resins

CONSUMER PERCEPTIONS AND PREFERENCES ON SOLID WOOD,WOOD-BASED PANELS, AND COMPOSITES:

A REPERTORY GRID STUDY

Oskar JonssonPhD Candidate

Department of Design SciencesLund UniversityLund, Sweden

Siv LindbergPhD Research Associate

STFI-Packforsk ABStockholm, Sweden

Anders Roos*Associate Professor

Mårten HugossonPhD Researcher

Department of Forest ProductsSwedish University of Agricultural Sciences

Uppsala, Sweden

Mikael LindströmAssociate Professor, Research Manager

STFI-Packforsk ABStockholm, Sweden

(Received April 2008)

Abstract. Knowledge about consumer perception and preferences on solid wood, wood-based panels,and wood-based composites is important for product development and marketing. The aim of this studywas to identify attributes and associations that people use to describe different types of wood materials andto explore how they relate to preferences. The study involved nine samples that were evaluated with theKelly’s repertory grid technique and content analysis. Based on respondents’ answers, 19 core categoriesreflecting sample attributes were extracted. General preferences for each sample were also recorded.Principal component analysis generated two factors describing 1) naturalness, wood-likeness, softness,unprocessed origin, living, pleasant, and high value; and 2) solid and homogeneous impression. A third,preliminary factor included categories describing irregular pattern, sleekness, and smoothness. The woodsamples were most liked, whereas composites and panels were not appreciated. Preferred core categorieswere naturalness, wood-likeness, smoothness, living impression, and value. The least liked core categorieswere processed, hard, and high weight. The implications of the results for product development andmarketing are discussed.

Keywords: Attribute elicitation, Kelly’s repertory grid, consumer research, content analysis.

BACKGROUND: WOOD AND

WOOD-BASED COMPOSITES

Wood can be processed to varying degrees be-fore it is marketed in its final form. The human

perceptions of wood products and their originvary; solid wood conveys specific impressionsand associations, whereas processed wood andwood composites may generate perceptions andassociations that do not necessarily relate to theirnatural origin. Although some wood-based ma-terials have unique properties, which make them* Corresponding author: [email protected]

Wood and Fiber Science, 40(4), 2008, pp. 663 – 678© 2008 by the Society of Wood Science and Technology

appropriate for specific applications, they arealso substitutes in visible uses. Outdoor decksand window frames can for instance be made ofboth solid wood and composites; panels can sub-stitute for solid wood in interior uses; and bothwood plastic composites and panels can be usedin walls and flooring (Tsoumis 1991; Clemons2002; Juslin and Hansen 2002). Wood-plasticcomposites are claimed to possess natural wood-like properties combined with lower mainte-nance needs, whereas producers of solid woodproducts often use arguments like “There is nosubstitute for the look and feel of real wood, atruly natural product.” Some panel products arepromoted as visually appealing and flexible ma-terial for furniture and interior uses. Even struc-tural panels products such as oriented strand-board (OSB) are sometimes used in exposed ap-plications, eg, in shop interior uses.

Little is known about how consumers discrimi-nate between different processed wood-basedproducts and solid wood, and how perceived dis-tinguishing attributes relate to preferences. Bothindustry reports and scientific studies have em-phasized the importance of a deeper knowledgeof consumer perceptions and preferences forgaining a competitive advantage in wood prod-uct markets (CEI-Bois 2004; Brandt and Shook2005).

The typical characteristics consumers assign tothe wooden material have been studied by anumber of researchers (Broman 2000; Pakarinenand Asikainen 2001; Bowe and Bumgardner2004; Scholz and Decker 2007). Attempts havealso been made to map how properties of woodare related to preferences (Marchal and Mothe1994; Broman 2000; Nyrud et al 2008). The ef-fect of background and profession on prefer-ences have also been investigated (Marchal andMothe 1994; Roos and Nyrud 2008). However,the study of how wood as a material is perceivedand characterized in relation to alternativewood-based materials such as panels and wood-based composites remains to be conducted.

In biocomposites, at least one of the phases isderived from biological origin (Fowler et al

2006). We use the name “wood-based compos-ites” when the matrix is reinforced with wood orprocessed wood fibers. Cellulose fibers can becombined with biological or synthetic polymers(Mohanty et al 2000; Fowler et al 2006). Bio-composites, in particular those with exclusivelybiodegradable phases, can boast of environmen-tal advantages concurrent with performance im-provements (Mohanty et al 2002). The mostcommon biocomposites are wood–plastic com-posites (WPC), which are desirable mainly fortheir plasticity, resistance against biological deg-radation, and low maintenance requirements(Fowler et al 2006; Wechsler and Hiziroglu2006). The WPC industry, which is growing,especially in North America, supplies materialsused in such applications as automotive parts,decking, outdoor products, roof tiles, and win-dows (Clemons 2002).

