Page 1

User response: Influence of Individual Taste on Product Appraisal Nico van Aken, 1220012 Martin van Drunen, 1318764 SPD Research Project TU Delft There
 have
 been
 done
 lots
 of
 researches
 to
 the
 effect
 of
 a
 background
 (context)
 on
 the
 appraisal
 of
 a
 product.
 Of
 course
 this
 is
 an
 important
 and
 interesting
 subject,
 since
 products
 are
 always
 shown
 in
 a
 context
 in
 commercials
or
in
a
shop.
Where
Blijlevens
et
 al.
 were
 focussing
 more
 on
 the
 typicality
 of
 the
 context,
 here
 is
 focussed
 more
 on
 if
 the


respondent
 liked
 the
 context
 because
 of
 his
 or
 her
 vacation
 preference
 and,
 because
of
that,
aesthetically
appraise
a
 product
 higher
 when
 the
 context
 is
 of
 their
 preference.
 This
 research
 showed
 that
 the
 preference
 for
 context
 doesn’t
 influence
 the
 aesthetic
 appraisal
 of
 a
 product
significantly.



1



THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK USER RESPONSE 
 The
fact
that
customers
react
to
the
form
of
a
product
is
unchallenged.
The
way
they
react
 is
an
important
issue
of
research
over
the
last
years.
A
basic
overview
of
user
response
is
given
by
 Bloch
 (1995)
 in
 a
 conceptual
 model
 (figure
 1)
 that
 still
 is
 acknowledged
 in
 recent
 papers
 (for
 example:
 Robert,
 1998
 and
 Blijlevens
 et
 al,
 2010).
 In
 the
 accompanying
 paper
 Bloch
 briefly
 explains
consequences
of
each
factor
in
user
response
to
the
exterior
of
a
product.
Designers
and
 marketers,
 have
 to
 take
 into
 account
 that
 a
 product
 form
 will
 enable
 consumers
 to
 form
 an
 opinion
about
the
purpose
and
performance
of
a
product.
 



 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Fig. 1: Conceptual Consumer Response Model 
 The
model
in
figure
1
shows
two
main
moderating
influences
in
product
form
evaluation;
 Individual
 preference
 and
 product
 context.
 From
 the
 research
 done,
 the
 careful
 statement
 that
 the
influence
of
the
context
is
most
emphasized
in
research
can
be
made.
Over
75%
of
the
papers
 that
were
found
(and
used)
mainly
refer
to
attitude
and/or
behaviour
only
taking
direct
influences
 in
account,
and
doesn’t
highlight
the
role
of
the
identity
of
a
user.
Exploring
the
most
fundamental
 research
 findings
 explained
 below,
 the
 same
 statement
 is
 reflected
 in
 these
 theories.
 Another
 statement
that
can
be
drawn
from
the
findings
is
that
ignoring
the
users
tastes
and
preferences
in
 research
 is
 justified,
 for
 they
 illustrate
 the
 commonness
 in
 user
 response,
 whatever
 preference
 users
have.
It
still
leaves
us
the
question
if
individual
preference
makes
sense
at
all.
 ASSIMILATION AND CONTRAST One
of
the
most
important
and
interesting
theories
in
marketing
research
is
the
contrast‐ assimilation
 theory,
 where
 various
 researchers
 add
 their
 findings.
 In
 general
 it
 can
 said
 that
 if
 a
 context
contains
objects
that
are
thematically
relevant
to
the
concerned
product,
users
are
likely
 to
compare
these
objects
instead
of
combining
them,
which
leads
to
a
contrast
effect.
A
context
 


2



containing
not
thematically
related
objects
however,
enables
involved
users
to
copy
the
qualities
 of
the
context
into
their
beliefs
about
the
concerning
product
(Shen
et
al
2009).

From
Blijlevens
 (2010)
research
where
no
effect
was
found
for
a
typical
(a‐typical)
product
in
an
a‐typical
(typical)
 context,
the
conclusion
can
be
drawn
that
assimilation
and
contrast
effects
will
not
always
occur
 intuitively.
 The
 effect
 of
 personal
 preferences
 however
 still
 is
 an
 interesting
 factor.
 This
 will
 be
 illustrated
further
on
in
this
paper.

 TYPICALITY 
 Typicality
 (goodness
of
example)
and
novelty
(state
of
newness)
are
shown
to
be
related
 with
 the
 aesthetic
 preference
 of
 human
 artefacts.
 Since
 typical
 products
 are
 rarely
 new,
 and
 innovative
 products
 are
 rarely
 typical,
 they
 seem
 to
 have
 a
 negative
 effect
 on
 one
 another.
 In
 other
 words,
 both
 are
 positively
 related
 to
 a
 high
 product
 appraisal,
 but
 they
 are
 negatively
 related
to
each
other.
This
is
why
they
have
to
be
in
balance
to
minimize
their
mutual
suppressing
 effects
and
maximize
the
aesthetic
appraisal.
This
is
known
as
the
MAYA
principle
(most
advanced,
 yet
 acceptable)
 (Hekkert
 et
 al,
 2003).
 Innovative
 products
 are
 new
 and
 stand
 apart
 from
 the
 typical
products.
 
