J PROD INNOV MANAG 2005;22:63–81

r 2005 Product Development & Management Association

The Different Roles of Product Appearance in Consumer Choice

Mariëlle E. H. Creusen and Jan P. L. Schoormans

Product design has been recognized as an opportunity for differential advantage in

the market place. The appearance of a product influences consumer product choice
in several ways. To help product development managers in optimizing the appear-
ance of products, the present study identified the different ways in which the ap-
pearance of a product plays a role in consumer product evaluation and, hence,
choice. In addition, the implications for product design of each role are listed, and
managerial recommendations for optimizing the appearance of products are given.
Based on a literature review, six different roles of product appearance for con-
sumers are identified: (1) communication of aesthetic, (2) symbolic, (3) function-
al, and (4) ergonomic information; (5) attention drawing; and (6) categorization.
A product’s appearance can have aesthetic and symbolic value for consumers, can
communicate functional characteristics and give a quality impression (functional
value), and can communicate ease of use (ergonomic value). In addition, it can
draw attention and can influence the ease of categorization of the product. In a large
qualitative study (N 5 142) it was tested whether these roles indeed exist in con-
sumers’ process of product choice and whether they are sufficient to describe the way
in which product appearance plays a role for consumers. In addition, qualitative in-
sight into these roles was gained. After making a choice between two answering ma-
chines, subjects were interviewed about the reasons for their choice and the product
information they used to form the judgments underlying their choice reasons.
The six appearance roles indeed proved relevant for consumers and were sufficient
to describe the influence of product appearance on product choice. The number of
ways in which appearance played a role for consumers differed between 0 and 5;
most subjects mentioned two different ways in which appearance influenced their
product choice. The aesthetic and symbolic roles were mentioned most often.
The preferred shape (e.g., rounded or angular), color, or size were found to differ
depending on the way in which product appearance played a role for subjects. For
example, bright colors may be valued from an aesthetic point of view but may di-
minish the impression of quality (i.e., functional value). This makes it difficult to
optimize all roles and illustrates that the product value that is most important for
consumers when purchasing a specific kind of product should be the starting point in
the design of the product appearance. Furthermore, the influence of shape, color, or
size on a certain kind of product value—aesthetic, symbolic, ergonomic, or func-
tional—differed between subjects. One person may like a rounded shape, while an-
other may prefer a rectangular shape. This means that the value of guidelines
indicating how the perception of a specific kind of product value can be engendered

Address correspondence to: Mariëlle E. H. Creusen, Delft University of Technology, Faculty of Industrial Design Engineering, Department of
Product Innovation and Management, Landbergstraat 15, 2628 CE Delft, The Netherlands. Email: m.e.h.creusen@io.tudelft.nl.
 We are grateful to the editor of this article, Abbie Griffin, as her comments significantly changed and improved this article.
64 J PROD INNOV MANAG M. E. H. CREUSEN AND J. P. L. SCHOORMANS
2005;22:63–81

by means of shape, color, and size is limited. This is especially the case for aesthetic
and symbolic product value, which are very personal. Therefore it is recommended
to test the performance of the appearance of a newly developed product on these six
roles with the target group of consumers.
Insight into the different ways in which appearance characteristics, such as form
and color, may influence consumer choice will increase managers’ awareness about
how to use product appearance as a marketing tool. In addition, distinguishing these
six appearance roles will help product development managers to optimize the prod-
uct appearance better to market needs, as the roles have different and sometimes
even conflicting implications for the design of the product appearance.

Introduction plex and diverse. There are a number of ways in

which product design influences consumer preference

P
roduct design is an opportunity for differential
advantage in the marketplace (e.g., Hammer,
1995; Kotler and Rath, 1984; Löbach, 1976;
Lorenz, 1986; Pilditch, 1976; Veryzer, 1995). A num-
ber of companies successfully focus on product design
as a competitive tool (see, e.g., Dumaine, 1991;
Nussbaum, 1993; Smith, 1994). Several studies indi-
cate the influence of good product design on com-
mercial success (e.g., Black and Baker, 1987; Bruce
and Whitehead, 1988; Gemser and Leenders, 2001;
Roy, 1994; Thackara, 1997). Yamamoto and Lambert
(1994) showed that even for industrial products, ap-
pearance has an influence on product preference.
But what does this mean in practice? Which prod-
uct design will lead to commercial success? To be able
to define some guidelines that can be used in new
product development (NPD), it is necessary to look at
the role of product design in consumer evaluation.
First, it must be recognized that this role is com-
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCHES
Dr. Mariëlle E. H. Creusen is assistant professor of consumer re-
search with the Faculty of Industrial Design Engineering at Delft
University of Technology in The Netherlands. She received an
M.Sc. in economic psychology from Tilburg University and a
Ph.D. from Delft University of Technology. She has published in
journals such as the International Journal of Research in Marketing
and Advances in Consumer Research. Her current research interests
include consumer research methods in product development and
the influence of product appearance factors on consumer product
preference.
Dr. Jan P. L. Schoormans is professor of consumer research with
the Faculty of Industrial Design Engineering at Delft University of
Technology in The Netherlands. He received an M.Sc. and Ph.D. in
economic psychology from Tilburg University. He has published in
journals such as the Journal of Product Innovation Management,
Design Studies, International Journal of Research in Marketing,
Journal of Economic Psychology, and Advances in Consumer Re-
search. His current research interests include consumer research
methods in the product development process.
(Bloch, 1995). The design of a product determines
consumers’ first impression of the product and quick-
ly can communicate product advantage. In addition,
the design of a product will generate consumer infer-
ences regarding several product attributes (Berkowitz,
1987; Bloch, 1995; Pilditch, 1976). Furthermore,
product appearance can provide value in itself;
many people like to buy a product that looks aesthet-
ically pleasing. As the influence of product design on
consumer evaluation is often complex, it is difficult to
decide upon during the product development process.
For example, a product with bright colors may be
valued aesthetically, but these same colors may give
consumers the idea that the product is of low quality.
To be able to give guidelines for design following
from its influence on consumer product evaluations, it
is necessary first to answer the question of what ex-
actly constitutes the value of a product design for
consumers. In order to answer this question, the
present article begins with an overview of the differ-
ent roles of the product design in the purchase deci-
sion of consumers. More precisely, the influence of
what consumers see of the product—that is, its exte-
rior—in making a purchase decision will be described.
Therefore, the term product appearance instead of
product design will be used, as the design of a prod-
uct also refers to product parts that consumers cannot
see (i.e., the interior of the product). On the basis of a
literature review and a large qualitative study, the im-
plications of these roles for product design and prod-
uct development are described.
Product Appearance and Consumer Product
Evaluation: A Literature Review
This section describes the roles of product appearance
in the process of consumer evaluation and choice.
PRODUCT APPEARANCE AND CONSUMER CHOICE
For this aim, literature in the fields of product
development, product design, consumer behavior,
marketing, and human factors has been searched.
The literature shows that the visual appearance of a
product can influence consumer product evaluations
and choice in several ways. Several authors considered
the role of product or package appearance in con-
sumer product evaluation or choice (Bloch, 1995;
Garber, 1995; Garber et al., 2000; Veryzer, 1993;
Veryzer, 1995). However, they did not discuss explic-
itly the different ways in which appearance influences
consumer choice and their respective implications for
product design. In addition to these more recent con-
tributions to the literature, the functions of a product
in consumer–product interaction are described in ear-
lier industrial design literature (Löbach, 1976; Pil-
ditch, 1976; Schürer, 1971). Several of these functions
concern product appearance. There are differences
between authors in the number of roles (i.e., func-
tions) of product appearance they distinguish and the
terms they use. For example, communication of ease
of use was mentioned by Bloch (1995) and was de-
scribed as part of the aesthetic function by Löbach
(1976), while Veryzer (1995) called it the communica-
tive function of a product appearance. If all the roles
mentioned in the literature are considered as a whole,
the following six roles of product appearance for con-
sumers can be distinguished: (1) communication of
aesthetic, (2) symbolic, (3) functional, and (4) ergo-
nomic product information; (5) attention drawing;
and (6) categorization. A description of these six roles
and their implications for product design follows.
Product Appearance and Aesthetic Product Value
The aesthetic value of a product pertains to the pleas-
ure derived from seeing the product, without consid-
eration of utility (Holbrook, 1980). A consumer can
value the ‘‘look’’ of a product purely for its own sake,
as looking at something beautiful is rewarding in it-
self. When product alternatives are similar in func-
tioning and price, consumers will prefer the one that
appeals the most to them aesthetically (see, for exam-
ple, Figure 1). Aesthetic responses are primarily emo-
tional or feeling responses, and as such they are very
personal (Bamossy et al., 1983).
Several researchers have tried to determine prop-
erties of products that are related to aesthetic appre-
ciation. Innate preferences are proposed for visual
organization principles, such as unity (i.e., congruence
J PROD INNOV MANAG 65
2005;22:63–81
Figure 1. Mobile Phones Differing in Their Aesthetic Appear-
ance (reprinted with permission from Nokia Corporation)
in elements), proportion (e.g., ‘‘the Golden Section’’),
and symmetry (Hekkert, 1995; Muller, 2001; Veryzer,
1993; Veryzer and Hutchinson, 1998), and an inverted
U-shaped relation is proposed between aesthetic
preference and complexity (Berlyne, 1971). Another
property influencing aesthetic judgments is color. The
desirability of a color will change according to the
object to which it is applied (e.g., a car or a table) and
with the style of the object (e.g., modern or Georgian)
(Whitfield and Wiltshire, 1983).
In addition to (innate) preferences for certain prop-
erties of stimuli, prototypicality is found to influence
the aesthetic response. Prototypicality is the degree to
which something is representative of a category (see
also the section about categorization). In several stud-
ies, evidence is found for a positive influence of vis-
ual prototypicality on aesthetic preference (Hekkert,
1995; Veryzer and Hutchinson, 1998; Whitfield and
Slatter, 1979). According to Hekkert et al. (2003),
products with an optimal combination of prototypi-
cality and novelty are preferred aesthetically.
As well as the product-related characteristics pre-
viously mentioned, there are cultural, social, and per-
sonal influences on design taste. For example, color
preferences differ between cultures and in time (Whit-
field and Wiltshire, 1983). In addition, personal fac-
tors, such as design acumen, prior experience, and
personality influence the design taste of consumers
(Bloch, 1995).
The influence of an aesthetic judgment on product
preference can be moderated by the perceived aes-
thetic fit of the product with other products the con-
sumer owns, or his or her home interior (Bloch, 1995).
66 J PROD INNOV MANAG M. E. H. CREUSEN AND J. P. L. SCHOORMANS
2005;22:63–81