The development of new materials for “con-struction, insulation, furniture, packaging, spe-cialty papers, vehicles, textiles, and beyond” isexplicitly targeted in the European Forest Tech-nology Platform Strategic Research Agenda andin national forest research agendas (eg, theSwedish national research agenda for the forestsector). Hence, forest-based industries are pre-paring strategies for innovation-based develop-ment of new wood-based materials with newapplications. However, an important issue forthe success of wood-based composites is howthey are perceived by customers and their com-parison with solid wood (Pritchard 2004; Jacob2006).

Knowledge about consumers’ sensory and emo-tional associations and reactions toward solidwood and processed wood-based materials is ofparticular interest for the design of appropriatemarketing and development strategies. For boththe wood and composite industries, the key issueis to find the sensory attributes that distinguishthe material from alternatives and that are cor-related with peoples’ preferences. The preferredattributes should be enhanced in product devel-opment and emphasized in market communica-tion and promotion efforts. Correspondingly,“unpopular” attributes should be reduced, or

WOOD AND FIBER SCIENCE, OCTOBER 2008, V. 40(4)664

compensated for, to overcome attitudinal barri-ers among customers (Solomon 2006). Betterknowledge about perceptions and attitudes to-ward materials can also be used for leveragingsecondary brand associations in a process ofstrengthening a brand/product type (Håkansson2000; Keller 2008). These considerations be-come central both for the solid wood industry,which is repeatedly challenged by new productsand materials, and for the wood-based compos-ite industry, which is still to some degree “ex-ploring its proper applications and markets.” It isessential for both industries to find the most ef-fective wordings and concepts to describe vari-ous wood-based materials. Because materials forthe building sector often are marketed throughspecifiers, a better understanding is needed ofdifferences in perceptions between laymen andprofessionals, eg, interior designers.

The purpose of this study was to 1) identifyattributes and associations that people use to de-scribe and distinguish solid wood, wood-basedpanels, and wood-based composites; and 2) ex-plore how these different attributes and associa-tions relate to preferences for these materials.

Our objective was also to review whether thereare differences in perceptions between designerswith experience in the use of wood in interiordesign, and laymen. Our approach was to obtainresults about intermediate materials without in-dicating a final precise application.

ATTRIBUTE ELICITATION

Based on consumer psychology and marketingtheory, van Kleef et al (2005) described con-sumer research methods that are frequently usedin early product development. Outputs from dif-ferent methods include product characteristics,attributes, constructs, and benefits. Product char-acteristics are measurable physical properties.Product attributes are characteristics that con-sumers infer from the product, eg, luxury,creaminess, etc. Constructs refer to an institu-tionalized entity or artifact constructed or in-vented by a group of people or a culture that

exists because people behave as if it exists.Product benefits refer to what the product doesfor the consumer in terms of pleasant conse-quences of consuming the product, eg, health,good taste. van Kleef and colleagues argue thata concrete level of consumer needs is most ac-tionable for a product development team,whereas a more abstract level of consumer needsand benefits will be actionable for marketing(eg, advertising). Attribute elicitation methodssuch as Kelly’s repertory grid can be used toidentify typical attributes that induce people todiscriminate between products. According tovan Kleef et al, Kelly’s repertory grid is appro-priate for marketing purposes because it revealsmore abstract consumer needs and values. It isalso a suitable method for incremental improve-ment and product repositioning because themethod is mainly product-driven.

A few empirical studies have examined impor-tant attributes for the identification, discrimina-tion, and preferences of wood products. Marchaland Mothe (1994) found that the most importantfactors affecting the appreciation of oak woodwere knottiness, cut orientation, tint, and annualring width. Broman (2000) identified key con-cepts that impact peoples’ attitudes toward woodproducts. The notions—freshness, harmony, in-terest, elegance, excitement, restfulness, event-fulness, naturalness, imaginativeness, and ab-sence of gaudiness—reflected the perceived ac-tivity and harmony of the surface texture. Byexternal preference analysis, Broman also ex-plored the links between people’s subjective de-scriptions and the physical blend of wood fea-tures. Pakarinen and Asikainen (2001) investi-gated preferences for kitchen cabinets andidentified five main dimensions that were im-portant to consumers’ choices: environmentalfriendliness, price, advertising, quality, andstyle. A survey study by Jonsson (2005) estab-lished that aesthetic properties of wood were im-portant factors influencing purchasing decisionsby consumers of floor coverings. Using the Qsort methodology, Bigsby et al (2005) discov-ered that color and grain were key timber attrib-utes that consumers use to form their preference.