 According
to
Ward
and
Loken
(1987),
the
product
with
the
highest
product
appraisal
is
the
 product
with
the
best
set
of
salient
attributes.
Some
studies,
however,
show
important
exceptions
 to
the
typicality
or
preference
relationship.
Ward
and
Loken
(1987)
found
that
consumers
seeking
 variety,
prestige
or
scarcity,
negatively
valued
typicality.
In
such
cases,
product
uniqueness
instead
 of
product
typicality
will
drive
consumer
preference.
So
typicality
doesn’t
have
to
be
of
significant
 value,
there
are
of
course
more
factors
that
influence
the
final
product
appraisal
 CONTEXT 
 Certain
 characteristics
 of
 stimuli
 have
 a
 significant
 absolute
 impact
 on
 individuals,
 for
 example
 the
 attention
 given
 to
 a
 loud
 noise,
 the
 effect
 of
 stimuli
 is
 often
 moderated
 by
 the
 context
in
which
the
stimuli
appear.
Stimuli
with
characteristics
that
contrast
with
those
of
other
 stimuli
in
the
environment
are
more
likely
to
attract
consumers'
attention.
(Garber,
1995)
 
 
 From
 a
 research
 done
 by
 Blijlevens
 et
 al
 (2010),
 it
 is
 found
 that
 a
 typical
 product
 appearance
is
perceived
as
less
typical
within
a
typical
context
than
judged
in
isolation
and
that,
as
 a
 result,
 the
 aesthetic
 appraisal
 of
 this
 typical
 product
 appearance
 is
 negatively
 influenced.
 Furthermore,
 it
 is
 found
 that
 an
 atypical
 product
 appearance
 within
 an
 atypical
 context
 is
 perceived
 to
 be
 more
 typical,
 and
 therefore,
 is
 more
 positively
 appraised
 than
 when
 judged
 in
 isolation.
 These
 contrast
 effects
 of
 context
 only
 occur
 when
 a
 product
 appearance
 is
 presented
 within
a
context
congruent
to
the
product’s
typicality
level.
 
 When
launching
a
product
in
a
new
market,
it
becomes
more
complicated,
here
it
depends
 if
the
market
where
the
new
product
will
appear
in
is
heterogeneous
or
homogeneous.
Typicality
 and
the
context
fit
are
more
important
when
the
category
where
the
brand
extension
is
found
is
 in
 a
 heterogeneous
 market
 than
 in
 a
 homogenous
 market.
 (M.
 Seltene,
 2008)
 E.g.
 a
 pack
 of
 cookies
can
be
used
in
different
situations.
They
can
be
eaten
with
coffee
or
tea,
as
a
snack
while
 watching
a
movie
or
for
special
occasions
like
a
birthday,
this
brings
different
reasons
for
buying
 the
product.
This
market
is
far
more
heterogeneous
than
e.g.
a
lip
balm,
which
can
only
really
be
 used
for
chapped
lips.
Context
of
the
placed
market
plays
then
a
role
in
the
product
appraisal.

 
 According
to
Jensen
(1999),
companies
will
need
to
understand
that
their
products
may
be
 less
 important
 than
 their
 stories.
 Storytellers
 specialized
 in
 the
 art
 of
 transmitting
 human
 emotions,
 will
 then
 need
 to
 have
 a
 voice
 in
 the
 design
 process.
 He
 adds
 that
 designers
 and
 


3



engineers
 may
 abandon
 ingenious
 technical
 enhancements,
 if
 they
 cannot
 be
 integrated
 into
 a
 product's
story.

 INDIVIDUAL PREFERENCE 
 Consumers
have
a
certain
style,
a
personal
taste
that
reflects
in
the
types
of
products
they
 are
buying.
They
can
like
a
product
for
all
kind
of
reasons
e.g.
the
features,
the
design,
what
and
 who
it
is
associated
with
etc.
In
advertising
a
product
is
always
shown
in
a
context.
The
advertiser
 tries
to
create
a
certain
atmosphere,
which
should
attract
their
target
group.
From
visual
art,
to
 music,
to
literature
these
are
the
features
that
endear
them
to
people.
But,
these
features
have,
in
 addition
and
always,
spill
over
effects
on
those
items
of
consumption
that
are
thought
of
as
semi‐ luxuries
or
semi‐durables.
These
spill
over
effects
can
be
dismissed
as
beyond
the
scope
of
rational
 models,
or
they
can
be
analyzed
and
explained,
provided
only
that
rationality
is
allowed
to
include
 also
the
cognitive
and
affective
problems
that
arise
when
novelty
enters.
(Bianchi,
M
2002)

 
 A
product
expresses
values,
that
are
interpret
and
ranked
by
individuals
to
a
certain
social
 context
 in
 terms
 of
 acceptance
 or
 rejection,
 linking
 or
 disliking
 (Wikström,
 1996).
 According
 to
 Griffin
 (1999)
 this
 emotional
 response
 is
 not
 an
 automatic
 response
 to
 an
 object,
 a
 thing,
 or
 a
 situation.
It
is
an
automatic
response
(deep
inside
our
brain)
to
the
thoughts
that
are
associated
 with
the
situation
or
the
object.
The
following
diagram
shows
the
flow
of
an
emotional
response:



 Fig. 2. Emotional Response flow (Demirbilek, 2003) 
 
 Griffin
(1999)
separates
knowledge
(thoughts,
beliefs,
values,
and
attitudes)
and
emotions
 into
two
different
categories
of
reactions.
These
are
closely
related
and
cannot
function
without
 each
other.
People
learn
through
their
experiences
and
their
culture.
This
learning
process
starts
 very
 early
 in
 childhood
 and
 is
 an
 ongoing
 process
 (Piaget,
 1990).
 This
 view
 is
 supported
 by
 the
 conceptual
 model
 of
 Bloch
 (1995),
 although
 he
 perceives
 an
 extra
 dimension,
 which
 is
 unchangeable:
 innate
 (design)
 preferences.
 People’s
 thoughts,
 attitudes,
 beliefs,
 and
 values
 can
 change
over
time.
The
emotional
response,
or
reaction
to
meaning,
triggered
by
a
product,
varies
 for
 people
 with
 different
 backgrounds,
 e.g.
 social
 class,
 educational
 level,
 religion,
 etc.
 The
 attributes
that
designers
could
use
to
enhance
desired
feelings
and
emotions
in
products
may
well
 be
 hidden
 in
 childhood
 socialization,
 when
 their
 main
 beliefs,
 values
 and
 thoughts
 are
 taking
 shape
 (Demirbilek,
 2003).
 