Consumers may like a product’s appearance but may

not buy it because it does not fit aesthetically with
their home interior.

Product Appearance and Symbolic Product Value

Consumer goods carry and communicate symbolic

meaning (McCracken, 1986). Symbolic value even can
be the key determinant for product selection (Hirsch-
man and Holbrook, 1982) and can account for the
selection of products that clearly are inferior in their
tangible characteristics (Levy, 1959). An example of
the latter is Philippe Starck’s Juicy Salif lemon squeezer
(Lloyd and Snelders, 2003). The choice for a specific
product or brand may convey the kind of person
someone is or wants to be; consumers use products to
express their (ideal) self-image to themselves and to
others (Belk, 1988; Landon, 1974; Sirgy, 1982; Solo-
mon, 1983). Symbolic meaning can be attached to a
product or brand on the basis of, among other things,
advertising (McCracken, 1986), country of origin, or
the kind of people using it (Sirgy, 1982). But the prod-
uct itself also can communicate symbolic value in a
more direct way, namely by its appearance.
A product’s appearance communicates messages Figure 2. Electrical Toothbrushes with an Appearance Sym-
(Murdoch and Flurscheim, 1983), as it may look bolizing Use by Children (Right) or Adults (reprinted with
cheerful, boring, friendly, expensive, rude, or childish permission from Gillette/Oral-B)
(see, for example, Figure 2). In addition, a certain
style of appearance may evoke associations with a ated with aggression (Murdoch and Flurscheim,
certain time or place (e.g., the Fifties). Furthermore, 1983), will make it easier to position a car brand as
the product or package appearance can reinforce the aggressive.
image of a brand, as the identity of a brand is ex- Although there are large individual and time-spe-
pressed visually in the appearance of products (Sch- cific differences in the experience of color and form,
mitt and Simonson, 1997). Consumers may attach the there are certain associations that seem to be relatively
meaning of a brand to elements of the physical ap- constant. Overviews of the influence of form and color
pearance of products. In this way, a brand image may on consumer perception of symbolic value (but also
transfer to different kinds of products (see the section ergonomic and aesthetic value) can be found in Muller
about categorization). Many companies therefore (2001), Murdoch and Flurscheim (1983), Schmitt
make consistent use of certain design elements, such and Simonson (1997), and Whitfield and Wiltshire
as a color combination, a distinctive form element, or (1983). For example, angular forms are associated
style. For example, car manufacturers often try to with dynamism and masculinity, while roundness
keep different car models recognizable as belonging to evokes softness and femininity (Schmitt and Simon-
the same brand. The distinctive radiator grill of BMW son, 1997).
automobiles is an example of a recognizable design Culture is an important determinant of the inter-
element. The linking of brand meaning to elements of pretations that consumers give and the associations
the product appearance will be easier when the asso- they have with certain factors of a product’s appear-
ciations these elements engender by themselves (e.g., ance. For example, color associations vary from cul-
because they are innate or are determined by culture) ture to culture (Whitfield and Wiltshire, 1983). In
correspond to the desired brand image. For example, America and Europe, the color white stands for pu-
use of bright colors and a large size, which is associ- rity, and brides traditionally dress in white; in Japan it
PRODUCT APPEARANCE AND CONSUMER CHOICE
is a color of mourning. Furthermore, meaning is
context dependent. The impression that colors give
may change completely by combining certain colors
(Muller, 2001). Also, the meaning of forms and colors
may change in time, as meanings are continuously
transformed by movements in art, fashion, etcetera
(Muller, 2001).
There is some debate about whether symbolic in-
terpretation is part of the aesthetic experience. In
most literature, aesthetic value is mentioned as both
a hedonic impression and a result of interpretation
and representation (Schmitt and Simonson, 1997;
Vihma, 1995). It is acknowledged in this article that
whether a product is conceived of as beautiful is af-
fected by what it represents (Vihma, 1995). The same
style can be considered ‘‘good taste’’ at one point in
time, while being considered ‘‘bad taste’’ 10 years lat-
er, because the connotations associated with it or the
interpretations given to it have changed. For example,
orange was a modern color for clothes, furniture, and
plastic products in the Seventies, generally was per-
ceived as old-fashioned and ugly in the Eighties, and
became used in products and clothing again in the
Nineties. However, the view in this article is that aes-
thetic and symbolic value should be distinguished, as
they may have opposite influences on preference. For
example, someone who likes a colorful design may not
buy it because it looks ‘‘too childish.’’
Product Appearance and Functional Product Value
The functional value of a product pertains to the util-
itarian functions a product can perform (its use)
(Löbach, 1976; Veryzer, 1995). Products differ in the
degree to which they are suited to perform their basic
utilitarian function, such as communication or trans-
portation, but also in quality (e.g., by the technology
or materials used) and in features. For example, tele-
phones can be purchased with a redial and a hands-
free option. The presence of such options influences
the functional value of the product for consumers. As
well as reading verbal product information or asking
others, consumers may form an impression about
utilitarian functions and product quality on the basis
of a product’s appearance (Bloch, 1995; Dawar and
Parker, 1994).
The utilitarian functions of a product can be di-
rectly obvious from its appearance. A handle indicat-
ed that the product is portable. In addition, product
appearance can be used as a cue to infer more impor-
J PROD INNOV MANAG 67
2005;22:63–81
Figure 3. A Larger Hair Dryer (Left) Looks More Powerful
(Both are 1875 Watts) (reprinted with permission from Conair
Corporation)
tant but less readily accessible product attributes
(Berkowitz, 1987; Dawar and Parker, 1994). For ex-
ample, subjects may infer on first sight that a larger
hairdryer has more power than a smaller one (see
Figure 3). Or the appearance as a whole may com-
municate quality by looking reliable or solid (Srini-
vasan et al., 1997; Yamamoto and Lambert, 1994).
Physical product appearance is an important quality
signal for consumers (Dawar and Parker, 1994). As
Dickson (1994) notes, ‘‘There is also something in-
tangible about quality. It resides in the feel, the look,
the sound of an item. We may not be able to explain
it, but we know it when we see it’’ (p. 263). So product
appearance can be used proactively in order to give
consumers a certain impression about the functional
product value.
Product Appearance and Ergonomic Product Value
The ergonomic value of a product (see Löbach, 1976;
Schürer, 1971; Veryzer, 1995) entails the adjustment
of a product to human qualities. Product ergonomics
or ‘‘human factors’’ concerns the comprehensibility
and usability of a product, the suitability to per-
form and correctly to communicate its utilitarian
functions. Technical functions can be implemented
in a product in a more-or-less easy-to-use manner.
Usability entails cognitive aspects of use, such as how
logical a product is to operate, as well as emotional