Jonsson et al—SOLID WOOD, WOOD-BASED PANELS, AND COMPOSITES 665

Bowe and Bumgardner (Bumgardner and Bowe2002; Bowe and Bumgardner 2004) studiedpeoples’ word-based and appearance-basedevaluations of different wood species. The au-thors argued that these associations and differ-entials in the North American context could as-sist the wood products industry in its marketcommunication. The previously mentioned stud-ies provide evidence that aesthetic and visualattributes of wood materials influence prefer-ences. However, comparisons of perceptions ofsolid wood and other wood-based materials arescarce.

In a review on attribute elicitation methods inthe forest products industry, Brandt and Shook(2005) concluded that, although the researcharea is expanding, many studies have failed toapply established elicitation methods that canprovide consistency in attributes. Instead, the at-tributes used in the research are often based onanecdotic information, literature reviews, and/orexpert panel opinions. This, Brandt and Shookmean, risks biasing the results resulting from theexclusion of important attributes.

The consumer research literature provides arange of preference analysis methods that hasbeen used successfully in other product areas(Aaker et al 2000; van Kleef et al 2005).

MATERIALS AND METHOD

Kelly’s Repertory Grid

Because the main purpose of this study was toanalyze how respondents perceive, distinguish,and prefer alternatives among wood, wood-based panels, and wood composite materials,Kelly’s repertory grid technique (RGT) was cho-sen as a method (Kelly 1963). Kelly’s repertorygrid is generally used to investigate the attributesand constructs that people use for distinguishingbetween different samples. “Kelly’s repertorygrid is a personal interviewing technique used toelicit the constructs by which consumers struc-ture and interpret a product category. Attributesare elicited by repeatedly confronting a respon-dent with triads of products drawn from a large

set and asking which two products are alike anddifferent from a third” (van Kleef et al 2005).The instructions for attribute elicitation canspecify a specific attribute or it may be left to thetesters to decide which characteristics and attrib-utes they think are important (Donderi 1988;Bonebright 2001). In practice, the aim of theRGT study is normally to achieve 8 to 12 con-structs or attributes per interview (Jankowicz2004). The elicited constructs are subsequentlypresented as scales for the subject to rank thesamples, first for the samples of each triad andsubsequently for the rest of the samples.

The method enables the researcher to elicit andassess individual or group views on differentphenomena. As such, it is a combination ofqualitative and quantitative techniques, empha-sizing the ideal of minimizing the influence ofthe researcher on the results; it should be “un-contaminated by interviewer’s own viewpoint”(Jankowicz 2004). As a result of the precisionthat is possible to obtain with this method, it canbe used for many different purposes, eg, forcomparing the views of different persons orwhat Kelly, the founder of the technique, called“constructive alternativism” (Kelly 1963), whichmeans that subjects’ views on phenomena can becompared over time. The technique can also beused for analyzing what is common regardingviews of different subjects and for further con-tent analysis of a number of repertory grids byinferring core categories as done in this study.The core categories can include several of theconstructs elicited from the formalized inter-views with the subjects.

In the study, participants were individually pre-sented with three wood samples at a time (triads)and asked to describe the attributes in which oneof the samples was different from the two others.This process assumes that individuals developtheir own personal list of attributes that they useto organize and conceptualize differences andkey features.

The Samples

The nine samples were chosen to represent natu-ral wood, wood-based panels, and wood-based


composites. The selection was done subjectivelyby the researchers to achieve a variation in pat-tern, contrast, fabrication process, traces, repre-sentation of the wood material, and aestheticconsiderations (Table 1). Many materials can beused as visible surfaces in houses and furniture.Although OSB is mainly used for nonvisiblestructural purposes, it can be selected for ex-posed applications, eg, in stores. Some architectseven advocate the principle that materials shouldbe shown in their genuine and authentic form(Nylander 1999). OSB was also selected be-cause of its intermediate position between solidwood and more processed forest products. Thewooden samples all measured 400 × 135 × 20mm. The materials, OSB, BeachPlank� (OFKPlast AB, Karlskoga, Sweden), and wood com-posite were not available in the same thickness,and Kareline� (Kerline OY, Joensuu, Finland)and cellulose composite measured 300 × 50 × 7mm and 150 × 105 × 5 mm, respectively. Be-cause our study focused on the perceived differ-ences between the samples, we used “plain” ma-terial pieces to avoid association to any specificapplication such as flooring, furniture, or deco-rations. The surfaces of the wooden sampleswere planed and sanded, and the wood piecesdid not contain knots.

The Respondents and Interviews

The interviews in this study were carried outwith 15 subjects, 8 men and 7 women, between25 and 67 yr old. Five of the participants had aprofession within design. The remaining 10 sub-jects were purposely chosen to represent differ-ent backgrounds, ages, professions, and genders.

