HOME Session 1.

Title: The role of product appearance in a purchase decision: A study into telephone
purchases in retail outlets

Author: Mariëlle E.H. Creusen1

Assistant Professor of Marketing
Delft University of Technology

Track: Rethinking Consumer Decision Making

Contact address:
Mariëlle Creusen
Delft University of Technology
School of Industrial Design Engineering
Department of Product Innovation and Management
Jaffalaan 9, 2628 BX Delft, The Netherlands
Telephone +31 15 278 5566, Fax +31 15 278 7662
E-mail m.e.h.creusen@io.tudelft.nl

1
The author thanks Kirsten van Ansem for her help in performing this study
HOME Session 1.5

The role of product appearance in a purchase decision:

A study into telephone purchases in retail outlets

Abstract

The role of product appearance in durable product purchases is investigated by interviewing

consumers about their product choice in store, just after they bought a telephone. Both free-
response questions and rating scales are used. The appearance is important to subjects in
choosing their telephone, and its role is mainly aesthetic. However, subjects also mentioned to
derive quality and ease-in-use from the product appearance. This study underlines the
importance of the product appearance in consumer choice for durable products. Implications are
discussed.
Search keywords: product appearance, product choice, purchase decision

1. Introduction

It is often said that many products are becoming more similar in features, quality and price,
which makes it difficult for competitors to differentiate their product from the rest. Furthermore,
some products are difficult to improve technically even further. Product design is mentioned (and
used) as a way to get competitive advantage in such markets (see e.g. Kotler and Rath, 1983;
Veryzer, 1995).
There are several publications about how product design –or what consumers perceive of it,
which is the product appearance- influences consumer product choice (see Bloch 1995; Creusen
1998; Veryzer 1995). However, the extent of the influence of product appearance, or the
conditions that determine this, are not often investigated. Berkowitz (1987) found that the shape
of corn was used to infer more difficult to judge attributes like quality and taste. Yamamoto and
Lambert (1994) show for several industrial products that their appearance plays a role in the
purchase decision. Creusen (1998) found that aesthetics, ease-in-use and operation, quality and
number of functionalities are all derived from the product appearance (next to from textual
information or brand name). These studies all point to an influence of the product appearance in
consumer product choice. However, these studies are all experimental. That is why we
investigated the influence of the product appearance in real life durable product choice.

2. Product appearance and consumer choice

Product appearance can influence consumer product choice in different ways (Bloch, 1995,
Creusen, 1998, Veryzer, 1995). A deviating product appearance can draw the attention of
consumers, and the typicality of the appearance for a certain product category may influence the
ease of categorization and thereby possibly the probability of product choice. Furthermore, the
appearance of a product can generate inferences about other product attributes (see e.g.,
Berkowitz, 1987; Bloch, 1995), like quality, price and ease-in-use. Also, the product appearance
can have aesthetic value for consumers or convey information about the user to others (i.e. have
symbolic value, see Vihma, 1995).

1
HOME Session 1.5

As the product appearance can have these different roles for consumers and is saliently
present in most purchase situations, we expect that it plays a big role in product choice. When
investigating the influence of product appearance on product choice, these different influences
have to be taken into account.

3. Method

We assessed the influence of the product appearance on consumer product choice by

interviewing people in a shop immediately after they bought a specific durable product. Subjects
did not know beforehand that they were going to be interviewed.

3.1. Product
We chose telephones, as our interest is in durable products and telephones are bought
frequently enough to be able to interview a significant number of people per day. Furthermore,
we want a product for which alternatives differ in appearance, functionalities and price. Both
mobile phones and ‘traditional’ phones are included.

3.2. Subjects
Subjects (N = 40) are consumers that just a minute ago bought either a mobile or ‘traditional’
telephone in one of two selected stores2. Their age is between 18 and 65, and an equal number of
males and female participated. Half of them bought a mobile phone (of which again half a pre-
paid and half a post-paid one), and half of them a traditional one.