 As
 an
 example
 to
 illustrate
 influence
 of
 e.g.
 socio‐cultural
 factors
 on
 product
 appraisal;
 in
 the
 1960s
 when
 refrigerators
 were
 introduced
 in
 South
 India,
 interest
 was
 very
low.
Food
refrigeration
conflicted
with
local
ideology
and
health
traditions
(Wilhite,
2008).
So
 


4



the
 refrigerator
 was
 not
 disliked
 because
 of
 malfunction
 or
 design,
 but
 simply
 because
 of
 not
 fitting
 their
 life
 ideology.
 This
 is
 an
 exaggerated
 example,
 but
 it
 shows
 how
 a
 product
 can
 be
 disliked,
simply
because
it
doesn’t
fit
a
person’s
(of
a
e.g.
social
class)
life
or
style.
 
 Except
from
visual
preferences
users
have,
there
is
also
something
that
can
be
called
brand
 preference,
 more
 focused
 on
 brand
 image
 as
 a
 product
 of
 experiences
 with
 products
 from
 the
 same
brand.
From
the
start
a
product
or
a
brand
has
a
certain
appraisal
by
consumers,
and
every
 new
product
they
bring
out
will
be
evaluated
with
that
impression
in
their
subconscious.
If
a
brand
 is
 favourably
 evaluated
 and
 the
 extended
 product
 is
 considered
 close
 to
 it,
 than
 the
 inverse
 attitude
 of
 the
 consumer
 can
 be
 transferred
 and
 the
 extension
 will
 be
 evaluated
 positively
 (Cegarra
and
Merunka,
1993).

Also
Ratheswar
et
al
(1990)
show
that
stimuli
that
have
relevance
 for
 consumers
 have
 lower
 perceptual
 thresholds,
 and
 as
 such
 induce
 faster
 orienting
 responses.
 Opportunity
to
process
brand
related
information
is
one
of
the
key
factors
distinguished
in
recent
 research
 on
 advertising
 effectiveness,
 in
 which
 high
 opportunity
 to
 process
 should
 lead
 to
 more
 favourable
brand
and
product
attitudes
(Robben
and
Poiesz,
1993).

 
 It
 wouldn’t
 be
 hard
 to
 imagine
 that
 users
 still
 favour
 a
 product
 they
 like
 more
 than
 a
 product
that
is
highly
typical.
It
is
even
possible
that
the
individual
preference
for
a
product
style
 (e.g.
 classical
 or
 modern)
 suppresses
 the
 typicality
 effects
 (where
 typicality
 is
 proven
 positively
 related
to
product
appraisal
(Blijlevens,
2010)).
Our
research
will
study
this
relation.


5



HYPOTHESES & DESIGN HYPOTHESES 
 Blijlevens
et
al
(2010)
concluded
that
typical
products
are
appraised
higher
than
a‐typical
 products,
 leaving
 individual
 preference
 out
 of
 the
 question.
 To
 test
 the
 importance
 of
 these
 context
 related
 findings
 in
 respect
 to
 the
 individual
 preferences,
 the
 following
 hypotheses
 are
 made:

 
 H1:
 A
typical
product
in
a
non‐preferred
context
is
lower
appraised
than
in
isolation.
 H2:
 A
typical
product
in
a
preferred
context
is
higher
appraised
that
in
isolation.
 H3:

 An
a‐typical
product
in
a
non‐preferred
context
is
lower
appraised
than
in
isolation.
 H4:
 An
a‐typical
product
in
a
preferred
context
is
higher
appraised
than
in
isolation.
 
 Also:
 H5:
 A
typical
product
in
a
preferred
context
is
higher
appraised
than
a
typical
product
in
 a
non‐preferred
context.
 
 H6:
 An
a‐typical
product
in
a
preferred
context
is
higher
appraised
than
an
a‐typical

 
 
 product
in
a
non‐preferred
context.
 
 DESIGN 
 In
 the
 research
 it
 will
 be
 tested
 if
 individual
 preference
 is
 a
 more
 important
 factor
 in
 aesthetic
 appraisal
 than
 typicality.
 Personal
 preference
 is
 the
 independent
 variable.
 It
 is
 moderating
aesthetic
appraisal.
Our
research,
theory
and
hypotheses,
are
presented
in
the
figures
 below.
In
short,
preferred
context
has
a
positive
effect
on
user
response,
but
doesn’t
overrule
the
 typicality
effect.




 Fig. 3. Two by two design table of our research 
 6



A
two‐by‐two
design
research,
gives
four
situations
to
test.
To
avoid
priming
or
influencing
 the
 subject
 with
 any
 other
 pictures
 than
 just
 from
 one
 situation,
 the
 test
 for
 every
 situation
 is
 done
with
a
different
group
of
participants
(between
subjects
design).

 
 
 



 Fig. 4. Research model 
 DEFINITIONS 
 Individual
preference:
to
what
extend
a
subject
likes
or
dislikes
something
(more)
based
on
their
 thoughts,
beliefs
and
attitudes.
 Context:
the
total
picture
a
product
is
placed
in.
 Product
appraisal
(also
aesthetic
appraisal):
to
what
extend
the
subject
likes
a
product.
 (Perceived)
typicality:

the
degree
to
which
an
object
is
representative
of
a
category
or
a
measure
 of
goodness‐of‐example
(Hekkert
et
al,
2003)
 Style:
 General
 design
 category,
 for
 this
 research
 preferably
 existing
 of
 two
 clear
 opposites.
 E.g.
 Classic
vs.
Modern,
Organical
vs.
Mathematical,
Realistic
vs.
Abstract.