The general aim of the study was explained tothe subjects, and the samples were presented tothem in triads. The interviewees were asked toexamine (look at and touch) the samples. Foreach triad, they were asked to state how two ofthe samples were more similar in one or morecharacteristic(s) or attribute(s), which contrastedthem from the third sample. One or more bipolarattributes were accordingly created from each

triad. The subject was then asked to rank all nineitems with regard to the elicited construct(s) orattribute(s) on a 5-point scale in which a score of5 meant that a sample was perceived to be highon the attribute. During the sessions, no refer-ence was made to any specific application (asimilar approach was chosen by Marchal andMothe 1994).

This procedure was repeated nine times in whichnine different triads were presented to the sub-jects on the principle that all samples wereshown three times and not at any instance to-gether with a sample that had been presentedpreviously. The only preconceived “attribute”for ranking was preference, which was collectedfrom all respondents (Brandt and Shook 2005;van Kleef et al 2005). The assessment was car-ried out at individual times between 45 and 90min.

Analysis

The experiment produced a total of 15 grids, oneper subject. An example of a single grid fromone respondent is shown in Table 2. Contentanalysis was used to pool and categorize theelicited attributes from all 15 interviewees ac-cording to the meaning they expressed using abootstrap procedure (Jankowicz 2004). The cat-egorizing was first performed by two of the au-thors individually. By using a matrix, one candepict what is common for the two categoriza-tions and what is not. The initial categorizationhad an agreement of 72% between the two in-dependent categorizations. Several iterationswere subsequently done according to a “negoti-ating” process whereby new matrixes were pre-sented increasingly more inclusive of agreed-oncategorized constructs (core categories) until aconsensus categorization was reached.

A principal component analysis (PCA) was per-formed on the aggregated grid to retrieve theunderlying dimensions of the perceived charac-terizations. PCA reduces the number of dimen-sions in a dataset by generating principal com-ponents or factors. The original categorized corecategories have a correlation with the derived


Tab

le1.

Woo

d,pa

nels

,an

dco

mpo

site

sin

the

stud

y.

Mat

eria

lD

escr

iptio

nR

easo

nsfo

rch

oice

Phot

o

Elm

(400

×13

5×

20m

m)

Mas

sive

woo

dH

igh

cont

rast

,gr

ain

patte

rnw

ithpa

ralle

llin

esca

lled

vert

ical

grai

n,lu

stre

,an

dhi

ghde

nsity

Asp

en(4

00×

135

×20

mm

)M

assi

vew

ood

Low

cont

rast

,su

btle

grai

npa

ttern

,lo

wde

nsity

Pine

(400

×13

5×

20m

m)

Mas

sive

woo

dG

rain

patte

rnw

itha

seri

esof

long

Ush

apes

calle

da

flat

grai

n,lo

udgr

ain

patte

rn,

freq

uent

lyus

edin

inte

rior

appl

icat

ions

,tr

aditi

onal

OSB

(Ori

ente

dSt

rand

boar

d)(4

00×

135

×10

mm

)E

ngin

eere

dw

ood;

laye

red

stra

nds

ofw

ood

insp

ecif

icor

ient

atio

nsH

igh

cont

rast

;ca

nbe

used

asa

deco

rativ

em

ater

ial

acco

rdin

gto

the

prod

ucer

Plex

woo

d�in

birc

h(4

00×

135

×20

mm

)E

ngin

eere

dw

ood;

grai

nw

ood

and

woo

dw

ithth

egr

ain,

cros

s-gl

ued

Hig

hco

ntra

st,

patte

rnof

para

llel

stri

pes,

deco

rativ

ew

oode

npr

oduc

tac

cord

ing

toth

epr

oduc

er


Tab

le1.

Con

tinu

ed.

Mat

eria

lD

escr

iptio

nR

easo

nsfo

rch

oice

Phot

o

Bea

chPl

ank�

(400

×13

5×

25m

m)

Woo

d–

plas

ticco

mpo

site

out

ofw

ood

fibe

ran

dre

cove

red

poly

ethy

lene

plas

tic

Hom

ogen

eity

,hi

ghde

nsity

,su

rfac

eth

atis

brus

hed

tore

sem

ble

woo

dac

cord

ing

toth

epr

oduc

er

Kar

elin

e�(3

00×

50×

7m

m)

Com

posi

teof

woo

dfi

bers

and

plas

tics

Ava

ried

surf

ace

patte

rnan

dan

impr

essi

onof

dept

han

dw

arm

th,

ana

tura

lap

pear

ance

acco

rdin

gto

the

prod

ucer

Woo

dco

mpo

site

(400

×13

5×

*5m

m)

Com

posi

teof

woo

dfi

bers

and

plas

tics

(PP)