aspects in that it is not frustrating in operation and
gives an enjoyable usage experience (March, 1994).
Consumers may form an impression about the ease
of use on the basis of the product appearance (e.g.,
Norman, 1988).
68 J PROD INNOV MANAG
2005;22:63–81
Figure 4. An Easy-to-Operate Telephone (Left) and a More
Complex One (reprinted with permission from Hesdo BV,
www.profoon.nl)
Consumers have to experience the operation of a
product in order to judge it adequately. As consumers
often cannot try out products in a shop or when buy-
ing on the Internet, they will use the product appear-
ance to form an indication of the ergonomic product
value (see also Bloch, 1995). By seeing the product,
people form an impression about whether handles are
easy and pleasant to hold and whether buttons will be
easy to use (see Figure 4). In order to influence con-
sumer preference positively, it is not sufficient that a
product be simply easy to use. Consumers also must
perceive the product to be easy to use. The appearance
of the product influences consumer perception of as-
pects such as ease of operation, weight, and stability,
which affect the perceived ease of use of a product.
For example, an upright-shaped product may be de-
signed in such a way that it cannot fall over in normal
use, but consumers may conclude that it is not stable
after seeing it (see Murdoch and Flurscheim, 1983).
Based on this first impression, they may discard the
product. Another example is that a small number of
controls (such as buttons) makes a product look easy
to use (Norman, 1988).
Attention-Drawing Ability of the Product Appearance
Gaining attention is an important first step in ena-
bling consumer product purchase. Attention is the
allocation of information processing capacity to a
stimulus (Engel et al., 1995). When a product stands
out visually from competitive products, chances are
higher that consumers will pay attention to the prod-
uct in a purchase situation, as it ‘‘catches their eye.’’
For food products, the attention-drawing ability of a
package has been found to heighten the probability of
purchase (Garber, 1995; Garber et al., 2000).
In general, the attention-drawing ability of a prod-
uct can be enhanced by increasing its size and by using
bright colors. Furthermore, people attend to stimuli
M. E. H. CREUSEN AND J. P. L. SCHOORMANS
Figure 5. The ‘‘Billy’’ Hand Blender Draws Attention In Store
by Its Differentiating Colors
that contrast with their background and are novel
(unusual or unexpected) (see Engel et al., 1995). Garber
(1995) emphasizes that the visual effect of a product
package is relative to a background comprised of
competitor alternatives. For example, the Philips
‘‘Billy’’ handmixer (see Figure 5, second one from
the left) draws attention because of its bright colors,
which differ from the typical white and other light
colors used in this product category. So in order to
design an eye-catching appearance, product alterna-
tives available on the market—and perhaps even the
purchase environment—should be taken into account.
Product Appearance and Categorization
Consumers may use product appearance for catego-
rization (Bloch, 1995; Veryzer, 1995). The appearance
of a product can influence the ease with which a prod-
uct is categorized and the category to which it will be
assigned. Product identification will be easier when a
product resembles other products in the same catego-
ry, that is, when it is more prototypical of the category
(Loken and Ward, 1990). With respect to product ap-
pearance, this means that it should be more visually
typical. Garber (1995) defined visual typicality as ‘‘the
look or appearance that most consumers would as-
sociate with a product category, and by which they
identify brands that belong to the category’’ (p. 656).
When a product is difficult to categorize based on its
appearance, consumers may not regard the product as
a purchase alternative. For example, there might be
some consumers who do not notice that the Philips
Alessi coffee maker, with its atypical appearance, is a
coffeemaker (see Figure 6, right picture).
PRODUCT APPEARANCE AND CONSUMER CHOICE
Figure 6. A Typical (Left) and An Atypical (Right) Coffeemaker
Using verbal product descriptions, Meyers-Levy and
Tybout (1989) found that products that differ slightly
from the prototype are evaluated more positively than
products that are either very typical or very atypical.
Schoormans and Robben (1997) confirmed this for
package appearances; a slightly atypical appearance
catches attention from consumers while remaining ac-
ceptable to them. So in general, an appearance that
differs slightly from the prototype will be preferred. In
some cases, however, strong differentiation from or
strong similarity to the prototype or another product
alternative will be a beneficial strategy. A description of
these cases will be treated later in this article.
For products for which prestige, exclusiveness, or
novelty are important, an atypical appearance is ad-
visable. For such products, preference declines when
it becomes more widely available and thus more typ-
ical, because uniqueness is valued (Ward and Loken,
1988). An atypical appearance also is advisable when
a product must be differentiated from other products
in the category—for example, when there are many
competing alternatives. Strong differentiation even
may lead consumers to consider first the product as
a member of its own individual class (Rosch et al.,
1976, p. 434). Also, new functional attributes are
communicated better by an atypical appearance. Dif-
ferentiation from the category decreases comparison
with other products from the category. As a result,
distinguishing features are noticed better and are
found to be more important (Sujan and Bettman,
1989). For example, the Dyson vacuum cleaner differs
in its appearance from the prototypical vacuum clean-
er, so that consumers more easily perceive its unique
mechanism (see Figure 7).
J PROD INNOV MANAG 69
2005;22:63–81
Figure 7. A Differentiating Appearance Underlines the Unique
Mechanism of the Dyson Vacuum Cleaner (reprinted with
permission from Dyson BV)
On the other hand, when consumers do not find the
purchase important or interesting, a typical appear-
ance is advisable (Alba and Hutchinson, 1987). Typ-
ical members of a category tend to be classified more
quickly and accurately (see Loken and Ward, 1990).
Therefore, consumers tend to buy typical category
members in low-involvement purchases, since they
want to minimize their effort (Hoyer, 1984). One
also can design the appearance of a product to re-
semble another well-known and positively valued
product alternative. This heightens the probability
that people evaluate the product based on knowledge
about, or affect toward, the product it resembles,
which is called exemplar-based categorization (Cohen
and Basu, 1987). This strategy may be beneficial when
there is one dominant brand in the category with
which it is difficult to compete.
Similarity to a category prototype or a known ex-
emplar may provide consumers with expectations
about certain product attributes and thereby about
the functional, ergonomic, aesthetic, and/or symbolic
value of the product. Based on previous experience
with Sony products, one may assume for example that
new Sony products are easy to operate without eval-
uating the ease of operation of the specific product at
hand. However, category-based evaluations occur less
often for durables than for fast-moving consumer
goods (Olshavsky and Spreng, 1996). So for du-
rables, consumers will tend to process the available
70 J PROD INNOV MANAG M. E. H. CREUSEN AND J. P. L. SCHOORMANS
2005;22:63–81