7



METHOD PRETEST 
 For
 the
 main
 test
 a
 typical
 and
 an
 a‐typical
 water
 bottle
 was
 necessary.
 We
 found
 2
 pictures
 and
 manipulated
 these
 so
 that
 they
 had
 the
 same
 characteristics,
 but
 still
 were
 found
 typical
or
atypical.
We
pre‐tested
(N=15,
mean
age=27,
SD=11)
the
stimuli
on
perceived
typicality
 and
functionality
(Within‐design).
We
tested
in
total
5
bottles
(2
typical‐
and
3
a‐typical
bottles).
 The
results
from
a
Repeated
Measures
between
the
typical
and
a‐typical
bottle
showed
in
(fig.
5)
 on
 distinctiveness
 (MD=‐2.67,
 p<0.001),
 predictable
 (MD=‐3.47,
 p<0.001),
 difference
 (MD=‐3.7,
 p<0.001)
 and
 normality
 (MD=‐3.13,
 p<0.001)
 gave
 us
 two
 bottles,
 which
 differ
 significantly
 on
 typicality.
They
couldn’t
differ
on
functionality
so
we
also
did
a
Repeated
Measures
on
the
items
 functionality
(MD=‐1.33,
p<0.230),
usability
(MD=‐1.13,
p<0.060)
and
quality
(MD=‐0.467,
p<1.00).
 The
bottles
were
not
significant
different
on
these
items,
so
can
be
used
in
the
main‐test.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 


Fig. 5. A-typical and Typical water bottle. 


8



We
 also
 pre‐tested
 the
 contexts,
 in
 a
 between
 design
 (Active‐scenes
 Test;
 N=14,
 mean
 age=35,
SD=16
&
Rustic‐scenes
test;
N=14,
mean
age=36,
SD=16).
We
tested
8
scenes
in
total
(3
 active‐
 and
 5
 rustic
 scenes)
 A
 One‐way
 ANOVA
 showed
 that
 the
 scenes
 (fig.
 6)
 differ
 on
 activity
 (F(1,25)=6.129,
p=0.02)
and
on
typicality
(F(1,25)=8.943,
p=0.006).

 



 Fig 6. Active scene (a-typical) and Rustic scene (typical). 

 
 
 Since
people
prefer
a
type
of
vacation
(in
this
case
relaxing
and
active
vacations
were
used)
 we
want
to
see
if
this
preference
influences
the
aesthetic
appraisal
of
the
bottle.
The
typicality
of
 the
 bottle,
 the
 typicality
 of
 the
 nature
 scene,
 the
 type
 of
 vacation
 a
 scene
 reflects,
 and
 no
 significant
distinction
on
functionality
in
case
of
the
bottles
will
be
pre‐tested.
 
 These
were
placed
in
a
natural
vacation
scene
with
a
mountain;
this
scene
is
rustic
(typical)
 or
active
(a‐typical).
In
combining
the
bottles
with
the
natural
scenes,
there
were
four
images,
one
 of
a
typical
[a‐typical]
bottle
in
a
typical
[a‐typical]
scene
and
an
atypical
[typical]
bottle
in
a
typical
 [a‐typical]
 scene.
 This
 is
 necessary
 for
 the
 research
 of
 Blijlevens
 et
 al.
 in
 order
 to
 verify
 their
 findings
 as
 outlined
 in
 the
 theoretical
 framework
 of
 this
 paper.
 In
 total
 we
 had
 six
 stimuli,
 as
 explained
in
the
next
chapter.
 
 MAIN TEST 
 From
the
pre‐test
we
derived
six
different
stimuli
to
test
our
hypotheses.
Four
pictures
of
 the
two
bottles,
both
with
two
different
backgrounds,
and
two
bottles
in
isolation
(fig
7.)
 
 


9



Fig. 7: The six final stimuli

10



The
subject
was
asked
how
their
attitude
was
towards
the
product
they
saw,
and
how
they
 perceive
the
typicality
of
the
product.
Like
the
research
of
Blijlevens
et
al.,
perceived
typicality
was
 measured
with
three
items
based
on
Veryzer
and
Hutchinson
(1998)
(poor
example
of
the
product
 category
 –
 good
 example
 of
 the
 product
 category,
 not
 predictable
 –
 predictable
 and
 not
 conventional
 –
 conventional,
 Cronbach’s
 α
 =
 0.74),
 perceived
 novelty
 was
 measured
 with
 five
 items,
based
on
Hekkert
et
al.
(2003)
(not
original
–
original,
not
different
–
different,
not
futuristic
 –
futuristic,
not
revolutionary
–
revolutionary
and
not
innovative
–innovative,
Cronbach’s
α
=
0.96)
 and
 attractiveness
 was
 measured
 using
 Page
 and
 Herr’s
 (2002)
 scale
 from
 1
 (unattractive)
 to
 7
 (attractive).
Besides,
J.
Blijlevens
gave
us
some
other
scales
we
also
used.
Thereafter
it
was
also
 required
to
know
the
subjects’
personal
preferences
in
holiday
spending
(more
relaxing
or
more
 sportive),
using
two
7‐point
scales
‘easy
‐
adventurous’
and
’relaxing
‐
sporting’.
In
appendix
A
the
 questionnaires
as
used
in
the
test
can
be
found.
 


RESULTS


 In
 the
 following
 table,
 we
 present
 some
 regular
 information
 about
 the
 results
 of
 the
 six
 different
questionnaires.
After
that
we’ll
test
our
hypotheses
with
de
collected
data.
 