App

eara

nce

asan

artif

icia

lm

ater

ial,

visi

ble

saw

dust

grai

ns,

unif

orm

colo

r

Cel

lulo

seco

mpo

site

(150

×10

5×

5m

m)

Com

posi

teof

cellu

lose

fibe

r-re

info

rced

poly

lact

ide

(PL

A)

Prod

uct

unde

rde

velo

pmen

t


principal components/factors called factor load-ings and the samples have values on the princi-pal components/factors called factor scores. Thefactor loadings are useful when interpreting thefactors, ie, the underlying psychological dimen-sions that the interviewees used to describe thematerials, and the factor scores show the relativepositions of the samples on these factors.

RESULTS

The Core Categories

The elicited attributes/constructs were groupedinto 19 categories. Table 3 shows an overview ofthe categories. The designers mentioned con-structs related to the feeling of wood and thenaturalness of the material in 43% of the cases(24.3% ± 18.9%). The third largest category forthe designers was related to the evaluating char-acteristics of the material, 10.8%. For laymen,the distribution of constructs is more scatteredamong the categories; constructs related to woodand naturalness were mentioned in 22% of thecases and the third largest core category is “pat-terned.”

A difference was also noticed between the pro-fessional designers, who provided proportion-ally less pure sensory core categories (24%)and more interpretative core categories (62%)and the laymen, whose core categories con-cerned more sensory attributes (53%) and, to alesser degree, interpretative core categories(40%) (Fig 1).

Mean Values for Each Wood Pieceper Construct

A mean rating on each category generates a rep-ertory grid shown in Table 4. It provides a pro-file of how each sample was perceived by therespondents regarding each of the core catego-ries. It constitutes an overview of perceivedsimilarities and differences between the prod-ucts.

Table 4 shows a set of core categories in whichsolid wood received high ratings: naturalness,wooden impression, and value. It also revealsthat composite samples scored high on pro-cessed and hardness. Solid wood was generallymost preferred.

Principal Component Analysis Results

A PCA was performed on the aggregate resultsfrom Table 3 with the categorized constructs asvariables and the materials as cases. Preferencewas also included in the factor analysis. Threefactors had eigenvalues larger than 3. The firsttwo factors explained 65% of the variation in thedata set. Adding one more factor increased theexplanatory power to 80%. Considering that thenumber of samples tested is only nine, a 2-Dsolution is appropriate. However, with the afore-mentioned reservation in mind, a third dimen-sion could still add interesting considerations forour analysis and also suggests themes for furtherresearch. In Figs 2 and 3, the factor loadings forthe projection of the variables on the first three

Table 2. Example of an individual grid from one respondent.a

Attribute Plexwood� Elm BeachPlank� Pine OSB AspenWoodcomp Kareline�

Cellulosecomp Attribute

Massive 2 2 1 3 5 3 2 1 4 BrittleAuthentic 3 1 4 1 4 2 5 3 4 RefinedNatural 2 1 5 1 3 1 5 5 3 PlasticLively 3 1 5 1 1 4 4 2 4 DeadHistorical 3 1 5 1 3 1 5 4 4 Lack of historyNice 4 2 5 1 4 1 4 5 3 MeanEnvironmentally

friendly2 1 4 1 2 1 4 5 3 Not environ.

friendlyWood feeling 2 1 5 1 2 1 4 5 4 No wood feelingLike 2 1 5 2 3 1 5 3 4 Do not like

a 1 � attribute to the left, 5 � attribute to the right.


Table 3. Content analysis.a

Category DefinitionDesigners

(N; %)Laymen(N; %)

Total(N; %)

Interpretative core categories: Material

Wood Looks, smells, and feels like wood; not artificial; “wood feeling” 9; 24.3 7; 8.0 16; 12.9Natural From nature; natural, looks natural; not plastic; real 7; 18.9 12; 13.8 19; 15.3Living Living material, reflects light in living way 1; 2.7 3; 3.4 4; 3.2

Interpretative core categories: technical

Processed Processed material/wood pulp, difficult to work up, produced 3; 8.1 4; 4.6 7; 5.6Stable Stable, technically reliable, durable material 1; 2.7 3; 3.4 4; 3.2Homogeneous Homogeneous, uniform, original solid material. 2; 5.4 6; 6.9 8; 6.5

Sensory core categories: visual

Patterned Much variation, complicated surface, patterned, visual structure 2; 5.4 8; 9.2 10; 8.1Irregular pattern Organic, irregular, no order, round shapes 0 6; 6.9 6; 4.8Calm Not vivid surface and calm pattern; calm 0 3; 3.4 3; 2.4Bright Light, light color 1; 2.7 7; 8.0 8; 6.5Color Pleasant color 0 2; 2.3 2; 1.6