information instead of deriving a judgment from cat- front of the subject, who was asked not to touch (and
egorization only. thus possibly open) the product. The subject made a
product choice by indicating the answering machine
that she or he would be most likely to buy.
Product Appearance and Consumers’ Choice After that, an interview into the choice reasons was
Reasons: An Extensive Qualitative Study conducted and was recorded on audiotape. The inter-
viewer first gathered all the subject’s choice reasons,
This qualitative study investigated whether the six after which she probed further into each separate rea-
roles of product appearance for consumers distin- son to be clear about the subject’s precise meaning,
guished on the basis of the literature review indeed
do exist in consumers’ product choices. In addition,
it was assessed whether these six roles sufficiently
describe the way in which consumers use product ap-
pearance in making a product choice or whether ad-
ditional roles should be distinguished. Furthermore,
qualitative insight was gained into these roles by look-
ing at the inferences consumers make from aspects of
the product appearance, the extent of difference in
consumer product perceptions based on product
appearance, and the extent to which these roles are
interrelated. Because a relatively large number of re-
spondents were used in this qualitative study, results
were able to be quantified.

Research Method

In a laboratory setting, subjects made a choice be-

tween two product alternatives, after which they were
interviewed about the reasons underlying their choice.
These choice reasons, and the information on which
they are based, are the focus of the study.
Subjects. Subjects (N 5 146) were selected from a
consumer household panel. About one-half of them
were males, ranging in age from 18 to 65.
Stimuli. Telephone answering machines were used
as the product in the study. Three answering machines
were bought, of which a subset of two was presented
to each subject. In this way there were three different
choice sets; each of them was presented to about one-
third of the sample. The products themselves were
placed in front of subjects, with accompanying cards
showing textual information about four functional
product characteristics derived from product cata-
logues and in-store information (see Figure 8). This
agrees with the way in which durable products gen-
erally are presented in a purchase situation.
Procedure. First, subjects read a description of the
basic functionality of an answering machine. This en-
sured that they at least knew the product’s basic use,
to provide knowledge expected of a consumer actually
buying one. Two answering machines were placed in Figure 8. Stimulus Material
PRODUCT APPEARANCE AND CONSUMER CHOICE
why he or she valued the product attribute concerned,
and what information he or she used to make the at-
tribute judgment. Because of the large number of in-
terviews, two interviewers were used (one of them
performed about two-thirds of the total number of
interviews).
The total procedure took about 20 minutes, after
which each subject received a written debriefing and a
small monetary compensation.
Analysis and Results
The interviews into the choice reasons were tran-
scribed fully. These transcriptions were the basis for
data analysis. Data of 142 subjects were used (a total
of four subjects either possessed one of the products
from their choice set, had handled the products
against instructions, or did not understand the basic
use of an answering machine). Two judges (of which
one was also an interviewer) independently catego-
rized each subject’s considerations that played a role
in the product choice and were based on the product
appearance (i.e., were not based on the card informa-
tion). Choice reasons that did not fit into one of the
categories were assigned to a ‘‘remaining’’ category.
There were not many differences between the judges,
and these were discussed until an agreement was
reached.
The six roles of the product appearance—commu-
nication of aesthetic, symbolic, functional, and ergo-
nomic product information; attention drawing; and
categorization—proved sufficient to categorize all
choice reasons based on product appearance. A few
reasons did not fit into the six categories of appear-
ance roles; they concerned textual information drawn
from the appearance, such as brand name or the lan-
guage of the words underneath the buttons (i.e., in
Dutch versus in English).
The relative importance of the appearance roles
differed between subjects. Some subjects valued aes-
thetics the most, while others found functionalities or
quality far more important. Age did not influence the
frequency of mentioning a specific appearance role;
gender only influenced concern about whether the
product fit with the home interior and attention draw-
ing (see the aesthetic role and attention-drawing role
following). A number of subjects considered one
product alternative superior with respect to one kind
of product value (e.g., aesthetic value) and the other
alternative with respect to another kind of product
value (e.g., ergonomic value). As a result, they had to
J PROD INNOV MANAG 71
2005;22:63–81
choose between two or more kinds of product value,
most often functional and aesthetic value. For exam-
ple, one subject chose the digital product even though
she liked the appearance of the other product better.
Some subjects had to choose between aesthetic value
and ergonomic value and, for example, chose the at-
tractive-looking product even though the other prod-
uct looked easier to operate. In total, 19 subjects
chose product alternative D; 49 subjects chose F; and
74 subjects preferred G (see Figure 8).
Now a description of the results for each of the six
roles separately is provided. The quotations have been
translated from Dutch into English by the authors.
Keep in mind that every subject was able to mention
several different choice reasons and also several
choice reasons belonging to one category. The num-
ber of appearance roles mentioned by subjects varies
from one to five; the mode is two. Figure 9 shows the
percentage of subjects mentioning each number of
product appearance roles. Subjects mentioning zero
appearance roles based their choice on the card infor-
mation. Figure 10 shows the percentage of subjects
that mentioned each of the different appearance roles.
Aesthetic role. This role was mentioned most of-
ten: 65% of the subjects (92) mentioned an attractive
product appearance as a choice reason. An additional
10% mentioned the attractiveness of the appearance
but did not base their choice on it because other as-
pects were more important to them. Aspects men-
tioned to play a role in the aesthetic attractiveness are
40
30
Percent
20
10
0
0 1 2 3 4 5
Number of appearance roles
Figure 9. Percentage of Subjects Mentioning Each Number of
Product Appearance Roles
72 J PROD INNOV MANAG
2005;22:63–81
70
60
50
40
Percent
30
20
10
0 black color, and some preferred a neutral or soft col-
aesthetic ergonomic attention drawing
symbolic functional categorization
Figure 10. Percentage of Subjects that Mentioned Each of the
Different Appearance Roles
overall roundedness, size, color, and specific details.
Several subjects found it difficult to indicate why they
found a specific product more aesthetically attractive,
as it was an instinctive judgment.
Forty-five percent of all subjects (64) liked a
rounded product (i.e., alternative F or G), because
this looked modern to them. They perceived this as
suiting the contemporary design trend, as many mod-
ern products are rounded (e.g., cars, car stereos). For
example, one subject said, ‘‘And you also see that with
a lot of audio equipment. All that has a more rounded
design than previously, really.’’ Only very few subjects
mentioned disliking a rounded shape; one of them
said, ‘‘I personally don’t like rounded sides and such
things . . . a bit trendy.’’ Many subjects disliked alter-
native D because it is rectangular and straight. Only
three subjects liked such a shape.
Many subjects (12) aesthetically preferred a smaller,
compact product, as a larger product is ungainly and
obtrusive. Many subjects considered alternative D to
be too big. For example, one subject said, ‘‘I really
liked the shape of that small one. I found the other
one a bit . . . yes, if you place it in your room, not so
. . . a bit crude . . . I do not like all those big things in
my room.’’
Several (8) subjects mentioned the ‘‘closed’’ impres-
sion of alternative F. Alternative G looks more
‘‘open,’’ as it has a display and a bigger button.
M. E. H. CREUSEN AND J. P. L. SCHOORMANS
Half of these subjects liked this closed look, as it
makes the product a compact whole. As one subject
said, ‘‘I found that G still has something cozy about it,
also because of the display, I think, and that other one
was such a closed whole . . .’’ The other half disliked a
closed impression, because it looked less friendly and
sympathetic. One subject said, ‘‘Well, that appliance
totally was a closed box, such a black box, and
that other one made at least a, yes . . . a bit more
of a friendly impression, it seemed to look a bit
more open.’’
Subjects (32) preferred a certain color because they
liked it better or because it fit into their home envi-
ronment. One subject said, ‘‘so I picture it next to the
black couch and the black telephone, then that thing
completely fits in.’’ Several subjects wanted a dark or
or. Also, several subjects (10) preferred a product in
one color as opposed to multiple colors (i.e., alterna-
tive D with its two-colored casing and white buttons),
because this makes the product a unified whole and
looks more tranquil. For example, one subject said
about alternative D, ‘‘The buttons also attracted a
little attention, in my opinion, because they had a
different color. It just isn’t a whole.’’
Some subjects mentioned visual organization prin-
ciples as a basis for their aesthetic preference. Unity
was mentioned by a few subjects, referring to the use
of one instead of more colors (see the quotation in the
previous paragraph). Symmetry was mentioned by
one subject, who said, ‘‘And in addition it was sym-
metrical, say, in its length. I also always like that a bit
myself.’’
Many subjects (33, or 23.2%) mentioned details
that played a role in their aesthetic judgments, often
only after the interviewer probed for this. Some (6)
liked the little purple button on alternative F, because
it was perceived as funny and playful. Nine subjects
disliked the buttons on alternative D, as they ‘‘lay on
top of the product,’’ while integrated buttons (on al-
ternative F and G) make a product smoother. The
obtrusiveness of the buttons on alternative D is rein-
forced by their contrasting white color. Some subjects
liked or disliked the presence of a display from an
aesthetic point of view or chose the product with a
more attractive display. One subject said, ‘‘Such a
display with numbers, I don’t need that . . . That
doesn’t look nice in my opinion.’’ Some idiosyncrat-
ic reasons concerned, for example, the size of the
holes in the grid in front of the loudspeaker and the