 Questionnaire
 1.
Typical
bottle
in
rustic
scene
 2.
Typical
bottle
in
active
scene
 3.
A‐typical
bottle
in
rustic
scene
 4.
A‐typical
bottle
in
active
scene
 5.
Typical
bottle
in
isolation
 6.
A‐typical
bottle
in
isolation
 


N
 14
 13
 15
 15
 15
 15


Mean
age
 38
 39
 38
 49
 39
 37


SD
 12,6
 10,2
 12,1
 14,6
 11,6
 9,2


#
man
 5
 9
 6
 5
 9
 11



 Some
 reliable
 scales
 were
 found.
 The
 first
 is
 for
 typicality
 (used
 scales:
 recognizable,
 predictable,
 good
 example,
 typical,
 Cronbachs
 α:
 0,86),
 the
 second
 for
 likability
 (used
 scales:
 nice,
attractive,
likeable,
Cronbachs
α:
0,83).
Unfortunately,
we
didn’t
found
a
reliable
scale
for
 the
 combination
 of
 ‘easy‐adventurous’
 and
 ’relaxing‐sportive’.
 For
 we
 regard
 the
 scale
 ‘easy‐ adventurous’
the
most
representing,
we
used
this
one
to
calculate
One
Way
ANOVA’s
in
order
to
 find
 effects.
 For
 this
 measuring
 we
 combined
 the
 two
 questionnaires
 with
 typical
 or
 a‐typical
 bottles,
treating
people
who
like
an
easy
holiday
in
the
rustic
version
the
same
as
people
who
like
 an
 active
 holiday
 in
 the
 active
 version.
 We
 leave
 people
 who
 filled
 in
 a
 4
 out
 of
 the
 measures.
 
 Looking
 at
 H1
 and
 H2
 (typical
 bottle),
 no
 effects
 were
 found
 (F(3,38)=0,757,
 p=0,525).
 More
or
less
the
same
results
can
be
accounted
for
H3
and
H4
(F(3,41)=0,624,
p=0,603).
Looking
 at
H5
and
H6,
both
in
the
typical
(F(2,24)=0,738,
p=0,489)
as
in
the
atypical
(F(2,27)=1,11,
p=0,34)
 no
effects
were
found
either.
All
the
hypotheses
are
therefore
not
significantly
supported
by
test
 results.
 TYPICALITY 
 To
check
the
theory
of
which
this
research
is
derived
from,
an
Independent‐Samples
T‐test
 was
performed
to
check
the
typicality
and
the
product
aesthetic
appraisal
of
the
water
bottle.
The
 T‐test’s
were
done
between
the
typical
(a‐typical)
bottle
in
isolation,
the
typical
(a‐typical)
bottle


11



in
 the
 rustic
 context
 (also
 perceived
 as
 typical)
 and
 the
 typical
 (a‐typical)
 bottle
 in
 the
 active
 context
(also
perceived
as
a‐typical).

 
 A
T‐test
showed
that
there
is
a
significant
difference
in
typicality
between
the
typical
bottle
 and
the
a‐typical
bottle
(both
in
isolation)
namely
t(27)
=
‐4,438
p=0,000.
On
aesthetic
appraisal
 wasn’t
found
any
significant
difference
between
the
bottles
(t(28)
=
0,311
p=0,758).
 
 In
a
second
T‐test
for
typicality
and
aesthetic
appraisal,
between
the
groups
typical
bottle
 in
 isolation
 and
 typical
 bottle
 in
 a
 typical
 context,
 wasn’t
 found
 any
 significant
 difference
 for
 typicality
(t(27)
=
‐0,959
p=0,346)
nor
for
aesthetic
appraisal
(t(27)
=
‐1,331
p=0,194).
 
 The
last
T‐test
for
typicality
and
aesthetic
appraisal,
between
the
groups
a‐typical
bottle
in
 isolation
 and
 a‐typical
 bottle
 in
 an
 a‐typical
 context,
 also
 showed
 no
 significant
 differences
 between
the
two
groups
for
typicality
(t(27)
=
0,403
p=0,690)
nor
for
aesthetic
appraisal
(t(28)
=
‐ 0,645
p=0,524).



DISCUSSION & CONCLUSION 
 The
outcome
of
this
research
(H1
to
H4)
shows
that
it
doesn’t
matter
what
kind
of
context
 the
product
is
placed
in,
because
it
will
not
be
aesthetically
appraised
higher
or
lower
if
the
 context
is
in
favour
of
the
respondent.
Though
this
is
still
interesting
because
in
this
research
we
 used
similar
types
of
contexts
as
in
natural
scenes
with
a
mountain
and
water
in
front
of
it.
It
is
 possible
that,
when
we
differentiate
the
two
contexts
more
(e.g.
a
context
with
a
mountain
with
 water
and
a
context
with
a
beach
and
the
sea)
the
effect
becomes
visible
because
people
probably
 have
a
stronger
opinion
when
they
have
to
choose
between
a
sunny
beach
vacation
and
a
summer
 in
the
Alps.
This
can
be
an
interesting
next
step
for
this
research.
 
 There
can
be
various
reasons
for
the
hypothesises
not
to
be
supported
significantly
by
the
 tests.
The
bottle
fits
well
with
the
background
in
both
(rustic
and
adventurous)
contexts,
where
it
 is
possible
that
the
adventurous
background
loses
its
adventurous
value
when
a
bottle
of
water
is
 shown
(a
backpack
can
for
example
increase
the
adventurous
value
of
the
whole
image).
It
can
be
 interesting
to
repeat
this
research
with
backpacks
instead
of
the
water
bottles
(the
backpacks
 failed
this
time
in
the
pre‐test
to
be
a
proper
stimuli
in
the
main‐test
due
to
lack
of
time
related
to
 the
deadlines).
 
 
 TYPICALITY 
 Follows
the
theory
of
Blijlevens
et
al.
(2010)
a
typical
product
in
a
typical
context
is
 perceived
as
less
typical
and
also
lower
aesthetically
appraised
than
a
typical
product
in
isolation.
 Meanwhile
an
a‐typical
product
in
an
a‐typical
context
is
perceived
more
typical
and
is
 aesthetically
appraised
higher
than
an
a‐typical
product
in
isolation.
 