Sensory core categories: tactile

Warm Warm, warm expression 1; 2.7 1; 1.1 2; 1.6Weight Heavy 1; 2.7 6; 6.9 7; 5.6Solid Solid, sounds solid 2; 5.4 2; 2.3 4; 3.2Hard Hard, compact 0 4; 4.6 4; 3.2Smooth Smooth, smoothness 1; 2.7 5; 5.7 6; 4.8Sleek Slippery 1; 2.7 2; 2.3 3; 2.4

Value

Pleasant Kind, harmonic, pleasant, safe, cozy 1; 2.7 4; 4.6 5; 4.0Worth Historical, traditional, ordinary, not trendy 4; 10.8 0; 0 4; 3.2

a For each category, the definition and the number of attributes belonging to that category are shown for designers (n � 5), laymen (n � 10), and the sumin total (n � 15). Below each number is given the percentage of attributes belonging to that category.

Figure 1. Distribution in percent of elicited attributes between core categories for designers and laymen, respectively.


principal components are plotted. Factor load-ings (unrotated) are given in Table 5. The firstprincipal component explains 45% of the varia-

tion, and we interpret this factor to represent thenatural aspects of the material (natural, unproc-essed, worth, wood-like, soft, pale, pleasant, and

Table 4. Repertory grid showing mean ratings on core categories.

Elm Aspen Pine Kareline® Plexwood®Cellulosecomposite

BeachPlank OSB

Woodcomposite

5 5 5 2 4 3 1 4 2 Wood5 5 4 4 4 3 2 3 2 Preference5 4 5 4 3 2 2 4 3 Living4 5 4 4 2 3 4 2 3 Homogeneous4 3 4 4 4 1 3 5 3 Varied pattern5 5 5 3 3 3 3 1 2 Emotion5 4 4 3 3 2 4 2 2 Stable4 4 4 5 3 4 1 1 3 Smooth5 5 5 2 3 2 2 3 1 Natural3 1 1 5 3 4 5 3 5 Hard3 5 3 2 4 5 4 1 2 Calm4 5 5 1 3 2 2 4 3 Bright4 5 4 2 3 5 2 2 1 Good color4 3 3 4 3 2 5 2 3 Solid4 3 4 1 3 3 3 4 3 Warm1 1 1 5 3 4 4 3 4 Processing4 3 2 3 3 2 5 3 3 Weight2 2 3 4 1 3 2 4 3 Irregular pattern4 4 5 1 3 2 2 3 2 Worth2 2 3 4 1 3 2 1 2 Sleek

Figure 2. Principal component analysis results and factor loadings. Factors 1 and 2.


living). This component distinguishes betweenthe wooden samples and the composites with thepanels placed in between as can be seen in thefactor score plot in Fig 4. The second componentseparates samples according to solidity and ho-mogeneity (homogeneous, solid) (Fig 2; Table5). The factor score plot (Fig 4) shows that thesecond principal component mainly separatesthe inhomogeneous and fragmented OSB andthe homogeneous and solid BeachPlank� fromthe intermediate samples. The third factor rep-resents the degree of smoothness, sleekness, andirregular pattern (Fig 3). This third provisorydimension separates Kareline�, mainly from thebrushed BeachPlank� (Fig 5).

Preferences

The respondents rated all nine samples on a5-point category scale according to their prefer-ence. Average preferences for the samples arepresented in Fig 6. It shows that the solid woodsamples are the most preferred. BeachPlank�

and the wood composite were the least pre-ferred alternatives.

A summary representation of the correlationsbetween attributes and preference ratings isshown in Fig 7. The preference ratings correlatewith the core categories pleasant, natural, wood-like, smooth, living, and worth. Preferences cor-related most negatively against the attributesprocessed, hard, and high weight. Furthermore,an examination of factor loadings (Table 5) in-forms us that preference is mostly associatedwith the first principal component (factor load-ing 0.82), but it has some association also withthe third dimension (factor loading 0.36).

We conclude that wood is generally preferredbecause of its natural and unprocessed proper-ties. Effectively, several respondents provided aspecific attribute referring to “wood-likeness”that correlated strongly with preferences. Thecomposites were less liked and were perceivedas unnatural, processed, and unlike wood. Thedifference in preference between the moderately

Figure 3. Principal component analysis results and factor loadings. Factors 1 and 3.


preferred Kareline� and the disliked Beach-Plank� could be explained by differences on di-mension 3, where smoothness was a core cat-egory.

