preferences. People generallypreferred a VCR that exhibited low complexity and high symmetry, which agrees withfindings in the literature. The amount of visual complexity influenced the perception ofall types of product value, namely aesthetics, functionalities, quality, and ease of use.This was in agreement with our hypotheses. However, the amount of varianceexplained by the importance of the product value types in the preference for symmetrywas 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 offunctionalities to not have an influence on preference for symmetry. However, weexpected importance of quality to have a positive influence on preference for symmetry(although there were no findings on this relationship in the literature). For aestheticvalue, a preference for symmetry is found in the literature (e.g. Berlyne, 1971; Jacobsenand Hofel, 2002; Lauer, 1979). These findings were based on artificial stimuli andhuman faces. Our study indicates that these findings may not transfer to products;although there was a marginal influence of importance of aesthetic value on preferencefor symmetry, this influence is much smaller than can be expected from the existingliterature. Further research is needed to replicate this finding for other kinds ofproducts.

The effect of symmetry and visual complexity on consumers preferences differeddepending on the product value that was important to these consumers in making theirpreference judgments: aesthetics, functionalities, quality, or ease of use. This adds tothe existing literature that has primarily focused on aesthetic value in assessingconsumer preference for design. Since the appearance of a product can also influencethe perceived functional and ergonomic value as well as the perceived quality of aproduct, managers overseeing new product development are well served by takingthese effects into account. In this study, preference for symmetry was found to decreasewhen ease of use was more important to subjects. Preference for complexity increasedwhen functionalities and quality were more important, and decreased when aestheticsand ease of use were more important to subjects (see Figure 2). These findingsillustrate that it is beneficial to emphasize the most important type of product value inthe development of a product (design) and its appearance. It is difficult if notimpossible to optimize a products appearance for each type of product valuesimultaneously, as the best design differs according to product value. For example,when aesthetics are important consumers prefer a less complex product, while morecomplexity is preferred when functional value (i.e. functionalities and quality) isimportant to them. Therefore it is useful to focus on the most important or beneficialproduct value in designing a product, without ignoring the other types of product

EJM49,9/10

1448

value. Of course care should be taken that a product is not perceived negatively withrespect to the other product value types. When the main type of value that is importantfor the product and the desired target market is emphasized during productdevelopment, the design can be attuned to this, leading to a better communication ofproduct advantage to consumers.

Specific implications for practice on the amount of visual complexity and symmetryto apply in determining the appearance of a product follow from the results of thisstudy. When aesthetics are important to consumers, a product low in complexity willbe preferred. Although in the literature a preference for symmetry is indicated forhuman faces and artificial stimuli, we did not find a significantly higher preference forsymmetry in design with higher importance of aesthetics (although there was astatistical trend). When consumers want a medium or large number of functions, amore complex looking product will be preferred. This sounds logical, as visualcomplexity 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 visualcomplexity as this study showed that people in general dislike visual complexity. Itwas shown that when product quality is important to consumers, they dislike complexdesigns to a lesser extent. Finally, less symmetry in a product design was found toheighten an impression of ease of use. Indeed, one can imagine that different buttonscan be better distinguished from each other when not arranged symmetrically, assymmetry would create uniformity in button shape and placement (see Hypothesessection). The relation between importance of ease of use and preference for complexitydiffers with the number of functions that people prefer. When people desire a smallnumber of functions, preference for complexity decreases with importance of ease ofuse. When people desire a large number of functions, preference for complexityincreases with importance of ease of use. In our study, most subjects wanted a small ormedium 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 thusthe amount of complexity that people prefer, may differ by product category andcountry.

We expected that subjects would prefer more symmetry when aesthetic value and aquality impression were important to them, but did not find support for this. A possibleexplanation might be that for black box electronic products such as VCRs, symmetryis only varied by buttons and surface elements, and the overall form stays rectangularand thereby essentially symmetric. It may be that for products that differ morestrongly from each other in their overall shape than do VCRs, an effect of symmetry onaesthetic 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. Weused only one product category due to the requirements in filling an orthogonalfactorial design (needed in order to assess independently the influence of symmetryand complexity). However, the current findings will likely generalize to other blackbox electronic products such as hi-fi stereo equipment, DVD players and recorders,and maybe also products such as microwave ovens. Another limitation, following fromthe use of a factorial design, is that we restricted our investigation to low and highsymmetry and complexity designs only. Including a medium level would havesubstantially increased the number of stimuli needed, and thus both greatly expandedthe difficulty of filling out the experimental design, as well as make the rating task


1449

overly burdensome for the consumer panel subjects. However, including a mediumlevel would have provided a more exact insight into the level of symmetry andcomplexity consumers prefer. There will be limitations on the positive effect ofsymmetry and negative effect of complexity, in that complete symmetry and lack ofcomplexity 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 therewill be a limit on the amount of complexity of a design intended to be used effectivelyby people. However, we used realistic products as stimuli, so that this can be regardedas a study of the utility of visual complexity and symmetry to consumers within arealistic range. Within boundaries normally used in product design, the relationssummarized in Figure 2 are expected to hold. Replication across a wider range ofproducts will be needed to further verify these relationships. However, this work isanother necessary step in the effort to better understand these important (andchallenging to research) relationships between product value and design principles.

