Product design can be considered a communication tool that results in cognitive and affective responses. This research builds on MacKenzie et al.’s advertising persuasion models to determine whether the persuasion process induced by product design operates according to a hierarchy of effects, both directly through an affect transfer process and indirectly through product cognitions. The findings provide evidence of the existence of direct and indirect routes for both functional and symbolic beliefs. They highlight the effect of stylistic choices on consumers’ affective, cognitive and behavioural responses.
AakerJL (1997) Dimensions of brand personality. Journal of Marketing Research34(3): 347–356.
2.
AckermannC-LMathieuJ-P (2015) Implicit attitudes and their measurement: Theoretical foundations and use in consumer behaviour research. Recherche et Applications en Marketing30(2): 55–77.
3.
BarryTE (2002) In defense of the hierarchy of effects: A rejoinder to Weilbacher. Journal of Advertising Research42(3): 44–47.
4.
BergkvistLRossiterJR (2007) The predictive validity of multiple-item versus single-item measures of the same constructs. Journal of Marketing Research44(2): 175–184.
5.
BergkvistLRossiterJR (2008) Comparaison des validités prédictives des mesures d’un même construit des échelles mono-item et des échelles multi-items. Recherche et Applications en Marketing23(1): 81–96.
6.
BlijlevensJCarbonCCMuggeRet al. (2012) Aesthetic appraisal of product designs: Independent effects of typicality and arousal. British Journal of Psychology103(1): 44–57.
7.
BlochPH (1995) Seeking the ideal form: Product design and consumer response. Journal of Marketing59(3): 16–29.
8.
BlochPHBrunelFFArnoldTJ (2003) Individual differences in the centrality of visual product aesthetics: Concept and measurement. Journal of Consumer Research29(4): 551–565.
9.
CelhayFTrinquecosteJF (2015) Package graphic design: Investigating the variables that moderate consumer response to atypical designs. Journal of Product Innovation Management32(6): 1014–1032.
10.
CelhayFBoysselleJCohenJ (2015) Food packages and communication through typeface design: The exoticism of exotypes. Food Quality and Preference39: 167–175.
11.
ChaikenS (1987) The heuristic model of persuasion. In: ZannaMPOlsonJMHermanCP (eds) Social Influence: The Ontario Symposium, Vol. 5. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp. 3–39.
12.
ClaudyMCGarciaRO’DriscollA (2015) Consumer resistance to innovation – A behavioral reasoning perspective. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science43(4): 528–544.
13.
CreusenMEHSchoormansJPL (2005) The different roles of product appearance in consumer choice. Journal of Product Innovation Management22(1): 63–81.
14.
CrillyNMoultrieJClarksonPJ (2004) Seeing things: Consumer response to the visual domain in product design. Design Studies25(6): 547–577.
15.
CsikszentmihalyiMRobinsonRE (1990) The Art of Seeing: An Interpretation of the Aesthetic Encounter. Malibu, CA: J. Paul Getty Museum.
16.
DanoF (1996) Packaging: Une approche sémiotique. Recherche et Applications en Marketing11(1): 23–35.
17.
DanoF (1998) Contribution de la sémiotique à la conception des conditionnements: Application à deux catégories de produits. Recherche et Applications en Marketing13(2): 9–29.
18.
DavisFD (1989) Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly13(3): 319–339.
19.
Dell’EraCVergantiR (2011) Diffusion processes of product meanings in design-intensive industries: Determinants and dynamics. Journal of Product Innovation Management28(6): 881–895.
20.
FeiereisenSWongVBroderickAJ (2008) Analogies and mental simulations in learning for really new products: The role of visual attention. Journal of Product Innovation Management25(6): 593–607.
21.
FishbeinMAjzenI (1975) Belief, Attitude, Intention, and Behavior: An Introduction to Theory and Research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
22.
FornellCLarckerDF (1981) Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research18(1): 39–50.
23.
Fort-RiocheLAckermannC-L (2013) Consumer innovativeness, perceived innovation and attitude toward ‘neo-retro’ product design. European Journal of Innovation Management16(4): 495–516.
24.
GatignonHRobertsonTS (1985) A propositional inventory for new diffusion research. Journal of Consumer Research11(4): 849–867.
25.
HayesAF (2013) Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis: A Regression-Based Approach. New York: The Guilford Press.
26.
HoeggJAAlbaJWDahlDW (2010) The good, the bad, and the ugly: Influence of aesthetics on product feature judgments. Journal of Consumer Psychology20(4): 419–430.
27.
HoeggJAAlbaJW (2008) A role for aesthetics in consumer psychology. In: KardesFHaugtvedtCHerrP (eds) Handbook of Consumer Psychology. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp. 733–754.
28.
HollinsBPughS (1990) Successful Product Design: What to Do and When. London: Butterworths.
29.
JacquemierL (2005) The influence of smell on the perception of the produced benefit: The mechanisms of persuasion of the smell [L’influence de l’odeur sur la perception du bénéfice produit: les mécanismes de persuasion de l’odeur]. Doctoral Thesis, Université de Caen Normandie, Caen.
30.
KarjalainenTMSneldersD (2010) Designing visual recognition for the brand. Journal of Product Innovation Management27(1): 6–22.
31.
KreuzbauerRMalterAJ (2005) Embodied cognition and new product design: Changing product form to influence brand categorization. Journal of Product Innovation Management22(2): 165–176.
32.
LavidgeRJSteinerGA (1961) A model for predictive measurements of advertising effectiveness. Journal of Marketing25(6): 59–62.
33.