DISCUSSION

Perceptual attributes distinguishing pure woodmaterials from wood-based panels and wood-based composites were identified. The respon-dents used tactile and visual impressions to de-fine attributes to describe and differentiate thedifferent pieces. Important elicited attributes inthis respect are natural, unprocessed, worth, soft,pale, pleasant, and living. We also identified aspecific construct, which the respondents de-fined as wood-likeness. The principal compo-nent representing unprocessed, natural, living,and wood-likeness is furthermore highly associ-ated with preferences. Composites, on the otherhand, were described in terms of artificial (asopposed to wood-like), processed, unnatural,

Table 5. Principal component analysis results, factorloadings.

Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3

Wood –0.928 −0.306 −0.053Natural –0.987 −0.058 0.019Hard 0.904 0.242 0.111Processed 0.976 0.118 0.104Living –0.751 −0.385 0.345Pleasant –0.791 0.547 0.148Worth –0.971 −0.116 −0.054Homogeneous −0.494 0.784 0.093Solid 0.260 0.732 −0.153Patterned −0.081 −0.580 0.219Irregular pattern 0.273 −0.433 0.803Smooth −0.422 0.366 0.771Sleek 0.153 0.489 0.803Weight 0.346 0.420 −0.533Pale −0.837 −0.324 −0.224Color −0.698 0.331 0.005Calm −0.286 0.697 −0.279Warm −0.515 −0.402 −0.549Stable −0.594 0.587 −0.185Preference –0.817 0.171 0.362

Factor loadings > |0.7| in bold. Consumer perceptions and preferences onsolid wood, wood-based panels, and composites—a repertory grid study.

Figure 4. Factor scores. Factors 1 and 2.


Figure 6. Average preference ratings (n � 15) for each sample (1 � do not like at all, 5 � like very much)

Figure 5. Factor scores. Factors 1 and 3.


and hard. Panels (Plexwood� (Plexwood prod-ucts, Utrecht, NL) and OSB) were placed be-tween natural wood and composites with regardto this factor.

Although the scope of our study differs fromBroman (2000), we can confirm that appreciatedproperties of wood are connected to its naturalorigin and wood-specific properties combiningharmony and activity without disturbing irregu-larities. This relation was also found by Nyrud etal (2008).

A second principal component separating thesamples represents homogeneity and solid im-pression, and a third provisory principal compo-nent corresponds to sleekness, smoothness, andirregular pattern. Although the first principalcomponent distinguishes wood from compos-ites, the second and third principal componentspresent larger differences within the compositesamples than within the wood samples or be-tween wood, panels, and composites.

The elicited attributes and associations probablydepend on a person’s education and profession.Our study indicated that designers more oftenmentioned the wood-like properties and natural-ness of wood than laymen. Designers were alsomore often using interpretive characterizations,

whereas laymen frequently used sensory con-cepts.

The outcome of this study provides indicationsfor the product and material development. Ithelps R&D units to discern between the attrib-utes to develop and which to avoid. We alsoshow how preferences are associated with dif-ferent interpretations and value attributes. Pro-ducers of solid wood products should manufac-ture products in which the natural origin is em-phasized. This means that they should presentthe positive aspects of unprocessed wood, theliving structure, and nice color, its naturalness,etc. Moreover, market communication effortscould use characteristics and attributes withpositive correlations with preference in its pro-motion efforts stressing attributes like natural-ness, low degree of processing, living surface,etc. One option for producers of wood-basedcomposites would be to manufacture productsthat show a greater likeness to solid wood prod-ucts. This includes giving them a more “living”surface resembling the typical wooden surfaceand reducing hardness and weight. However, itappears to be difficult to imitate natural surfaces.This is shown by the fact that although the pro-ducers of both BeachPlank� and Kareline�claimed to supply products with a natural ap-

Figure 7. Correlations with preference.


pearance (Table 1), both these composites re-ceived low mean ratings on the naturalness con-struct (Table 4).

Although the natural character of solid wood isdifficult to imitate in composites, it may be morefruitful to inform customers about the positiveenvironmental aspects of composites that con-nect strongly to their wooden origin. However, itis also worthwhile to explore other popular at-tributes than those that are typical for solidwood. Figure 3 shows a slight preference towardsmooth surfaces, which in our case may haveincreased the popularity of Kareline� in relationto, eg, BeachPlank� (Fig 6). There is an oppor-tunity to develop wood-based composites with asmooth surface that would be well-perceived.This could be supplemented by promotion cam-paigns emphasizing the material’s natural origin.

Despite the qualitative approach, the quite smallnumber of respondents must be considered as alimitation of this study. Further studies could uselarger populations to compare different sub-groups based on profession (structural engi-neers, architects, builders) or socioeconomicfactors. To keep our enquiry on a “generic”level, we chose not to refer to any specific ap-plication (eg, flooring or furniture). Continuedstudies could probe more into how the applica-tion and context may impact both preferencesand perceived attributes (Marchal and Mothe1994).