The amount of variance in the utility for symmetry that is explained by theimportance of the different product value types is rather low (although significant).The conjoint analysis showed that symmetry has much less influence on designpreference than does complexity, which might explain that only two of the productvalue types influenced utility for symmetry. As mentioned above, symmetry might bemore influential for products that differ more strongly in their overall shape thanblack box electronic products such as VCRs. Furthermore, future research mightidentify 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.

ConclusionIn conclusion, these findings may help product managers and those involved in newproduct development in understanding and researching the influences of visual designprinciples and product value types on customer reactions to products. Given thepaucity of research that bears directly on the relationships between product valueperception and design principles, it is hoped that the study presented here will add tothe foundation of design research, and serve those charged with giving form toproducts by providing an empirical basis for design decisions.

References

Arnheim, R. (1974), Art and Visual Perception: A Psychology of the Creative Eye, University ofCalifornia 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 ofMarketing, 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 EMACConference, EMAC, Athens.

Creusen, M.E.H. and Schoormans, J.P.L. (2005), The different roles of product appearance inconsumer 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 visualdomain in product design, Design Studies, Vol. 25, pp. 547-77.

EJM49,9/10

1450

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 consumerpurchase consideration and choice, Working Paper Series, Rep. No. 00-104, MarketingScience Institute, Cambridge, MA.

Gombrich, E.H. (1979), The Sense of Order: A Study in the Psychology of Decorative Art, CornellUniversity Press, Ithaca, NY.

Hekkert, P. and Leder, H. (2008), Product aesthetics, in Schifferstein, H.N.J. (Ed.), ProductExperience, Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp. 259-85.

Hekkert, P., Peper, C.E. and van Wieringen, P.C.W. (1994), The effect of verbal instruction andartistic 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 forVisual Pattern, Delft University of Technology, Delft.

Jacobsen, T. and Hofel, L. (2002), Aesthetic judgments of novel graphic patterns: analyses ofindividual 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 & DevelopmentEngineering Press, Carson City, NV.

Loebach, B. (1976), Industrial Design: Grundlagen der Industrieproduktgestaltung, Verlag KarlThiemig, 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 inEngineering, 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 thepackage 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 ofhuman 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 ofBrands, 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 productpreferences, 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 forConsumer Research, Provo, UT, pp. 641-5.


1451

Veryzer, R.W. and Hutchinson, J.W. (1998), The influence of unity and prototypicality onaesthetic 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 ofindustrial products, Journal of Product Innovation Management, Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 309-24.

About the authorsMarielle E.H. Creusen is Assistant Professor of Consumer Research at the Faculty of IndustrialDesign Engineering, Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands. She received her MSc ineconomic psychology from Tilburg University and her PhD from Delft University ofTechnology. She has published in journals such as Journal of Product Innovation Management,International Journal of Research in Marketing, and Advances in Consumer Research. Herresearch interests include consumer research methods in product development and the influenceof product appearance factors on consumer product preference. Marielle E.H. Creusen is thecorresponding author and can be contacted at: [email protected]

Robert W. Veryzer, at the time of the research, was an Associate Professor of Marketing/NewProduct Development in the Lally School of Management & Technology, Rensselaer PolytechnicInstitute, Troy, New York, USA and a Visiting Research Professor at Delft University ofTechnology. He holds a PhD from the University of Florida and an MBA from Michigan StateUniversity. Dr Veryzers articles appear in leading professional journals such as Journal ofConsumer Research, Journal of Product Innovation Management, Design ManagementJournal/Review, and Advances in Consumer Research. His current research interests includeproduct design, new product development, and radical innovation.

Jan P.L. Schoormans is Professor of Consumer Research at the Faculty of Industrial DesignEngineering, Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands. He received his MSc and PhD ineconomic psychology from Tilburg University. He has published in journals such as Journal ofProduct Innovation Management, Design Studies, International Journal of Research in Marketing,Journal of Economic Psychology, and Advances in Consumer Research. His current researchinterests include consumer research methods in the product development process.

EJM49,9/10

1452

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected] visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

Documents

Product Value