 In
the
main
test
the
difference
in
typicality
between
the
two
bottles
is
confirmed,
though
 the
above
theory
has
not
been
proven.
The
decreasing
of
the
perceived
typicality
and
the
 aesthetic
appraisal
of
a
typical
product
in
a
typical
context
compared
to
a
typical
product
in
 isolation
is
not
proven
in
this
test.
Nor
the
increasing
of
the
perceived
typicality
and
the
aesthetic
 appraisal
of
an
a‐typical
product
in
an
a‐typical
context
compared
to
an
a‐typical
product
in
 isolation
is
not
proven.

 
 Since
this
theory
is
proven
by
Blijlevens
et
al.
there
can
be
different
reasons
why
this
time
 the
theory
is
not
right.
Blijlevens
used
a
context
of
different
pictures,
where
here
the
product
was
 placed
directly
in
a
context
(a
natural
background).
It
is
also
possible
that
the
so
perceived
a‐

12



typical
background
is
not
so
a‐typical
anymore
with
a
bottle
of
water
in
it
(the
background
fits
the
 bottle
when
this
is
an
advert
for
e.g.
a
mineral
water).
This
can
be
an
important
difference.

 
 The
final
stimuli
of
the
main‐test
could
have
been
pictures
for
e.g.
a
realistic
print
 advertisement,
so
this
research
has
simulated
a
realistic
situation.
Though
we
didn’t
find
any
 significance
on
our
hypothesises,
nor
on
the
typicality
theory
this
can
be
of
the
difference
of
this
 research
with
previous
done
tests.
Respondents
are
not
primed
or
the
product
is
not
placed
in
a
 context
of
other
products.
This
can
also
be
a
reason
for
the
other
findings.
 
 
 THE RESEARCH ITSELF 
 It
is
always
possible
that
there
are
inaccuracies
in
this
research,
which
can
have
had
some
 influences
on
the
outcomes
of
the
tests.
Our
samples
were
not
very
large
(15
resp.
per
stimuli)
 and
when
the
respondents
were
divided
in
the
two
groups
of,
in
preference
of
the
context
and
not
 in
preference
of
the
context,
the
sample
became
even
smaller
(due
to
people
who
didn’t
have
a
 clear
opinion
on
if
the
like
a
adventurous
or
rustic
vacation).
 
 It’s
also
possible
that
because
of
the
participants
not
getting
any
compensation
for
their
 time,
didn’t
fill
in
the
questionnaires
very
carefully.
Sometimes
it
seemed
that
people
didn’t
 understand
the
items
very
well.
Conventional
was
let
open
a
couple
of
times
and
also
there
were
 some
respondents
who
had
a
very
different
opinion
than
the
others
on
the
items
typicality,
 characteristic
and
good
example
of
the
product
group
about
the
plastic
bottle.
It
can
be
that
they
 do
have
a
different
opinion,
but
it
tended
to
that
they
didn’t
understand
the
meaning
of
the
item
 very
well
and
rated
the
bottle
the
other
way
around.


13



REFERENCES
 
 
 Allport,
 Gordon
 W.
 (1935),
 “Attitudes,”
 In
 C.
 Murchison
 (Ed.),
 Handbook
 of
 Social
 Psychology
 
 (pp.7
98‐884).
Worcester,
MA:Clark
University
Press.

 Bagozzi,
 Richard
 P
 .,
 &
 Burnkrant,
 Robert
 E
 .
 (1979),
 Attitude
 organization
 and
 the
 attitude
 
 behavior
relationship.
Journal
of
Personality
and
Social
Psychology,
37,
913‐929.

 Bagozzi,
RichardP
.,
&
Burnmkrant,
Robert
E
.
(1985).
Attitude
organization
and
the
attitude‐ 
 behavior
 relation:A
 reply
 to
 Dillon
 and
 Kumar.
 Journal
 of
 Personality
 and
 Social
 
 Psychology,
49,
47‐57.

 Bianchi,
Marina
(2002),
“Novelty,
Preferences
and
Fashion:
When
Goods
Are
Unsettling,”
Journal
 
 of
Economic
Behaviour
&
Organization,
47
(1)
1‐18
 Blijlevens
J.,
Gerda
Gemser
and
Ruth
Mugge,
(2010),
”The
importance
of
being
‘well
placed’:
The
 
 influence
 of
 context
 on
 perceived
 typicality
 and
 aesthetic
 appraisal
 of
 product
 
 appearance,”
TU
Delft
 Bloch,
Peter
H.
(1995),
“Seeking
the
Ideal
Form:
Product
Design
and
Consumer
Response”
Journal
 
 of
Marketing,

59
(3)
16‐29
 Cegarra.
 J.J.
 and
 Merunka,
 D.
 (1993),
 “Les
 extensions
 de
 marquee:
 concepts
 et
 modeles”,
 
 Recherche
et
Applications
en
Marketing,
Vol.
8
No.
1
pp.
53‐76
 Demirbilek,
 O
 (2003),
 “Product
 design,
 semantics
 and
 emotional
 response”,
 Ergonomics,
 vol.
 46
 
 nos.
13/14
pp.
1346‐1360
 Eagly,
 Alice
 H.,
 &
 Chaiken,
 Shelly.
 (1993),
 “The
 psychology
 of
 attitudes.,”Fort
 Worth,
 TX:
 
 Harcourt
Brace
Jovanovich,
Inc.