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We thank two anonymous reviewers for helpfulcomments on earlier drafts of the paper.

REFERENCES

Aaker D, Kumar V, Day GS (2000) Marketing research. 7thed. John Wiley & Sons, NY. 816 pp.

Bigsby H, Rai C, Ozanne L (2005) Determining consumerpreference for furniture timber. J Forest Prod BusinessRes 2.

Bonebright TL (2001) Perceptual structure of everydaysounds: A multidimensional scaling approach in J Hii-pakka, N Zacharov, T Takala, eds. Proc 2001 Interna-tional Conference on Auditory Display, July 29–August

1, Espoo, Finland (http://www.acoustics.hut.fi/icad2001/proceedings/navig/toc.htm, July 2008).

Bowe SA, Bumgardner MS (2004) Species selection in sec-ondary wood products: Perspectives from different con-sumers. Wood Fiber Sci 36:319–328.

Brandt JP, Shook SR (2005) Attribute elicitation: Implica-tions in the research context. Wood Fiber Sci 37(1):127–146.

Broman O (2000) Means to measure the aesthetic propertiesof wood. Doctoral Thesis, Luleå University of Technol-ogy, Luleå, Sweden.

Bumgardner MS, Bowe SA (2002) Species selection in sec-ondary wood products: Implications for product designand promotion. Wood Fiber Sci 34(3):408–418.

CEI-Bois (2004) Roadmap 2010 for the European wood-working industries. Brussels, Belgium.

Clemons CM (2002) Wood – plastic composites in theUnited States: The interfacing of two industries. ForestProd J 52(6):10–18.

Donderi DC (1988) Information measurement of distinc-tiveness and similarity. Percept Psychophys 44(6):576–584.

Fowler PA, Hughes JM, Elias RM (2006) Biocomposites:Technology, environmental credentials and marketforces. J SciAgric 86:1781–1789.

Håkansson P (2000) Beyond private label—The strategicview on distributor own brands. Publication no 533 EFI,Stockholm School of Economics, Stockholm, Sweden.349 pp.

Jacob A (2006) WPC industry focuses on performance andcosts. Reinforced Plastics 50(5):32–33.

Jankowicz AD (2004) The easy guide to repertory grids.John Wiley & Sons Ltd, West Sussex, UK. 328 pp.

Jonsson R (2005) Studies in the competitiveness of wood—Market segmentation and customer assessment. PhDThesis, Växjö University, Växjö, Sweden.

Juslin H, Hansen E (2002). Strategic marketing in the globalforest industries. Authors Academic Press, Corvallis, OR.607 pp.

Keller KL (2008) Strategic brand management—Building,measuring, and managing brand equity. 3rd ed. Pearson-Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ. 720 pp.

Kelly GA (1963). The psychology of personal constructs.Norton, NY. 190 pp.

Marchal R, Mothe F (1994) Appreciation of oak wood forthe French consumer and wood professionals. Ann SciFor 51:213–231.

Mohanty AK, Misra M, Drzal LT (2002) Sustainable bio-composites from renewable resources: Opportunities andchallenges in green materials world. J Polym Environ10(1/2):19–26.

———, ———, Hinrichsen G (2000) Biofibres, biodegrad-able polymers and biocomposites: An overview. Macro-mol Mater Eng 276/277:1–24.

Nylander O (1999). The home as architecture. Bok & Bild,Gothenburg, Sweden. 178 pp.


Nyrud AQ, Roos A, Rødbotten M (2008) Product attributesaffecting consumer preference for residential deck mate-rials. Can J For Res 38:1385–1396.

Pakarinen T, Asikainen A (2001) Consumer segments forwooden household furniture. Holz Roh Werkst 59:217–227.

Pritchard G (2004) Two technologies merge: Wood plasticcomposites. Reinforced Plastics 48:26–29.

Roos A, Nyrud AQ (2008) Preferences for pressure treatedwooden deck materials. Wood Fiber Sci 40(3):436–447.

Scholz SW, Decker R (2007) Measuring the impact of woodspecies on consumer preferences for wooden furniture by

means of the Analytic Hierarchy Process. Forest Prod J57:23–28.

Solomon MR (2006) Consumer behaviour—Buying, havingand being. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ. 654 pp.

Tsoumis G (1991). Science and technology of wood—Structure, properties, utilization. Chapman & Hill, NY.489 pp.

van Kleef E, van Trijp HCM, Luning P (2005) Consumerresearch in early stages of product development: A criti-cal review of methods and techniques. Food Qual andPrefer 16:181–201.

Wechsler A, Hiziroglu S (2006) Some of the properties ofwood–plastic composites. Build Environ 42:2637–2644.


Documents

resins