3.3. Procedure
Consumers are contacted right after they paid their telephone and are asked to participate in a
short interview in a quiet corner of the store. The interviewer asked the questions and wrote
down the answers. A combination of free-response questions and rating items are used. When
several aspects are rated, two different item orders are used.
Subjects are first asked about the reasons for choosing the specific telephone, and after that
indicated the importance of several aspects in their product choice. Next they rated the telephone
on quality, appearance, and ease of operation, and after each rating it is asked why he or she
rated the telephone like this. At the end, subjects ranked several information sources on
importance in the product choice.
The interview took about 15 minutes. As a token of appreciation, subjects could choose a
little present with the University logo on it.

4. Results

The influence of the product appearance in the telephone choice is assessed in two different
ways. One is a free-response question into the choice reason(s), the other is subjects’ ratings of
the relative importance of several product aspects on five-point scales.
The free-response question was: ‘In the shop you could choose from several telephones, can
you explain why you chose the telephone that you just bought?’3. The mean number of reasons is

2
We want to thank the managers of these stores for their cooperation to the research. One store belongs to a phone
company, the other to a department store chain.
3
Translated in English for this paper by the author.

2
HOME Session 1.5

1.33., they are categorized by two judges. Categories are the roles of the product appearance that
are mentioned in the previous section (aesthetic, symbolic, functionalities, ease-in-use, and
quality) and other well-known purchase reasons, namely: price, brand name, and external
information (i.e. recommendation of a sales person or friends). ‘Network’ was added as a
separate category for mobile phones, as this is more a feature of the included service than of the
physical product itself (and is therefore not included in ‘functionalities’). Results are in Table 1.

Table 1.
Number of subjects mentioning each choice reason
Category Traditional phone Mobile phone Total
Price 13 7 20
Aesthetics 5 5 10
Ease-in-use 5 4 9
External information 3 4 7
Functionalities 2 3 5
Symbolics 1 1 2
Quality 1 0 1
Brandname 0 1 1
Network - 3 -

From Table 1 one can see that aesthetics -which is of course based on the product
appearance- is the second most often mentioned choice reason, after price. This illustrates the
importance of the product appearance in telephone choice.
Second, we look at the results of the importance ratings. Subjects scored aesthetics, ease-in-
use, functionalities, price, advice of sales person, and brand name on five-point scales for the
traditional telephone, and in addition for the mobile phone also network, and either subscription
(service contract) or phone credit (depending on whether it is a subscribed or pre-paid phone).
There were two item orders. Results are in Table 2.

Table 2.
Mean importance ratings of telephone aspects
Aspect Traditional phone Mobile phone Total
Subscription/ Phone credit* - 4.10 / 4.00 -
Ease-in-use 3.50 3.95 3.73
Price 3.85 3.50 3.68
Aesthetics 3.45 3.90 3.68
Functionalities 3.60 3.70 3.65
Network - 3.65 -
Sales person 2.00 2.95 2.47
Brand name 2.00 2.90 2.45
*: depends on whether it is a subscribed or pre-paid mobile phone

From Table 2, one sees that aesthetics is at the fourth place in importance for the traditional
phone and at the third place for the mobile phone choice. This is a lower place/importance than

3
HOME Session 1.5

we inferred from the free-response question. However, the mean score for aesthetics is above
three on a five-point scale (3.68), which indicates that people acknowledge its importance.
These results support our expectation that the product appearance plays a role, in that
aesthetics -which comes from the product appearance- is important for people in buying a
telephone. However, the influence of product appearance on choice is probably bigger, as
judgments about quality and ease-in-use can also be derived from the appearance of a product. A
product may for example look complex, expensive, or high-tech. As quality and ease-in-use are
difficult to judge before purchase, consumers may go by the impression they get from the
product’s external appearance. In order to get an indication of whether people indeed do this, we
look at the two free-response questions about quality and ease of operation. After subjects were
asked to rate the judged quality of their telephone, they were asked why they judged the quality
this way. The same is done for ease of operation. The answers are categorized by two judges.
The relevant categories from Table 1 and 2 are used, supplemented with categories for other
aspects that were often mentioned. The category ‘experience’ pertains to previous experience
with the same brand or type of telephone. The category ‘appearance’ is subdivided into ‘buttons’,
containing reasons that are explicitly about buttons (number, size, or clarity), and other reasons
about the appearance (e.g., ‘looks easy to operate’). Idiosyncratic answers are in the category
‘remaining’.