material.
PRODUCT APPEARANCE AND CONSUMER CHOICE
Twenty-four subjects (16.9%) mentioned that the
product had to fit aesthetically into their home envi-
ronment or with other products they already own
(such as their telephone). For this reason, many of
these subjects valued a dark or neutral-colored prod-
uct and a modern-looking product (only two subjects
found that a less modern answering machine suited
their homes better). For example, one subject said
that ‘‘the other answering machine would fit less into
my home interior’’ (referring to alternative D). She
further explained that it was ‘‘because we have a
modern interior design with black furniture.’’ Females
more often mentioned the aesthetic fit into their home
as a choice reason than males (w2 5 4.68, po.05).
Symbolic role. Almost one-half of all subjects (68,
or 47.9%) mentioned that the symbolic meaning or
associations of the product appearance played a role
in their product choice. Additionally, some subjects
considered symbolic aspects but found other aspects
more important on which to base their choice. Almost
all subjects mentioning symbolic aspects mention it as
part of an aesthetic judgment; only some mentioned a
modern, friendly, or serious look as a choice reason
without explicitly calling it aesthetically attractive—so
symbolic and aesthetic value often were intertwined.
Symbolic associations mentioned by several sub-
jects included ‘‘expensive’’ or ‘‘cheap,’’ ‘‘playful,’’
‘‘friendly,’’ ‘‘businesslike,’’ ‘‘soft,’’ ‘‘sympathetic,’’
‘‘boring,’’ and ‘‘hi-tech.’’ Several subjects (6) men-
tioned that alternative D gave a cheap impression be-
cause of its crude and simple shape. One subject
noted, ‘‘Look, obviously straight shapes are easier to
manufacture. Therefore I interpret them as cheaper.’’
Many subjects (38) mentioned a modern or contem-
porary (alternative F or G) versus an old-fash-
ioned or even obsolete impression (alternative D) as
a choice reason. A great deal of these subjects men-
tioned that roundedness or a streamlined shape brings
about this modern look. This roundedness also made
alternative F and G look friendly, sympathetic, and
soft. In contrast, the rectangular straight product (al-
ternative D) looked old-fashioned, ungainly, bombas-
tic, harsh, and cheap to subjects. They associated
alternative D with an old cassette player, a cigar
box, a box of bricks, and a bread tin. Many men-
tioned alternative F as resembling a portable compact
disc (CD) player or Discman, which some thought
gave it a contemporary look or thought it was hu-
mourous. For example, one subject mentioned that
alternative D reminded him of ‘‘an old-fashioned cas-
sette player,’’ while alternative F ‘‘reminds me much
J PROD INNOV MANAG 73
2005;22:63–81
more of a modern car radio.’’ In addition to the as-
sociations just mentioned, other associations evoked
by alternative F were ‘‘playful,’’ ‘‘female,’’ ‘‘cute with
that sweet little purple button,’’ ‘‘elegant,’’ ‘‘refined,’’
‘‘chic,’’ ‘‘more sexy,’’ ‘‘yuppie-like,’’ ‘‘flowing,’’ ‘‘more
funny,’’ ‘‘more hi-tech-like,’’ but also ‘‘businesslike’’
and ‘‘boring.’’ Specific remarks referring to alter-
native G were ‘‘cozier,’’ ‘‘less boring,’’ ‘‘more flair,’’
‘‘playful,’’ ‘‘more serious,’’ and ‘‘common.’’
Functional role. Many subjects (49.3%) based their
product choice on the textual information about func-
tionalities that was presented with the products on
cards. However, for 18 subjects (12.7%) the appear-
ance influenced the perceived functional product val-
ue. Five subjects (3.5% of the total sample) derived
information about functionalities from the product
appearance, namely the presence of a display or a
small indication light. One subject based her choice on
the fact that she saw a rewind button on alternative G,
which she did not see on alternative F. In addition,
two subjects explicitly mentioned wanting as few fea-
tures as possible. According to them, these ‘‘bells and
whistles’’ made the product more vulnerable so that it
would break down more easily, and these added fea-
tures often are not used anyway.
Eleven subjects (7.8% of the sample) derived an
impression about the reliability and durability of the
product from its appearance. They chose the product
that looked to them more solid or reliable (most often
alternative G), because that signified that the product
would last longer. Some subjects found it difficult to
specify the characteristics responsible for this; a few
mentioned that it was their first impression or some-
thing instinctive. Nevertheless, several subjects men-
tioned elements that engendered this impression, such
as a flap or display that could break easily, a turning
instead of sliding volume button, a large size, or the
roundedness or rather the squareness of the product.
For example, one subject said about alternative G, ‘‘It
looked more reliable, a bit more solid. It was a bit
larger.’’ He explained why it looked more solid: ‘‘the
size was decisive . . . maybe the shape—it was broader
than the other one.’’ A few subjects inferred from a
product’s modern styling (referring to the more
rounded shape of alternative F or G) that the prod-
uct was technologically superior, because it had been
designed more recently. The following part of an in-
terview illustrates why one subject prefers a modern-
looking answering machine: ‘‘Yes, maybe it will last
longer that way, [it] looks more reliable . . . The other
one [alternative D] looks as if it is prehistoric, as if it is
74 J PROD INNOV MANAG
2005;22:63–81
out of date or something, that is the impression it
makes . . . old.’’ However, another subject preferred
alternative D for its ‘‘more functional appearance,’’ as
he thought that ‘‘most often with these futuristic
products, they look slick and finished, but they are
usually not really solid’’ (referring to alternative F).
Ergonomic role. About one-third of the subjects
(51, which is 35.9%) mentioned reasons concerning
usability as a basis for their choice. Of these, 34 sub-
jects mentioned operational aspects, such as the vis-
ibility of the display or the size, number, clarity, or
placing of the buttons. For example, one subject who
chose alternative G instead of F, said, ‘‘. . . and also
the buttons on it, they were just a bit more clear, just
one button to play and rewind et cetera. The other
one, it had one button, but it did not exactly say what
it was for . . .’’ Several subjects found the buttons of
alternative D clear and the button of alternative F too
small, although several others preferred alternative G
or F to D because it had one instead of two buttons
on top. Nine subjects wanted a product with as few
buttons as possible; according to them, more buttons
are only confusing and heighten the likelihood of
making mistakes. As one subject said, ‘‘. . . The sim-
pler the design, the less easily it will break down . . .
and a lot of buttons—that is simply confusing.’’ A few
subjects preferred a separate button for each function
instead of one button having several functions. Seven
subjects preferred alternative G because they could
see immediately how it worked: it had clear buttons
that were labeled clearly so that the possibilities were
clear, while alternative F was closed so that how it
worked was not obvious from just looking at it (see
Figure 8). Two subjects preferred the product alter-
native that operates similar to their own answering
machine.
In addition to operational aspects, more general as-
pects of use were mentioned. Such general aspects are
not related to the direct operation of the product, but
to more indirect consequences of use, such as the space
needed by the product (e.g., whether it fits on a table),
the ease of cleaning, or the likelihood of accidentally
hurting someone. Fourteen subjects valued a small size
(i.e., alternative G or F instead of D) because a small
product needs less space and is easier to hide in a
drawer. Four subjects chose alternative D because it is
square instead of rounded and therefore fits more eas-
ily into a corner or between other things. In contrast,
two subjects valued a rounded product (alternative F
or G), as it is easier to handle and is less likely to hurt
someone (i.e., no sharp edges). One subject mentioned
M. E. H. CREUSEN AND J. P. L. SCHOORMANS
that buttons that are integrated into the surface make
the product easier to handle, and another subject
found this easier to clean. They therefore did not
choose alternative D with its protruding buttons.
Attention-drawing role. Of the 14 subjects (9.9%
of the total sample) who mentioned the attention-
drawing ability of one of the product alternatives,
13 preferred the less attention-drawing alternative (al-
ternative F or G, see Figure 8). Almost all of them
found alternative D to be too conspicuous because it
was too big and because its buttons were in a con-
trasting color. They preferred a product that would be
less conspicuous in their home, or as one subject
called it, ‘‘harmless in the interior of my home.’’ An-
other subject stated that an answering machine is a
functional product that ‘‘strictly speaking, you do not
want to see.’’ Therefore, these subjects preferred a
smaller product that could be put away easily and that
had a more neutral color.
Only one subject chose the product that drew her
attention by its design. She explained her preference
for the appearance of alternative G as follows: ‘‘Well,
it is more like a whole, the impression it makes on me,
does it attract my attention and does it satisfy my
wishes . . .’’ Another subject stated that although she
chose the less attention-drawing product, she might
buy a specially designed product that draws a lot of
attention but looks very attractive at the same time.
Females significantly more often mention attention
drawing as a choice reason than males (w2 5 8.80,
po.01).
Categorization role. Eleven subjects (7.8%) men-
tioned visual categorization as playing a role in their
product choice. Categorization also may have a sub-
conscious influence and thus may have played a role
for more subjects, but the remarks of these 11 subjects
provide some insight into how visual categorization
plays a role for consumers.
A few subjects preferred alternative G because it
was more recognizable as an answering machine—
that is, easy to categorize—but found it difficult to
explain why. For example, one subject explained
why she liked the appearance of alternative G better
than F: ‘‘I found it more recognizable, the other one,
that looked like . . . what is it called? . . . a CD player
. . . Well, in my eyes it looks more like an answering
machine.’’
Others preferred something different from a stand-
ard box, something more special that does not look
ordinary (i.e., is less prototypical). Two subjects ex-
plicitly preferred a product that was less recognizable
PRODUCT APPEARANCE AND CONSUMER CHOICE
as an answering machine and that was less plain. Sub-
jects valuing an atypical product chose alternative F
or G. One subject said, ‘‘I would in first instance con-
sider the one I chose as a portable CD player instead
of an answering machine, so in that sense somewhat