 Fazio,
 Russell
 H.(1991),
 “Multiple
 processes
 by
 which
 attitudes
 guide
 behavior:
 The
 mode
 
 model
 as
 an
 integrative
 framework,”
 In
 M.
 P.
 Zanna
 (Ed.),
 Advances
 in
 experimental
 
 social
psychology
(Vol.
23,
pp
75‐109),
New
York:
Academic

 Garber,
L.L.,
(1995),
“The
package
appearance
in
choice,”
Advances
in
Consumer
Research
vol.
22,
 
 653‐661.
 Griffin,
 T
 (1999),
 Semantic
 communication
 through
 products,
 
 http://www.acs.ucalgary.ca/~tgriffin/index2.htm
(19‐02‐2001)
 Hekkert,
 Paul,
 Dirk
 Snelders
 and
 Piet
 C.
 W.
 van
 Wieringen
 (2003),
 “Most
 advanced,
 Yet
 
 acceptable:Typicality
 and
 Novelty
 as
 joint
 predicters
 of
 aesthetic
 preference
 in
 industrial
 
 design,”
British
journal
of
psychology
94
(1),
pp.111‐24.
 Jensen,
R
(1999),
“The
Dream
Society:
How
the
coming
shift
from
information
to
imagination
will
 
 transform
your
business”,
New
York:
McGraw‐Hill
 Page,
 Christine
 and
 Paul
 M.
 Herr
 (2002),
 “An
 investigation
 of
 the
 processes
 by
 which
 Product
 
 Design
 and
 Brand
 Strength
 Interact
 to
 Determine
 Initial
 Affect
 and
 Quality
 Judgements,”
 
 Journal
of
Consumer
Psychology,
12
(2),
133‐47.
 Piaget,
J
(1990),
“The
child’s
conception
of
the
world”,
New
York:
Littlefield
Adams
 Ratheswar,
 S.,
 D.
 Mick
 and
 G.
 Reitinger,
 (1990),
 “Selective
 attention
 in
 consumer
 information
 
 processing:
the
role
of
chronically
accessible
attributes,”
Advances
in
Consumer
Research.

 
 vol.
17,
547‐553.
 Robben,
 H.S.J.
 and
 T.B.C.
 Poiesz,
 (1993),
 “The
 operationalization
 of
 motivation,
 capacity
 and
 
 opportunity
to
process
and
advertising
image,”
European
Advances
in
Consumer
Research,
 
 1,
pp.
160‐167.
 Robert
W.
Veryzer
JR.
J.
Wesly
Hutchinson,
(1998),
“The
influence
of
Unity
and
Prototypicality
on
 
 Aesthetic
Responses
to
New
Product
Designs”
Journal
of
consumer
research
vol.
24

 Seltene,
M.
and
O.
Brunel
(2008),
“Brand
extension:
the
moderating
role
of
the
category
to
which
 


14



the
brand
extension
is
found,”
Journal
of
Product
&
Management,
Vol.
17,
No.6,
2008,
pp.
 
 393‐402

 Shen,
H.,
Jiang,
Y.
and
Adaval,
R.
(2009),
“Contrast
and
assimilation
effects
of
processing
fluency,”
 
 Journal
of
consumer
research,
Vol.
36.
 Stapel
 D.
 A.,W.
 Koomen
 and
 A.
 S.
 Velthuijsen,
 (1998),
 “Assimilation
 or
 Contrast?:
 Comparison
 
 Relevance,
 Distinctness,
 and
 the
 Impact
 of
 Accessible
 Information
 on
 Consumer
 
 Judgments,”
Journal
of
consumer
psychology,
vol.
7(1),
pp.
1‐24
 Stewart,
 D.W.
 and
 D.H.
 Furse,
 (1986),
 “Effective
 TV
 Advertising:
 A
 Study
 of
 1000
 Commercials”.
 
 Lexington,
MA:
Lexington.
 Ward,
 J.C.
 and
 B.
 Loken,
 (1987),
 “The
 generality
 of
 typicality
 effects
 on
 preference
 and
 
 comparison:
An
exploratory
test.”
Advances
in
Consumer
Research
vol.
15,
pp.
55‐61.
 Wikström,
 L
 (1996),
 “Methods
 for
 evaluation
 of
 products’
 semantics”,
 PhD
 thesis,
 Sweden
 
 Chalmers
University
of
Technology
 Wilhite,
 H
 (2008),
 New
 thinking
 on
 the
 agentive
 relationship
 between
 end‐use
 technologies
 and
 
 energy‐using
practises.
Energy
Efficiency
2008
1(2):
pp.
121‐130.
 Zajonc,
 Robert
 B.
 (1980),
 ”Feeling
 and
 thinking:
 Preferences
 need
 no
 inferences,”
 American
 
 Psychologist,
35,
151‐175.

 


15



APPENDIX A. 


Beste
deelnemer,
 Dit
onderzoek
wordt
uitgevoerd
door
de
Faculteit
Industrieel
Ontwerpen
van
de
TU
Delft.
Het
doel
is
om
 inzicht
te
krijgen
in
het
beoordelen
van
het
uiterlijk
van
producten.
Het
onderzoek
bestaat
uit
een
 afbeelding
van
een
waterfles
in
een
natuurlijke
omgeving
en
een
beoordelingslijst,
het
onderzoekt
duurt
in
 totaal
ongeveer
10
minuten
om
in
te
vullen.
Er
wordt
zorgvuldig
met
uw
antwoorden
omgegaan
en
ze
 worden
anoniem
verwerkt.

 Voor
het
beantwoorden
van
de
vragen
is
de
onderstaande
informatie
noodzakelijk.
Lees
deze
aandachtig
 door.
 In
de
vragenlijst
wordt
u
gevraagd
de
getoonde
afbeelding
te
beoordelen
op
hoe
representatief,
 functioneel,
en
gebruiksvriendelijk
het
is,
met
betrekking
tot
het
uiterlijk.
Hieronder
staat
een
korte
uitleg
 van
wat
er
specifiek
met
deze
woorden
bedoeld
wordt.
 
