This research integrates marketing literature, design theory, interviews with world-renowned designers, and established scale development procedures to develop a reliable and valid instrument that measures the effectiveness of design communication (i.e., the information about product designs conveyed through the product, packaging, or advertisements) via consumer evaluations. The theoretical underpinnings and face validity engaged in the development of the Design Communication Assessment Scale (DCAS) progresses the field's understanding as to what constitutes the seven evaluative dimensions of design (form, function, solidity, usefulness, style, eco-consciousness, and uniqueness). Practically, DCAS's versatility provides managers with the ability to gauge consumer evaluations of design communications while enabling better communications with designers. In addition, the authors validate a shortened form of the DCAS for resource-constrained firms. Support for DCAS’s generalizability is provided across laboratory and field studies in which ecological validity is established. Together, these studies demonstrate that using DCAS leads to improved performance across a wide array of metrics, including click-through rates, email signups, and retail sales for a diverse set of products.
AllenRobert C. (2009), The British Industrial Revolution in Global Perspective. Cambridge University Press.
2.
ArielyDanLevavJonathan (2000), “Sequential Choice in Group Settings: Taking the Road Less Traveled and Less Enjoyed,” Journal of Consumer Research, 27 (3), 279–90.
3.
BagozziRichard P.YiYoujae (1988), “On the Evaluation of Structural Equation Models,” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 16 (1), 74–94.
4.
BagozziRichard P. and YiYoujae (2012), “Specification, Evaluation, and Interpretation of Structural Equation Models,” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 40 (1), 8–34.
5.
BagozziRichard P.YiYoujaePhillipsLynn W. (1991), “Assessing Construct Validity in Organizational Research,” Administrative Science Quarterly, 36 (3), 421–58.
6.
BelkRussell W. (1988), “Possessions and the Extended Self,” Journal of Consumer Research, 15 (2), 139–68.
7.
BellezzaSilviaGinoFrancescaKeinanAnat (2014), “The Red Sneakers Effect: Inferring Status and Competence from Signals of Nonconformity,” Journal of Consumer Research, 41 (1), 35–54.
8.
BlijlevensJannekeThurgoodClementineHekkertPaulChenLin-LinLederHelmutWhitfieldT.W. (2017), “The Aesthetic Pleasure in Design Scale: The Development of a Scale to Measure Aesthetic Pleasure for Designed Artifacts.,” Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 11 (1), 86–98.
9.
BlochPeter H. (2011), “Product Design and Marketing: Reflections After Fifteen Years,” Journal of Product Innovation Management, 28 (3), 378–80.
10.
BlochPeter H.BrunelFrederic F.ArnoldTodd J. (2003), “Individual Differences in the Centrality of Visual Product Aesthetics: Concept and Measurement,” Journal of Consumer Research, 29 (4), 551–65.
11.
BöckenholtUlfLehmannDonald R. (2015), “On the Limits of Research Rigidity: The Number of Items in a Scale,” Marketing Letters, 26 (3), 257–60.
12.
BrophyVivienneLewisJ.O. (2011), A Green Vitruvius: Principles and Practice of Sustainable Architectural Design. Routledge.
13.
ChingFrancis D. (2014), Architecture: Form, Space, and Order. John Wiley & Sons.
14.
ChitturiRavindraRaghunathanRajagopalMahajanVijay (2008), “Delight by Design: The Role of Hedonic Versus Utilitarian Benefits,” Journal of Marketing, 72 (3), 48–63.
15.
DahlDarren W. (2011), “Clarity in Defining Product Design: Inspiring Research Opportunities for the Design Process,” Journal of Product Innovation Management, 28 (3), 425–27.
EppingerStevenUlrichKarl (2015), Product Design and Development. McGraw-Hill Higher Education.
18.
FiellCharlotteFiellPeter (2016), The Story of Design: From the Paleolithic to the Present. Monacelli Press.
19.
FornellClaesLarckerDavid F. (1981), “Evaluating Structural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error,” Journal of Marketing Research, 18 (1), 39–50.
20.
GilalNaeem GulZhangJingGilalFaheem Gul (2018), “The Four-Factor Model of Product Design: Scale Development and Validation,” Journal of Product & Brand Management, 27 (6), 684–700.
21.
GivechiRoshiVelázquezVelma L. (2003), “Positive Space,” in Design and Emotion, Deana McDonagh, Paul Hekkert, Jeroen van Erp and Diane Gyi, eds. CRC Press, 46–51.
22.
GriffinAbbieHauserJohn R. (1993), “The Voice of the Customer,” Marketing Science, 12 (1), 1–27.