less recognizable as an answering machine.’’ When
asked whether and why he prefers this, he said, ‘‘Well,
I just like to . . . in everything I buy. . . to not pick the
ordinary.’’
Four subjects preferred alternative F or G because
it reminded them of another product, namely a port-
able CD player or modern car radio. They found it
difficult to explain why but thought that it was a kind
of recognition; they were used to this look. For ex-
ample, one subject said, ‘‘That rounded one appeals
to me, yes, I don’t know why, maybe because it also
looks a bit like a portable CD player or something . . .
that appeals more to me.’’ When asked why, she said,
‘‘Maybe because it is a bit more familiar, I don’t know
. . .’’ One subject disliked alternative D because it re-
minded him of an old-fashioned cassette player.
Interrelations. In several cases, some roles were in-
terrelated. Attention drawing and aesthetic value of-
ten were linked: subjects found an attention-drawing
product less aesthetically attractive. Indeed, the cor-
relation between attention-drawing and aesthetic
choice reasons is significant (Spearman’s rho 5 .25,
po.01). Furthermore, symbolic and aesthetic values
often were intertwined. Subjects mention symbolic as-
sociations in explaining why they found the product
aesthetically attractive, which agrees with Vihma
(1995). Indeed, correlation analysis shows that aes-
thetic and symbolic reasons often co-occur (Spear-
man’s rho 5 .54, po.001). Also, for some subjects,
symbolic and functional values were linked, as they
felt that a modern-looking answering machine would
be technologically superior. As this concerned only a
small number of subjects, this is not expressed in a
significant correlation between functional and sym-
bolic choice reasons. However, there was a significant
correlation between categorization and symbolic
choice reasons (Spearman’s rho 5 .20, po.05), which
probably is due to the fact that several subjects
thought answering machine F looked modern or con-
temporary because it resembled a portable CD player
(i.e., another product category). In addition, the cor-
relation between categorization and aesthetic choice
reasons was on the border of significance (Spearman’s
rho 5 .16, p 5 .05). This can be explained by the fact
that subjects liked an appearance that looked or did
not look like a typical answering machine.
J PROD INNOV MANAG 75
2005;22:63–81
Table 1. The Six Roles of Product Appearance for
Consumers
Appearance Role Influence on Consumers
Attention Draw consumer attention in-store
Drawing
Categorization Influence ease of categorization
Offer possibility for differentiation
from the product category
Functional Show features/functionalities
Serve as a cue for features/functionalities
Serve as a cue for technical quality
Ergonomic Show parts for consumer-product
interaction
Show consequences of use of
overall appearance aspects
(e.g., size, roundedness)
Aesthetic Serve as a basis for aesthetic appreciation
Fit with home interior and other
products owned
Symbolic Serve as a basis for symbolic product
associations
Communicate brand image
Conclusion and Discussion
This study distinguishes six roles of product appear-
ance for consumers on the basis of a literature review
and shows in a qualitative study that these roles are
relevant for consumers and are sufficient to describe the
influence of product appearance in consumer choice. In
addition, insight is gained into the information con-
sumers use and the inferences they make from the ap-
pearance of a product. An overview of the roles and
their influence on consumers is provided in Table 1.
Aesthetic value often will be important to consum-
ers for durable products, as these products are often
used for many years and are visible in consumer’s
homes or to other people. Indeed, the majority of
subjects in this study considered aesthetic value in
their product choice, and several subjects considered
whether the product fitted aesthetically into their
home. In this study some subjects were observed giv-
ing up functionalities in favor of aesthetic value. This
study’s subjects mentioned roundedness, size, color,
and specific details as a basis for their aesthetic judg-
ment, although some subjects found it difficult to ver-
balize precisely why a specific product alternative
looked more attractive to them. In general, a small,
rounded answering machine in one neutral, dark color
was preferred aesthetically, although some subjects
had different preferences. The fact that only very few
76 J PROD INNOV MANAG
2005;22:63–81
subjects mentioned visual organization principles as
causing their aesthetic preference is not surprising,
as the influence of such principles largely will be
unconscious (Veryzer, 1999). Although prototypical-
ity was not mentioned explicitly, many subjects pre-
ferred a rounded product because it suits the
contemporary design trend and as such is prototypi-
cal for contemporary products.
Symbolic value was mentioned as a choice reason
by almost one-half of the sample. Subjects mentioned
several associations, such as expensive, friendly, or
businesslike. A modern or contemporary look was
important to more than one-quarter of the subjects.
Aesthetic and symbolic values often were intertwined.
For example, many subjects liked a rounded appear-
ance because it looks modern and friendly. It however
may be good to acknowledge the difference between
these two kinds of product value. Someone might like
a certain appearance but might not purchase it because
the symbolic associations are not suited to her or his
person (e.g., a childlike appearance for an adult) or to
the occasion (think of use at home versus at work).
A few subjects derived functionalities from the
product appearance. In addition, several subjects de-
rived an impression about the functional quality of
the product from its appearance. They chose the prod-
uct alternative that looked the most reliable or solid
but found it difficult to indicate the characteristics re-
sponsible for this impression. This agrees with the lit-
erature, where it is noted that the global impression of
the product appearance can communicate quality
(Srinivasan et al., 1997; Yamamoto and Lambert,
1994). Whether and what inferences are formed on
the basis of the product appearance will differ be-
tween consumers. A knowledgeable and interested
consumer will be able and be willing to assess the val-
ue of most technical product functions. However,
other consumers may use heuristics such as ‘‘more
buttons mean more functions.’’ Information about
how subjects form judgments about functional prod-
uct value on the basis of product appearance can be
used proactively to attune product appearance to con-
sumer perception. This increases the likelihood that
consumers will make accurate judgments about the
functional product value, for ‘‘it is not enough to bury
quality in a product, it must be seen and experienced
to be recognized and believed’’ (Dickson, 1994, p. 263).
More than one-third of the sample mentioned
choice reasons concerning usability. Two-thirds of
them mentioned operational aspects, of which one-
half referred to the number or size of the buttons.
M. E. H. CREUSEN AND J. P. L. SCHOORMANS
Almost one-third of the subjects that mentioned usa-
bility wanted a small number of buttons on an an-
swering machine, because they believed this made it
simpler to operate. They considered more buttons
simply to be confusing. This agrees with the notion
that simplicity of operation will be a more dominant
sales argument than variety of functional characteris-
tics (Hammer, 1995; Nussbaum, 1988). Clear opera-
tion will be especially important for technologically
complex products. Many electronic products are so
complex that they are almost unusable, and many
consumers even find high-tech products intimidating
(Feldman, 1995). In addition to parts for consumer–
product interaction, such as buttons and displays, this
study revealed that overall aspects of the appearance,
such as size, roundedness, and material, influence the
(perceived) ergonomic product value. These aspects
influence more indirect consequences of use, such
as the space needed by the product (e.g., whether it
fits on a table), the ease of handling the product, or
the ease of cleaning. So in investigating the usability
of a product, attention should be given not only
to (the perception of ) operational aspects but also
to these more indirect consequences of use, as these
also play a role in product choice.
In contrast to food products, where a positive rela-
tion is found between the ability of a package to draw
attention and product choice, all but one of the sub-
jects in this study that mentioned attention drawing as
playing a role in their product choice chose the less at-
tention-drawing product alternative—the reason being
that they did not want the product to be conspicuous in
their home. Indeed, products that draw attention in
store often are conspicuous and may not be the same
ones that are found to be aesthetically attractive. Aes-
thetic considerations will be more important to con-
sumers for durable products than for fast-moving
consumer goods, as durable products are used for a
longer period and often are visible in one’s home and
for other people. So although an atypical product ap-
pearance can be a suitable way of attracting attention
for durable products, care has to be taken to ensure
that this atypical look is acceptable aesthetically for
consumers.
Concerning visual categorization, several subjects
preferred the most typical looking answering machine
but found it difficult to explain why. Others preferred
an atypical, and thereby less common and ordinary,
answering machine. This confirms that the preference
for typicality (or lack thereof) differs between con-
sumers. The choice whether to develop a typical, a
PRODUCT APPEARANCE AND CONSUMER CHOICE
slightly atypical, or a very atypical appearance will
depend on the target group of consumers and the kind
of product. In the literature review section, cases are
listed in which it is beneficial to develop a very typical
or an atypical appearance.
The aesthetic and symbolic appearance roles were
far more salient to consumers, and the appearance
influenced perceived ergonomic value for one-third of
the subjects (see Figure 10). The functional role of the
appearance is mentioned less. This does not mean that
functionalities were not important: 57.7% of the sam-
ple based their choice on functionalities. However,
most of these were derived from the textual informa-
tion presented with the products themselves, and only
12.7% of the subjects mentioned the appearance as a
basis for a judgment about the functional product
value. The attention-drawing and categorization roles
were mentioned less often. It may be that consumers
are not always conscious of their influence (see the
section about future research). The relative impor-
tance of the appearance roles was not the focus of the
present study. Since a small number of product alter-
natives was used, the influence of the appearance roles
in this study may not be indicative for answering ma-
chines in general. For example, the answering ma-