 Voorbeeld
voor
de
productcategorie

 Producten
die
dezelfde
functie
hebben
kunnen
toch
verschillen
in
uitstraling.
Zo
kunnen
 producten
die
er
standaard,
karakteristiek
of
kenmerkend
uit
zien
ook
wel
een
goed
voorbeeld
 van
de
productcategorie
worden
genoemd.
Product
A,
in
de
afbeelding
hiernaast,
voldoet
aan
 deze
voorwaarden.
Dit
product
heeft
een
kenmerkend
uiterlijk
voor
de
productcategorie
 gitaren.
 


Product
B

















 


Product
A






Producten
kunnen
ook
een
slecht
voorbeeld
van
de
categorie
zijn,
zoals
product
B
van
de
categorie
gitaren.
 Deze
hebben
een
uiterlijk
dat
juist
niet
kenmerkend
voor
de
productcategorie
is.
Deze
producten
worden
 vaak
ook
beschreven
als
origineel,
bijzonder,
apart
of
revolutionair.

 Functioneel
 Een
functioneel
product
vervult
de
taken,
waarvoor
het
product
gemaakt
is,
naar
behoren.
Een
niet‐ functioneel
product
vervult
de
taken,
waarvoor
het
aangeschaft
is,
niet
of
niet
naar
behoren.

 Gebruiksvriendelijk
 Producten
waarbij
op
eerste
gezicht
duidelijk
is
hoe
ze
gebruikt
moeten
worden,
worden
 gebruiksvriendelijk
genoemd.
Producten
waarvan
het
niet
duidelijk
is
hoe
het
gebruikt
moet
worden,
zijn
 niet
gebruiksvriendelijk
genoemd.

 
 Alvast
hartelijk
bedankt
voor
uw
tijd
en
moeite.
 
 Met
vriendelijke
groet,
 Martin
van
Drunen
en
Nico
van
Aken


16



Product
uiterlijk
 In
dit
onderdeel
wordt
er
een
door
ons
ontworpen
afbeelding
getoond.
Hierbij
worden
woorden
 genoemd
met
betrekking
tot
het
uiterlijk
van
het
product.
U
kunt
door
een
cijfer
aan
te
klikken
 aangeven
in
welke
mate
u
dit
woord
met
de
afbeelding
associeert.

 Voorbeeld:
 Als
u
het
product
een
vrolijke
uitstraling
vindt
hebben,
vinkt
u
het
hokje
5,
6
of
7
aan,
afhankelijk
 van
de
mate
waarin
u
het
product
vrolijk
vindt.
(Als
u
het
product
niet
een
vrolijke
uitstraling
vindt
 hebben
vinkt
u
het
hokje
1,
2
of
3
aan.)

 



 Niet
vrolijk






1





2
 





3
 





4
 





5
 





6
 




7

 



Vrolijk
 


17



Afbeelding
van
stimuli
 (1
van
de
6)
 
 
 
 
 


18



Productuiterlijk

 Hieronder
zijn
woorden
genoemd
met
betrekking
tot
het
uiterlijk
van
het
waterflesje.
Kunt
u
aangeven,
 door
een
hokje
aan
vinken,
in
welke
mate
u
dit
woord
associeert
met
het
product


1


2


3


4


5


6


7


1.


Niet
kenmerkend


О


О


О


О


О


О


О


Kenmerkend


2.


Niet
voorspelbaar


О


О


О


О


О


О


О


Voorspelbaar


3.


Gunstig


О


О


О


О


О


О


О


Ongunstig


4.


Niet
gebruiksvriendelijk


О


О


О


О


О


О


О


Gebruiksvriendelijk


5.


Niet
aantrekkelijk


О


О


О


О


О


О


О


Aantrekkelijk


6.


Niet
karakteristiek


О


О


О


О


О


О


О


Karakteristiek


7.


Slecht
voorbeeld
van
de
 productcategorie



О


О


О


О


О


О


О


Goed
voorbeeld
van
de
 productcategorie


8.


Negatief


О


О


О


О


О


О


О


Positief


9.


Niet

functioneel


О


О


О


О


О


О


О


Functioneel


10.
 Mooi


О


О


О


О


О


О


О


Lelijk


11.
 Niet
conventioneel


О


О


О


О


О


О


О


Conventioneel


12.
 Spreekt
mij
niet
aan


О


О


О


О


О


О


О


Spreekt
mij
aan


13.
 Niet

origineel


О


О


О


О


О


О


О


Origineel


14.
 Niet
typisch


О


О


О


О


О


О


О


Typisch


15.
 Niet

revolutionair


О


О


О


О


О


О


О


Revolutionair


16.
 Niet
innovatief


О


О


О


О


О


О


О


Innovatief


17.
 Lage
kwaliteit


О


О


О


О


О


О


О


Hoge
kwaliteit


18.
 Niet
normaal


О


О


О


О


О


О


О


Normaal


19.
 Niet
futuristisch


О


О


О


О


О


О


О


Futuristisch


20.
 Goed


О


О


О


О


О


О


О


Slecht


21.
 Niet
anders


О


О


О


О


О


О


О


Anders


22.
 Aantrekkelijk


О


О


О


О


О


О


О


Onaantrekkelijk


19



Pesoonlijke
vragen:
 Geslacht:





M


Geboortejaar:




19......


V


Achtergrond
met
design:



Nee


Ja,
namelijk;.........................................................................


Op
vakantie
houd
ik
van:

 rust
 relaxen


1


2


3


4


5


6


7

 1


2


3


4


5


6


7



avontuur
 sporten



 


20



User response: Influence of Individual Taste on Product Appraisal  

Quantative Research done on product appraisal influenced by the product context and personal preferences of the subject. Read this paper for...

Advertisement
Read more
Read more
Similar to
Popular now
Just for you