A series of studies is presented which investigates preference among similar but different designs within a product category. The variables of price, brand name and ‘priming designer’ are shown to shift preferences. Without brand names, consumers prefer a well-designed object. When supplied with information about brand names and designer, they may shift their preferences to designs they believe are ‘designer’ brands, even when the actual design is not.
BBC News (2007) New recall of toys made in China.Business, 27 September.
3.
BlochP.H. (1995) Seeking the ideal form: product design and consumer response.Journal of Marketing, 59 (July), pp. 16–29.
4.
BlochP.H., BruneiF.F. & ArnoldT. (2003) Individual differences in the centrality of visual product aesthetics: concept and measurement.Journal of Consumer Research, 29 (March), pp. 551–565.
5.
BourdieuP. (1984) Distinction.London: Routledge.
6.
Business Week On-Line (2006) Hyundai's hunt for distinctive design.Business Week On-Line2, 23, p. 7.
7.
ChitturiR., RaghunathanR. & MahajanV. (2008) Delight by design: the role of hedonic versus utilitarian benefits.Journal of Marketing, 72 (May), pp. 48–63.
8.
CsikszentmihalyiM. & RobinsonR.E. (1990) The Art of Seeing.Malibu, CA: J. Paul Getty Museum.
9.
DawarN. & ParkerP. (1994) Marketing universals: consumers’ use of brand name, price, physical appearances, and retailer reputation as signals of product quality.Journal of Marketing, 58 (April), pp. 81–95.
10.
DouglasM. (1996), Thought Styles.London: Sage.
11.
FabricantF. (2006) Tea's new bag.Globe and Mail, 16 September, p. L2.
12.
HagtvedtH. & PatrickV.M. (2008) Art infusion: the influence of visual art on the perception and evaluation of consumer products.Journal of Marketing Research, 45 (June), pp. 379–389.
13.
HeiderF. (1958) The Psychology of Interpersonal Relations.New York: Wiley.
14.
HeskettJ. (2002) Toothpicks and Logos: Design in Everyday Life.Oxford: Oxford University Press.
15.
HoefflerS. & KellerK.L. (2003) The marketing advantages of strong brands.Brand Management, 10, 6 (August), pp. 421–445.
16.
IIPA (2007) The Copyright Industries Note USTR Decisions in its Annual Special 301 Report.Washington, DC: International Intellectual Property Alliance.
17.
JohnsonM.D. & LehmannD.L. (1997) Consumer experience and consideration sets for brands and product categories. In MacInnisD. & BrucksM. (eds) Advances in Consumer Research, 24, Association for Consumer Research, pp. 295–300.
18.
KellerK.L. (1993) Conceptualizing, measuring, and managing customer-based brand equity, Journal of Marketing, 57, 1, pp. 1–22.
19.
LangleyA., MintzbergH., PitcherP., PosadaE. & Saint-MacaryJ. (1995) Opening up decision making: the view from the black stool.Organization Science, 6, 3 (May/June), pp. 260–279.
20.
LeeA.Y. & LabrooA.A. (2004) The effect of conceptual and perceptual fluency on brand evaluation.Journal of Marketing Research, XLI (May), pp. 151–165.
21.
LichtensteinD.R., BlochP.R. & BlackW.C. (1988) Correlates of price acceptability.Journal of Consumer Research, 15 (September), pp. 243–252.
22.
LoewensteinG.F., WeberE.U., HseeC.K. & WelchN. (2001) Risk as feelings.Psychological Bulletin, 127, 2, pp. 267–286.
23.
LouieE. (2006) Bill Stumpf, 70, a designer of the Aeron chair, dies.New York Times, 10 September, p. 15.
24.
LuoL., KannanP.K. & RatchfordB.T. (2008) Incorporating subjective characteristics in product design and evaluations.Journal of Marketing Research, 45, 2, (May) pp. 181–194.
25.
McCrackenG. (1988) Culture and consumption: a theoretical account of the structure and movement of cultural meaning of consumer goods.Journal of Consumer Research, 13 (June), pp. 71–84.
26.
McCubbinsT.F. (2004) Product design, trade dress and the law.Business Horizons, 47, 1 (January/February), pp. 3–6.
27.
MicucciD. (2003) Dismantling of work by Noguchi sets off protests.International Herald Tribune, 25–26 October, p. 6.
28.
National Post (2007) No Fugly on the floor.National Post, 7 July, p. WP 6.
29.
OrthU.R. & MalkewitzK. (2008), Holistic package design and consumer brand impressions. Journal of Marketing, 72 (May), pp. 64–81.
30.
PetroskiH. (1994) The Evolution of Useful Things: How Everyday Artefacts – from Forks and Pins to Paper Clips and Zippers – Came to Be as They Are.New York: Vintage Books.
31.
ReberR., SchwarzN. & WinkielmanP. (2004) Processing fluency and aesthetic pleasure: is beauty in the perceiver's processing experience?Review of Personality and Social Psychology, 8, 4, pp. 364–382.
32.
ReimannM., NewhausC., WeberB. & ZaichkowskyJ. (2008) Using the fMRI to understand consumer perception of differentiation among low involvement goods. Working paper, Stanford, Department of Psychology.
33.
SrinivasanV., LovejoyW.S. & BeachD. (1997) Integrated product design for marketability and manufacturing.Journal of Marketing Research, 34, 1, pp. 154–163.
34.
TverskyA. & KahnemanD. (1981) The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice.Science, 211, pp. 453–458.
35.
Van OsselaerS.M.J. & AlbaJ.W. (2000) Consumer learning and brand equity.Journal of Consumer Research, 27 (June), pp. 1–16.
36.
VeryzerR.W.Jr (1995) The place of product design and aesthetics in consumer research. In KardesF. & SujanM. (eds) Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 22, Association for Consumer Research, Provo, Utah, pp. 641–645.
37.
VeryzerR.W.Jr (1999) A nonconscious processing explanation of consumer response to product design.Psychology and Marketing, 16 (September), pp. 497–522.
38.
VeryzerR.W.Jr & HutchinsonJ.W. (1998) The influence of unity and prototypicality on aesthetic responses to new product designs.Journal of Consumer Research, 24 (March) pp. 374–394.
39.
WinkielmanP., HalberstadtJ., FazendeiroT. & CattyS. (2006) Prototypes are attractive because they are easy on the mind.Psychological Science, 17, 9, pp. 799–806.
40.
ZajoncR.B. (1980) Feeling and thinking: preferences need no inferences.American Psychologist, 35, 2, pp. 151–175.
41.
ZolliA. (2004) Why design matters more.American Demographics, October, pp. 52–53.