chines in this study had one or two buttons and a
volume slider; an alternative with more buttons would
have increased the incidence with which subjects men-
tion ease of operation as a choice reason. However, it
is striking that aesthetic value played a role for so
many subjects, while the answering machines used in
this study do not differ that much in their appearance
(they are all dark-colored, flat shapes). There were
more subjects that partly based their choice on aes-
thetics than on functionalities. This may indicate the
importance of aesthetics in consumers’ product selec-
tion. However, the relative importance of the appear-
ance roles will differ between product categories and
consumers (see the section about future research).
This study revealed several examples of interrela-
tions between appearance roles. Significant correla-
tions exist between aesthetic and symbolic product
value, aesthetic value and attention drawing, and cat-
egorization and aesthetic as well as symbolic value.
No correlations of functional or ergonomic value with
other appearance roles were significant. However, for
some subjects symbolic and functional value were
linked, and some relations between roles might not
have surfaced in this research (e.g., because of the
small number of product alternatives used). Consum-
ers may derive, for example, an impression about the
J PROD INNOV MANAG 77
2005;22:63–81
functional or ergonomic product value from catego-
rization of the product appearance; similarity to a
well-known product category exemplar of high-tech-
nical quality may lead consumers to infer that the
product at hand is also of good quality.
As some roles can be interrelated, changes in one
role may influence other roles. In addition, the pre-
ferred shape (e.g., rounded or angular), color, or size
were found to differ depending on the way in which
product appearance played a role for subjects. For
example, a small size is valued from an aesthetic point
of view, but a larger size is chosen by some subjects
because it looks more solid and reliable (i.e., func-
tional value). So when something is changed in the
product appearance in order to improve its perform-
ance on one role, this has implications for the per-
formance on other roles.
Managerial Implications
The appearance of a product can influence consumer
choice in different ways. Distinguishing these different
appearance roles will help managers to make better
use of product appearance as a marketing tool.
Focus on the Most Important Appearance Roles
To use the potential of product appearance fully in
influencing consumer choice, the appearance should
communicate the central consumer advantage to con-
sumers and should fit the product’s market position-
ing (see also Just and Salvador, 2003). To make
optimal use of product appearance, the marketing
department or product development team should con-
sider explicitly the impression they want the appear-
ance to communicate. The most important value to
consumers in purchasing a specific kind of product
should be the starting point in the design of the prod-
uct appearance (Bruce and Whitehead, 1988). There-
fore, it is recommended that product designers know
in an early stage whether aesthetics, ease of use, tech-
nical quality, or features are most important in the
brand choice for the target group of consumers. For
the product shape, colors, materials, and configura-
tion that are preferred—or that engender positive
product perceptions—depend on the product value
that is important to the consumer. For example, a
larger size may make a product look more old-fash-
ioned and crude, more solid and stable, less easy to
78 J PROD INNOV MANAG
2005;22:63–81
store, easier to operate (as buttons are bigger or far-
ther apart), and heavier in weight. Whether a larger
size is preferable therefore will depend on whether
aesthetic value, technical quality, or ease of use is
more important to consumers.
Different appearances can be made for groups of
consumers that differ in the product value that is most
important in their choice. For example, people who
need glasses may prefer an alarm clock with buttons
that have a bright contrasting color as opposed to the
casing, so they can locate the buttons better in a dark
room. Other people may dismiss such a product on
aesthetic grounds.
Are Design Guidelines Valuable?
Several influences of appearance characteristics, such
as color and form, on the perception of certain kinds
of product value have been mentioned in the literature
or are intuitive. Subjects in the present study also
mentioned such influences. For example, a bigger
product looks more solid, bright colors may diminish
a quality impression, and a large number of buttons
decreases the impression of ease of use (Norman,
1988). What is the value of such design guidelines?
Is it useful to investigate such influences?
Although product designers intuitively will feel
how to engender a certain impression, the present au-
thors think that research into the influence of specific
appearance elements on the perception of certain
kinds of product value may help them in this. How-
ever, the intuition of the designer remains essential, as
the effect of combining separate characteristics into a
whole cannot be predicted. Furthermore, the value of
such guidelines differs for different kinds of product
values. The influence of appearance characteristics on
the perception of utilitarian aspects, such as quality,
ease of use, and functionality, probably will be similar
over product categories, persons, and countries. Peo-
ple will agree that larger buttons are easier to operate
and that a product with a display looks more func-
tionally complex than one without a display. So for
functional and ergonomic value, such guidelines are
reliable, and general research into the influence of
specific appearance characteristics on their perception
will be useful. However, there will be more difference
between consumers in aesthetic and symbolic percep-
tion, since such matters of taste and experience are
more subjective. A large size makes a certain product
look modern according to one consumer and old-
M. E. H. CREUSEN AND J. P. L. SCHOORMANS
fashioned according to another. In the present study,
many subjects mentioned that roundedness looks
modern and friendly and that angularity looks old-
fashioned and cheap. However, this may be specific
for the product category, the year, or the country in
which the study is conducted. One should keep in
mind that the aesthetic and symbolic value of a prod-
uct may differ between cultures and in time and even
may depend on the context (the available product al-
ternatives or the store surroundings). General design
guidelines therefore will be less reliable for the aes-
thetic and symbolic roles of the product appearance.
Testing with consumers therefore is even more im-
portant for aesthetic and symbolic value, especially as
these roles seemed to be the most influential—at least
in the present study.
Testing the Appearance with Consumers
To make sure that the appearance of a new product
has a positive influence on product choice, this should
be tested with consumers. One should assess whether
consumer perceptions of the functional, ergonomic,
aesthetic, and symbolic value of a new product on the
basis of its appearance are positive and correct. This
can be done by asking consumers to judge the func-
tionalities, quality, ease of use, and aesthetic and
symbolic value of the product on the basis of its ap-
pearance only. Because there are cultural, social, and
personal influences on design taste (Bloch, 1995), it is
important to use the correct target group in such
a test.
If a design does not engender the right impression
on one of these aspects, one might ask consumers how
to improve it (e.g., ‘‘why do you think the quality of
this product is low?’’). Consumers are able to do this
for functional and ergonomic aspects; they are able to
indicate that a display is too small, that buttons are
too close together, or that certain features are un-
wanted. But consumers have more difficulty in indi-
cating how aspects such as quality impression and
aesthetic and symbolic value can be improved, as
these aspects concern the overall impression of the
appearance. The effect of changes in appearance char-
acteristics on the whole product impression is difficult
to imagine for consumers. For a consumer, the value
of certain characteristics, such as color, may change
when the rest of the product changes (cf. Holbrook
and Moore, 1981). With one product style, blue may
be the most attractive color, while with another style,
PRODUCT APPEARANCE AND CONSUMER CHOICE
green may work better, so consumers have to see a
change in appearance in order to judge it adequately.
Furthermore, a consumer often will be unable to spec-
ify why she or he likes or dislikes a certain appear-
ance, which is descriptive of holistic judgments (see
Kemler Nelson, 1989; Mittal, 1988). For example,
most people probably are unaware of the influence of
visual organization principles on their judgments (see
Veryzer, 1993; Veryzer, 1999). A possible solution to
this problem is showing consumers a great deal of
pictures of products they can use to point out what
they mean or which products fit an intended impres-
sion. This may give the design team clues about how
to better engender a specific impression.
Future Research
The research method used in the present study only
gave insight into the conscious use of information by
consumers. The influence of attention drawing and
categorization, and perhaps the impression of quality,
also may take place subconsciously. This may explain
why only few subjects mentioned these appearance
roles. The influence of these roles on consumer prod-
uct choice may therefore have been underestimated.
Future research may give a more accurate insight
into the influence of these roles in consumer prod-
uct choice.
In addition, it will be interesting to investigate the
relative importance of the appearance roles in differ-
ent product categories. Aesthetics will be relatively
important for some types of products such as lamps
and furniture, while for other types of products such
as appliances, ease of use will be more important. But
for appliances that are visible in one’s home, aesthet-
ics probably also are important to consumers, as was
illustrated for the answering machines in this study.
Attention drawing and categorization (i.e., visual typ-
icality) probably are more influential for food prod-
ucts than for durables. Future research may give more
insight into this issue.
It was mentioned earlier that the value that is most
important to consumers should be the starting point
in the design of the product appearance. It may be
possible to distinguish groups of consumers that differ
in the importance they attach to each kind of product
value in general. Although this study was not focused
especially on this, it was found that females pay more
attention to whether the product fits into their home
than males. This might not only be the case for
J PROD INNOV MANAG 79
2005;22:63–81
answering machines but also for other product