23.
GriskeviciusVladasTyburJoshua M.Van den BerghBram (2010), “Going Green to Be Seen: Status, Reputation, and Conspicuous Conservation,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98 (3), 392–404.
24.
GwiltJoseph (1826), The Architecture of Marcus Vitruvius Pollio, in Ten Books. Priestley and Weale.
25.
HairJoseph F.BlackWilliam C.BabinBarry J.AndersonRolph E.TathamRonald L. (1998), Multivariate Data Analysis. Prentice Hall.
26.
HamiltonRebeccaThompsonDeboraBoneSterlingChaplinLan NguyenGriskeviciusVladasGoldsmithKellyHillRonaldJohnDeborah RoedderMittalChiraagO’GuinnThomasPiffPaulRouxCarolineShahAnujZhuMeng (2019), “The Effects of Scarcity on Consumer Decision Journeys,” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 47 (3), 532–50.
27.
HanSung H.HongSang W. (2003), “A Systematic Approach for Coupling User Satisfaction with Product Design,” Ergonomics, 46 (13–14), 1441–61.
28.
HawsKelly L.SampleKevin L.HullandJohn (2023), “Scale Use and Abuse: Towards Best Practices in the Deployment of Scales,” Journal of Consumer Psychology, 33 (1), 226–43.
29.
HawsKelly L.WinterichKaren P.NaylorRebecca W. (2014), “Seeing the World Through GREEN-Tinted Glasses: Green Consumption Values and Responses to Environmentally Friendly Products,” Journal of Consumer Psychology, 24 (3), 336–54.
30.
HaywardStephen (1998), “‘Good Design Is Largely a Matter of Common Sense’: Questioning the Meaning and Ownership of a Twentieth-Century Orthodoxy,” Journal of Design History, 11 (3), 217–33.
31.
HekkertPaul (2006), “Design Aesthetics: Principles of Pleasure in Design,” Psychology Science, 48 (2), 157–72.
32.
HenselerJörgRingleChristian M.SarstedtMarko (2015), “A New Criterion for Assessing Discriminant Validity in Variance-Based Structural Equation Modeling,” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 43 (1), 115–35.
33.
HoeggJoAndreaAlbaJoseph W. (2011), “Seeing Is Believing (Too Much): The Influence of Product Form on Perceptions of Functional Performance,” Journal of Product Innovation Management, 28 (3), 346–59.
34.
HomburgChristianSchwemmleMartinKuehnlChristina (2015), “New Product Design: Concept, Measurement, and Consequences,” Journal of Marketing, 79 (3), 41–56.
35.
HuLi-TzeBentlerPeter M. (1995), “Evaluating Model Fit,” in Structural Equation Modeling: Concepts, Issues, and Applications, R.H. Hoyle, ed. Sage, 76–99.
36.
HuLi-TzeBentlerPeter M. (1999), “Cutoff Criteria for Fit Indexes in Covariance Structure Analysis: Conventional Criteria Versus New Alternatives,” Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6 (1), 1–55.
37.
IrmakCaglarVallenBethSenSankar (2010), “You Like What I Like, But I Don’t Like What You Like: Uniqueness Motivations in Product Preferences,” Journal of Consumer Research, 37 (3), 443–55.
38.
JindalRupinder P.SarangeeKumar R.EchambadiRajLeeSangwon (2016), “Designed to Succeed: Dimensions of Product Design and Their Impact on Market Share,” Journal of Marketing, 80 (4), 72–89.
39.
JöreskogKarl G. (1969), “A General Approach to Confirmatory Maximum Likelihood Factor Analysis,” Psychometrika, 34 (2), 183–202.
KanoNoriakiSerakuNobuhikuTakahashiFumioTsujiShinichi (1984), “Attractive Quality and Must-Be Quality,” Journal of Japanese Society for Quality Control, 14 (2), 39–48.
42.
KuporDaniellaLaurinKristin (2020), “Probable Cause: The Influence of Prior Probabilities on Forecasts and Perceptions of Magnitude,” Journal of Consumer Research, 46 (5), 833–52.
43.
LiuYanLiKrista J.ChenHaipengBalachanderSubramanian (2017), “The Effects of Products’ Aesthetic Design on Demand and Marketing-Mix Effectiveness: The Role of Segment Prototypicality and Brand Consistency,” Journal of Marketing, 81 (1), 83–102.
44.
LuchsMichael G.NaylorRebecca W.IrwinJulie R.RaghunathanRajagopal (2010), “The Sustainability Liability: Potential Negative Effects of Ethicality on Product Preference,” Journal of Marketing, 74 (5), 18–31.
