Innovative visual design plays an important role in marketing for attracting consumers’ attention in-store. Drawing upon thinking styles and design literature, this research investigates how consumers’ different thinking styles influence their evaluations of and attitudes toward the innovative visual design via perceived functional innovativeness. Findings indicate that consumers with a holistic (vs. analytic) thinking style, who integrate perspectives and open-mindsets, show more favorable attitudes toward a product with an innovative visual design. The results emphasize the mediating role of visually hinted functional innovativeness on the effect of a holistic thinking style on consumer attitudes.
BatraR.AhtolaO. T. (1991). Measuring the hedonic and utilitarian sources of consumer attitudes. Marketing Letters, 2, 159–170. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00436035
BlochP. H.BrunelF. F.ArnoldT. J. (2003). Individual differences in the centrality of visual product aesthetics: Concept and measurement. Journal of Consumer Research, 29(4), 551–565. https://doi.org/10.1086/346250
8.
BorgidaE.NisbettR. E. (1977). The differential impact of abstract vs. concrete information on decisions. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 7, 258–271. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.1977.tb00750.x
ChiuL.-H. (1972). A cross-cultural comparison of cognitive styles in Chinese and American children. International Journal of Psychology, 7(4), 235–242. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207597208246604
11.
ChoiI.DalalR.Kim-PrietoC.ParkH. (2003). Culture and judgement of causal relevance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84(1), 46–59. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.84.1.46
12.
ChoiI.KooM.ChoiJ. A. (2007). Individual differences in analytic vs. holistic thinking. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33(5), 691–705. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167206298568
13.
ClementJ. (2007). Visual influence on in-store buying decisions: An eye-track experiment on the visual influence of packaging design. Journal of Marketing Management, 23(9–10), 917–928. https://doi.org/10.1362/026725707X250395
14.
ClementJ.AastrupJ.ForsbergS. C. (2015). Decisive visual saliency and consumers’ in-store decisions. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 22, 187–194. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2014.09.002
15.
ClementJ.KristensenT.GrønhaugK. (2013). Understanding consumers’ in-store visual perception: The influence of package design features on visual attention. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 20(2), 234–239. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2013.01.003
16.
CreusenM. E. H.SchoormansJ. P. L. (2005). The different roles of product appearance in consumer choice. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 22(1), 63–81. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0737-6782.2005.00103.x
17.
CrillyN.MoultrieJ.ClarksonP. J. (2004). Seeing things: Consumer response to the visual domain in product design. Design Studies, 25(6), 547–577. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2004.03.001
18.
CrozierR. (1994). Manufactured pleasures: Psychological responses to design. Manchester University Press.
19.
GoodeM. R.DahlD. W.MoreauC. P. (2013). Innovation aesthetics: The relationship between category cues, categorization certainty, and newness perceptions. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 30(2), 192–208. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5885.2012.00995.x
20.
HagtvedtH.PatrickV. M. (2014). Consumer response to overstyling: Balancing aesthetics and functionality in product design. Psychology and Marketing, 31(7), 518–525. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.20713
21.
HayesA. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. Guilford Press.
22.
HoeggJ.AlbaJ. W.DahlD. W. (2010). The good, the bad, and the ugly: Influence of aesthetics on product feature judgments. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 20(4), 419–430. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcps.2010.07.002
23.
HolbrookM.BatraR. (1987). Assessing the role of emotions as mediators of responses to consumer advertising. Journal of Consumer Research, 14(3), 404–420. https://doi.org/10.1086/209123
24.
HolbrookM. B.MooreW. L. (1981). Feature interactions in consumer judgments of verbal versus pictorial presentations. Journal of Consumer Research, 8(1), 103–113. https://doi.org/10.1086/208846
25.
HomburgC.SchwemmleM.KuehnlC. (2015). New product design: Concept, measurement, and consequences. Journal of Marketing, 79, 41–56. http://dx.doi.org/10.1509/jm.14.0199
26.
HongJ. H.ByunK. A. (2020). Communicating design innovativeness: The role of design information presentation on attitudes depending on different thinking styles. Journal of Marketing Communications, 26(4), 394–413. https://doi.org/10.1080/13527266.2018.1511627
27.