categories. In addition, it often is assumed that old-
er people pay more attention to ease of use. The
present authors could not find any research that sup-
ports this assumption, and the question remains from
what age on people start paying more attention to
ease of use.
Also, the question remains to what extent the per-
ceptions that subjects mentioned on the basis of prod-
uct appearance generalize to other products (which
may differ for utilitarian and expressive product val-
ue, see above). Examples are that a rounded product
looks more modern, a square product looks more
solid but also old-fashioned, a larger product looks
more solid, and a modern rounded shape looks tech-
nologically superior (i.e., newer). The same goes for
consumers’ preferences. Many want a small number
of buttons, as many buttons are confusing. Further-
more, subjects liked a product in one color as opposed
to more colors and liked integrated buttons, which
make it a unified whole. As mentioned already, these
perceptions and preferences may differ in time be-
tween groups of consumers and between countries.
The extent to which this is the case is also an issue for
further research.
References
Alba, Joseph W. and Hutchinson, J. Wesley (1987). Dimensions of
Consumer Expertise. Journal of Consumer Research 13(4):411–454.
Bamossy, Gary, Scammon, Debra L. and Johnston, Marilyn (1983). A
Preliminary Investigation of the Reliability and Validity of an Aes-
thetic Judgment Test. In: Advances in Consumer Research. Richard
P. Bagozzi and Alice M. Tybout (eds.). Ann Arbor, MI: Associa-
tion for Consumer Research, 685–690.
Belk, Russell W. (1988). Possessions and the Extended Self. Journal of
Consumer Research 15(2):139–168.
Berkowitz, Marvin (1987). Product Shape as a Design Innovation
Strategy. Journal of Product Innovation Management 4(4):274–283.
Berlyne, David E. (1971). Aesthetics and Psychobiology. New York:
Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Black, Caroline D. and Baker, Michael J. (1987). Success through
Design. Design Studies 8(4):207–215.
Bloch, Peter H. (1995). Seeking the Ideal Form: Product Design and
Consumer Response. Journal of Marketing 59(3):16–29.
Bruce, Margaret and Whitehead, Maureen (1988). Putting Design into
the Picture: the Role of Product Design in Consumer Purchase
Behavior. Journal of the Market Research Society 30(2):147–162.
Cohen, Joel B. and Basu, Kunal (1987). Alternative Models of Cate-
gorization: Toward a Contingent Processing Framework. Journal
of Consumer Research 13(4):455–472.
Dawar, Niraj and Parker, Philip (1994). Marketing Universals: Con-
sumers’ Use of Brand Name, Price, Physical Appearance, and
Retailer Reputation as Signals of Product Quality. Journal of Mar-
keting 58(2):81–95.
80 J PROD INNOV MANAG
2005;22:63–81
Dickson, Peter R. (1994). Marketing Management. Orlando: The
Dryden Press.
Dumaine, Brian (1991). Design that Sells and Sells and . . . . Fortune
11:56–61 (March).
Engel, James F., Blackwell, Roger D. and Miniard, Paul W. (1995).
Consumer Behavior. Orlando: The Dryden Press.
Feldman, Laurence P. (1995). Increasing the Usability of High-Tech
Products through Design Research. Design Management Journal
6(4):27–33 (Fall).
Garber, Lawrence L., Jr. (1995). The Package Appearance in Choice.
In: Advances in Consumer Research. Frank R. Kardes and Mita
Sujan (eds.). Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research,
653–660.
Garber, Lawrence L., Jr., Burke, Richard R. and Jones, J. Morgan
(2000). The Role of Package Color in Consumer Purchase Consid-
eration and Choice. Cambridge, MA: Marketing Science Institute,
(Working Paper Series, Rep. No. 00-104).
Gemser, Gerda and Leenders, Mark A.A.M. (2001). How Integrating
Industrial Design in the Product Development Process Impacts on
Company Performance. Journal of Product Innovation Management
18(1):28–38.
Hammer, Norbert (1995). Testing Design via Eye-Movement Analy-
sis—Perspectives and Problems. In: Successful Product Engineering:
Testing for Optimal Design and Function. Berlin: ESOMAR,
155–172.
Hekkert, Paul P.M. (1995). Artful Judgments: A Psychological Inquiry
into Aesthetic Preference for Visual Patterns. Delft: Delft University
of Technology.
Hekkert, Paul, Snelders, Dirk and van Wieringen, Piet C.W. (2003).
‘‘Most Advanced Yet Acceptable’’: Typicality and Novelty as Joint
Predictors of Aesthetic Preference in Industrial Design. British
Journal of Psychology, 94(1):111–124.
Hirschman, Elizabeth C. and Holbrook, Morris B. (1982). Hedonic
Consumption: Emerging Concepts, Methods and Propositions.
Journal of Marketing 46(3):92–101.
Holbrook, Morris B. (1980). Some Preliminary Notes on Research in
Consumer Esthetics. In: Advances in Consumer Research. Jerry C.
Olson (ed.). Ann Arbor, MI: Association for Consumer Research,
104–108.
Holbrook, Morris B. and Moore, William L. (1981). Feature Interac-
tions in Consumer Judgments of Verbal versus Pictorial Presenta-
tions. Journal of Consumer Research 8(1):103–113.
Hoyer, Wayne D. (1984). An Examination of Consumer Decision
Making for a Common Repeat Purchase Product. Journal of Con-
sumer Research 11(3):822–829.
Just, Lily A. and Salvador, Rommel (2003). Conference Summary:
Marketing Meets Design. Cambridge, MA: Marketing Science In-
stitute (Working Paper Series, Rep. No. 03-001).
Kemler Nelson and Deborah G. (1989). The Nature and Occurrence of
Holistic Categorization. In: Object Perception: Structure and Proc-
ess. Bryan E. Shepp and Soledad Ballesteros (eds.). Hillsdale, NJ:
Erlbaum, 357–386.
Kotler, Philip and Rath, G. Alexander (1984). Design: A Powerful
but Neglected Strategic Tool. Journal of Business Strategy 5(2):
16–21.
Landon, E. Laird (1974). Self Concept, Ideal Self Concept, and Con-
sumer Purchase Intentions. Journal of Consumer Research 1(2):44–51.
Levy, Sidney J. (1959). Symbols for Sale. Harvard Business Review
37:117–119 (July–August).
Lloyd, Peter and Snelders, Dirk (2003). What Was Philippe Starck
Thinking of? Design Studies 24(3):237–253.
Löbach, Bernd (1976). Industrial Design: Grundlagen der Indus-
trieproduktgestaltung. Muenchen: Verlag Karl Thiemig.
Loken, Barbara and Ward, James (1990). Alternative Approaches to
Understanding the Determinants of Typicality. Journal of Consum-
er Research 17(2):111–126.
M. E. H. CREUSEN AND J. P. L. SCHOORMANS
Lorenz, Christopher (1986). The Design Dimension. Oxford: Basil
Blackwell.
March, Artemis (1994). Usability: The New Dimension of Product
Design. Harvard Business Review 72:144–149 (September–
October).
McCracken, Grant (1986). Culture and Consumption: A Theo-
retical Account of the Structure and Movement of the Cultural
Meaning of Consumer Goods. Journal of Consumer Research
13(1):71–84.
Meyers-Levy, Joan and Tybout, Alice M. (1989). Schema Congruity as
a Basis for Product Evaluation. Journal of Consumer Research
16(1):39–54.
Mittal, Banwari (1988). The Role of Affective Choice Mode in the
Consumer Purchase of Expressive Products. Journal of Economic
Psychology 9(4):499–524.
Muller, Wim (2001). Order and Meaning in Design. Utrecht: Lemma.
Murdoch, Peter and Flurscheim, Charles H. (1983). Form. In: Indus-
trial Design in Engineering. Charles H. Flurscheim (ed.). Worcester,
UK: The Design Council, 105–131.
Norman, Donald A. (1988). The Psychology of Everyday Things. New
York: Basic Books.
Nussbaum, Bruce (1988). Smart Design: Quality is the New Style.
Business Week April 11:80–86.
Nussbaum, Bruce (1993). Hot Products: How Good Design Pays Off.
Business Week June 7:40–43.
Olshavsky, Richard W. and Spreng, Richard A. (1996). An Explora-
tory Study of the Innovation Evaluation Process. Journal of Prod-
uct Innovation Management 13(6):512–529.
Pilditch, James (1976). Talk about Design. London: Barrie and Jenkins.
Rosch, Eleanor, Mervis, Carolyn B., Gray, Wayne D., Johnson, David
M. and Boyes-Braem, Penny (1976). Basic Objects in Natural Cat-
egories. Cognitive Psychology 8(3):382–439.
Roy, Robin (1994). Can the Benefits of Good Design Be Quantified?
Design Management Journal 5(2):9–17 (Spring).
Schmitt, Bernd H. and Simonson, Alex (1997). Marketing Aesthetics:
The Strategic Management of Brands, Identity, and Image. New
York: The Free Press.
Schoormans, Jan P.L. and Robben, Henry S.J. (1997). The Effect of
New Package Design on Product Attention, Categorization, and
Evaluation. Journal of Economic Psychology 18(2–3):271–287.
Schürer, Arnold (1971). Der Einfluss Produktbestimmender Faktoren
auf die Gestaltung. Clausthal-Zellerfeld: Boenecke-Druck.
Sirgy, M. Joseph (1982). Self-Concept in Consumer Behavior: A Crit-
ical Review. Journal of Consumer Research 9(3):287–300.
Smith, Eric (1994). Good Design Is indeed Good Business. Design
Management Journal 5(2):18–23 (Spring).
Solomon, Michael R. (1983). The Role of Products as Social Stimuli: A
Symbolic Interactionism Perspective. Journal of Consumer Research
10(3):319–329.
Srinivasan, V., Lovejoy, William S. and Beach, David. (1997). Inte-
grated Product Design for Marketability and Manufacturing. Jour-
nal of Marketing Research 34(1):154–163.
Sujan, Mita and Bettman, James R. (1989). The Effect of Brand Po-
sitioning Strategies on Consumers’ Brand and Category Percep-
tions: Some Insights from Schema Research. Journal of Marketing
Research 26(4):454–67.
Thackara, John (1997). Winners: How Successful Companies Innovate
by Design. Amsterdam: BIS.
Veryzer, Robert W. (1999). A Nonconscious Processing Explanation of
Consumer Response to Product Design. Psychology & Marketing
16(6):497–522.
Veryzer, Robert W., Jr. (1993). Aesthetic Response and the Influence
of Design Principles on Product Preferences. In: Advances in Con-
sumer Research. Leigh McAlister and Michael L. Rothschild (eds.).
Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research, 224–229.
PRODUCT APPEARANCE AND CONSUMER CHOICE
Veryzer, Robert W., Jr. (1995). The Place of Product Design and Aes-
thetics in Consumer Research. In: Advances in Consumer Research.
Frank R. Kardes and Mita Sujan (eds.). Provo, UT: Association
for Consumer Research, 641–645.
Veryzer, Robert W., Jr. and Hutchinson, J. Wesley (1998). The Influ-
ence of Unity and Prototypicality on Aesthetic Responses to New
Product Designs. Journal of Consumer Research 24(4):374–394.
Vihma, Susann (1995). Products as Representations: A Semiotic and Aes-
thetic Study of Design Products. Helsinki: University of Art and Design.
Ward, James and Loken, Barbara (1988). The Generality of Typicality
Effects on Preference and Comparison: An Exploratory Test. In:
J PROD INNOV MANAG 81
2005;22:63–81
Advances in Consumer Research. Michael J. Houston (ed.). Provo,
UT: Association for Consumer Research, 55–61.
Whitfield, Allan and Wiltshire, Tom (1983). Color. In: Industrial De-
sign in Engineering. Charles H. Flurscheim (ed.). Worcester, UK:
The Design Council, 133–157.
Whitfield, T.W.A. and Slatter, P.E. (1979). The Effects of Categoriza-
tion and Prototypicality on Aesthetic Choice in a Furniture Selec-
tion Task. British Journal of Psychology 70(1):65–75.
Yamamoto, Mel and Lambert, David R. (1994). The Impact of Prod-
uct Aesthetics on the Evaluation of Industrial Products. Journal of
Product Innovation Management 11(4):309–324.