LittelSOrthUR (2013) Effects of package visuals and haptics on brand evaluations. European Journal of Marketing47(1–2): 198–217.
34.
LordKRPutrevuS (2006) Exploring the dimensionality of the need for cognition scale. Psychology & Marketing23(1): 11–34.
35.
MacKenzieSLutzRBelchG (1986) The role of attitude toward the ad as a mediator of advertising effectiveness: A test of competing explanations. Journal of Marketing Research23(2): 130–143.
36.
MathieuJ-PLe RayM (2006a) Universal forms and proportions [Formes et proportions universelles]. In: MathieuJ-P (ed.) Design and Marketing, Foundations and Methods [Design et Marketing, Fondements et Méthodes]. Paris: L’Harmattan, pp. 41–79.
37.
MathieuJ-PLe RayM (2006b) Universality of forms, remarkable proportions and marketing [Universalité des formes, proportions remarquables et marketing]. Management et Sciences Sociales2(2): 235–257.
38.
MitchellAAOlsonJC (1981) Are product attribute beliefs the only mediator of advertising effects on brand attitude?Journal of Marketing Research18(3): 318–332.
39.
MuggeRSchoormansJPL (2012) Newer is better! The influence of a novel appearance on the perceived performance quality of products. Journal of Engineering Design23(6): 469–484.
40.
NobleCH (2011) On elevating strategic design research. Journal of Product Innovation Management28(3): 389–393.
41.
NobleCHKumarM (2010) Exploring the appeal of product design: A grounded, value-based model of key-design elements and relationships. Journal of Product Innovation Management27(5): 640–657.
42.
OrthURMalkewitzK (2008) Holistic package design and consumer brand impressions. Journal of Marketing72(3): 64–81.
43.
OrthURCampanaDMalkewitzK (2010) Formation of consumer price expectation based on package design: Attractive and quality routes. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice18(1): 23–40.
44.
PageCHerrPM (2002) An investigation of the processes by which product design and brand strength interact to determine initial affect and quality judgments. Journal of Consumer Psychology12(2): 133–147.
45.
Pantin-SohierG (2004) The influence of the colour and the shape of the packaging of the product on the perception of the personality of the brand [L’influence de la couleur et de la forme du packaging du produit sur la perception de la personnalité de la marque]. Doctoral Thesis, Université de Caen Normandie, Caen.
46.
Pantin-SohierG (2009) The Influence of the Product Package on Functional and Symbolic Associations of Brand Image.Recherche et Applications en Marketing24(2): 53–71.
47.
PersonOSchoormansJSneldersDet al. (2008) Should new products look similar or different? The influence of the market environment on strategic product styling. Design Studies29(1): 30–48.
48.
PetiotJ-FYannouB (2004) Measuring consumer perceptions for a better comprehension, specification and assessment of product semantics. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics33(6): 507–525.
49.
PettyRECacioppoJT (1986) The Elaboration Likelihood Model of persuasion. In: BerkowitzL (ed.) Advances in Experimental Social Psychology. London: Academic Press, pp. 123–204.
50.
PodsakoffPMMacKenzieSBLeeJ-Yet al. (2003) Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology88(5): 879–903.
51.
PreacherKJHayesAF (2008) Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods40(3): 879–891.
52.
RadfordSKBlochPH (2011) Linking innovation to design: Consumer responses to visual product newness. Journal of Product Innovation Management28(1): 208–220.
53.
RogersEM (1962) Diffusion of Innovations, 1st edition.New York: The Free Press.
54.
ShimpTA (1981) Attitude toward the ad as a mediator of consumer brand choice. Journal of Advertising10(2): 9–48.
55.
TrendelOWarlopL (2005) Présentation et application des mesures implicites de restitution mémorielle en marketing. Recherche et Applications en Marketing20(2): 77–104.
56.
TruongYKlinkRKFort-RiocheLet al. (2014) Consumer response to product form in technologically-based industries: The role of consumer innovativeness and design acumen. Journal of Product Innovation Management31(4): 867–876.
57.
Van RompayTJPruynATTiekeP (2009) Symbolic meaning integration in design and its influence on product and brand evaluation. International Journal of Design3(2): 19–26.
58.
VergantiR (2008) Design, meanings, and radical innovation: A metamodel and a research agenda. Journal of Product Innovation Management25(5): 436–456.
59.
VernetteE (1987) Identifier les attributs déterminants: Une comparaison de six méthodes. Recherche et Application en Marketing2(4): 1–21.
60.
VeryzerRW (1993) Aesthetic response and the influence of design principles on product preferences. In: McAlisterLRothschildML (eds) Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 20. Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research, pp. 224–228.
61.
VeryzerRW (1999) A nonconscious processing explanation of consumer response to product design. Psychology & Marketing16(6): 497–522.
62.
VeryzerRWHutchinsonJW (1998) The influence of unity and prototypicality on aesthetic responses to new product designs. Journal of Consumer Research24(4): 374–394.
63.
WeilbacherWM (2001) Point of view: Does advertising cause a ‘Hierarchy of Effects’?Journal of Advertising Research41(6): 19–26.
64.
WuL-LLinJ-Y (2006) The quality of consumers’ decision-making in the environment of e-commerce. Psychology & Marketing23(4): 297–311.
65.
ZaichkowskyJL (1994) The Personal Involvement Inventory: Reduction, revision, and application to advertising. Journal of Advertising23(4): 59–70.
66.
ZhaoMHoefflerSDahlDW (2009) The role of imagination-focused visualization on new product evaluation. Journal of Marketing Research46(1): 46–55.