KellerP. A.BlockL. G. (1997). Vividness effects: A resource-matching perspective. Journal of Consumer Research, 24(3), 295–304. https://doi.org/10.1086/209511
28.
KühnenU.HannoverB.SchubertB. (2001). The semantic-procedural interface model of the self: The role of self-knowledge for context-dependent versus context-independent modes of thinking. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80(3), 397–409. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.80.3.397
29.
LandwehrJ. R.WentzelD.HerrmannA. (2013). Product design for the long run: Consumer responses to typical and atypical designs at different stages of exposure. Journal of Marketing, 77(5), 92–107. https://doi.org/10.1509/jm.11.0286
30.
LeeL.LeeM. P.BertiniM.ZaubermanG.ArielyD. (2015). Money, time, and the stability of consumer preferences. Journal of Marketing Research, 52(2), 184–199.
31.
LiuY.LiK. J.ChenH. (Allan)BalachanderS. (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. https://doi.org/10.1509/jm.15.0315
32.
ManningK. C.BeardenW. O.MaddenT. J. (1995). Consumer innovativeness and the adoption process. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 4(4), 329–345.
33.
MarkusH. R.KitayamaS. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98, 224–253. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.98.2.224
34.
MeadeA. W.CraigS. B. (2012). Identifying careless responses in survey data. Psychological Methods, 17(3), 437–455. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0028085
35.
Meyers-LevyJ.TyboutA. (1989). Schema congruity as basis for product evaluation. Journal of Consumer Research, 16(1), 39–54. https://doi.org/10.1086/209192
36.
MongaA. B.JohnD. R. (2007). Cultural differences in brand extension evaluation: The influence of analytic versus holistic thinking. Journal of Consumer Research, 33(4), 529–536. https://doi.org/10.1086/510227
37.
MongaA. B.JohnD. R. (2008). When does negative brand publicity hurt? The moderating influence of analytic versus holistic thinking. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 18(4), 320–332. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcps.2008.09.009
38.
MongaA. B.JohnD. R. (2010). What makes brands elastic? The influence of brand concept and styles of thinking on brand extension evaluation. Journal of Marketing, 74(3), 80–92. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.74.3.80
39.
MoonH.MillerD. R.KimS. H. (2013). Product design innovation and customer value: Cross-cultural research in the United States and Korea. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 30(1), 31–43. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5885.2012.00984.x
40.
MoonH.ParkJ.KimS. (2015). The importance of an innovative product design on customer behavior: Development and validation of a scale. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 32(2), 224–232. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpim.12172
41.
NisbettR. E.PengK.ChoiI.NorenzayanA. (2001). Culture and systems of thought: Holistic versus analytic cognition. Psychological Review, 108(2), 291–310. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295x.108.2.291
42.
PageC.HerrP. M. (2002). An investigation of the processes by which product design and brand strength interact to determine initial affect and quality judgments. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 12(2), 133–147. https://doi.org/10.1207/153276602760078668
PeracchioL. A.TyboutA. M. (1996). The moderating role of prior knowledge in schema-based product evaluation. Journal of Consumer Research, 23(3), 177–192. https://doi.org/10.1086/209475
45.
RadfordS. K.BlochP. H. (2011). Linking innovation to design: Consumer responses to visual product newness. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 28(Suppl. 1), 208–220. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5885.2011.00871.x
46.
RamseyR. P.Deeter-SchmelzD. R. (2008). An assessment of the psychometric properties of the style-of-processing (Sop)scale: How do we measure individuals’ verbal/visual information-processing preferences?The Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 16(1), 41–55. https://doi.org/10.2753/MTP1069-6679160103
StantonS. J.TownsendJ. D.KangW. (2016). Aesthetic responses to prototypicality and uniqueness of product design. Marketing Letters, 27(2), 235–246. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11002-015-9368-8
49.
SuL.GaoL. (2014). Strategy compatibility: The time versus money effect on product evaluation strategies. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 24(4), 549–556.
YamamotoM.LambertD. R. (1994). The impact of product aesthetics on the evaluation of industrial products. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 11(4), 309–324. https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-5885.1140309
53.
ZhuR. (Juliet)Meyers-LevyJ. (2009). The influence of self-view on context effects: How display fixtures can affect product evaluations. Journal of Marketing Research, 46(1), 37–45. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkr.46.1.37