45.
LuchsMichaelSwanK. Scott (2011), “Perspective: The Emergence of Product Design as a Field of Marketing Inquiry,” Journal of Product Innovation Management, 28 (3), 327–45.
46.
MoonHakilParkJeongdooKimSangkyun (2015), “The Importance of an Innovative Product Design on Customer Behavior: Development and Validation of a Scale,” Journal of Product Innovation Management, 32 (2), 224–32.
47.
MoreauC. PageMarkmanArthur B.LehmannDonald R. (2001), “What Is It? Categorization Flexibility and Consumers’ Responses to Really New Products,” Journal of Consumer Research, 27 (4), 489–98.
48.
NetemeyerRichard G.BeardenWilliam O.SharmaSubhash (2003), Scaling Procedures: Issues and Applications. Sage.
49.
NormanDonald A. (2013), The Design of Everyday Things: Revised and Expanded Edition. Basic Books.
50.
NoseworthyTheodore J.TrudelRemi (2011), “Looks Interesting, but What Does It Do? Evaluation of Incongruent Product Form Depends on Positioning,” Journal of Marketing Research, 48 (6), 1008–19.
51.
NunnallyJum C. (1978), Psychometric Theory, 2nd ed.McGraw-Hill.
52.
OrthUlrich R.MalkewitzKeven (2008), “Holistic Package Design and Consumer Brand Impressions,” Journal of Marketing, 72 (3), 64–81.
53.
PlousScott (1993), The Psychology of Judgment and Decision Making. McGraw-Hill.
54.
RahmanSyed MahmudurCarlsonJamieGuderganSiegfried P.WetzelsMartinGrewalDhruv (2022), “Perceived Omnichannel Customer Experience (OCX): Concept, Measurement, and Impact,” Journal of Retailing, 98 (4), 611–32.
55.
RamsDieter (2014), Less but Better. Gestalten.
56.
SampleKevin L.HagtvedtHenrikBraselS. Adam (2020), “Components of Visual Perception in Marketing Contexts: A Conceptual Framework and Review,” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 48 (3), 405–21.
57.
SeidersKathleenVossGlenn B.GodfreyAndrea L.GrewalDhruv (2007), “SERVCON: Development and Validation of a Multidimensional Service Convenience Scale,” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 35 (1), 144–56.
58.
SimonsonItamarNowlisStephen M. (2000), “The Role of Explanations and Need for Uniqueness in Consumer Decision Making: Unconventional Choices Based on Reasons,” Journal of Consumer Research, 27 (1), 49–68.
59.
SrinivasanV.LovejoyWilliam S.BeachDavid (1997), “Integrated Product Design for Marketability and Manufacturing,” Journal of Marketing Research, 34 (1), 154–63.
60.
SteigerJames H. (2007), “Understanding the Limitations of Global Fit Assessment in Structural Equation Modeling,” Personality and Individual Differences, 42 (5), 893–98.
61.
SullivanLouis H. (1896), “The Tall Office Building Artistically Considered,” Lippincott’s Magazine, 57 (3), 406–09.
62.
SykesKrista, ed. (2007), The Architecture Reader: Essential Writings from Vitruvius to the Present. George Braziller.
63.
TezerAliBodurH. Onur (2020), “The Greenconsumption Effect: How Using Green Products Improves Consumption Experience,” Journal of Consumer Research, 47 (1), 25–39.
64.
TianKelly T.BeardenWilliam O.HunterGary L. (2001), “Consumers’ Need for Uniqueness: Scale Development and Validation,” Journal of Consumer Research, 28 (1), 50–66.
65.
TormalaZakary L.JiaJayson S.NortonMichael I. (2012), “The Preference for Potential,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 103 (4), 567–83.
66.
TownsendClaudiaSoodSanjay (2012), “Self-Affirmation Through the Choice of Highly Aesthetic Products,” Journal of Consumer Research, 39 (2), 415–28.
67.
VoorheesClay M.BradyMichael K.CalantoneRogerRamirezEdward (2016), “Discriminant Validity Testing in Marketing: An Analysis, Causes for Concern, and Proposed Remedies,” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 44 (1), 119–34.
68.
WatsonDavidClarkLee A.TellegenAuke (1988), “Development and Validation of Brief Measures of Positive and Negative Affect: The PANAS Scales,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54 (6), 1063–70.
69.
ZeithamlValarie A. (1988), “Consumer Perceptions of Price, Quality, and Value: A Means-End Model and Synthesis of Evidence,” Journal of Marketing, 52 (3), 2–22.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