Table 3.
Number of subjects mentioning each information basis for judging product quality and ease of
operation
Information basis Quality Information basis Ease of operation
Brand/ store name 14 Functionalities 14
Price 11 Appearance 12
External information 11 - Buttons 8
Appearance 5 - Other 5
Functionalities 4 External information 8
Manual 3 Display/menu 7
Experience 2 Experience 6
Remaining 2 Brand/ store name 4

From Table 3 one sees that the product appearance plays a role for about one-quarter of
subjects in judging quality, and for more than half for ease-in-use. However, only four of these
subjects had explicitly mentioned quality or ease-in-use as a choice reason (which ten in total
did, see Table 1). So although they inferred quality and/or ease-in-use from the product
appearance, these aspects did not play an important enough role in their choice for them to
mention it as a choice reason. This points to the conclusion that the biggest role of the product
appearance in telephone choice is aesthetic.

5. Conclusion and discussion

Indication is found that the product appearance plays a big role in the purchase of both
mobile and traditional telephones. This study adds to the existing findings about the influence of
product appearance in product choice, as the few existing studies are experimental, while in this
one subjects who just bought a telephone are interviewed in store.

4
HOME Session 1.5

The role of the product appearance in telephone choice appears to be predominantly

aesthetic. The importance of aesthetics in the purchase decision for a telephone is indicated by
both free-response and rating data. Because the product appearance may have more than an
aesthetic role only, we asked subjects on the basis of what information they had judged the
quality and ease of operation of their telephone (free-response question). Respectively about one-
quarter and half of the subjects mentioned appearance as a basis for judging quality and ease of
operation. However, only four of these had explicitly mentioned quality or ease-in-use as a
reason for their product choice. The product appearance thus seems to mainly influence choice in
an aesthetic way. However, still many subjects indicated to infer quality and ease of operation
from the product appearance. For products for which these aspects are more important in choice,
the appearance will probably play a bigger role in this way. Studies into other durable product
categories will shed light on this. Furthermore, the role of the appearance in judging quality and
ease-in-use may be partly unconscious for consumers, in which case self-report data would
underestimate this influence. Also the attention drawing and categorization roles of the product
appearance are probably largely unconscious to consumers. Other research methods should be
applied to get more insight into this issue.
The results underline the importance of product appearance in choice for durable products.
More attention should be paid to the appearance of products in the product development process,
as it not only has an aesthetic role, but also plays a role in judging quality and ease-in-use. As
consumers often cannot try out or even touch a product in the purchase situation, the inferences
they make on the basis of the product appearance may in some cases determine whether they buy
the product. Conditions in which this is likely to occur may be low motivation, opportunity or
ability of consumers to process product information, as in those cases people are more likely to
use cues (Zeithaml, 1988).

References
Bloch, P.H., 1995. Seeking the ideal form: Product design and consumer response. Journal of
Marketing 59 (july), 16-29.
Berkowitz, M., 1987. Product shape as a design innovation strategy. Journal of Product
Innovation Management 4 (Dec.), 274-283.
Creusen, M.E.H., 1998. Product appearance and consumer choice. Thesis, Delft: Delft
University of Technology.
Kotler, P. and Rath, G.A., 1983. Design: A powerful but neglected marketing tool. Die
Unternehmung 37 (3), 203-221.
Veryzer, R.W,. Jr., 1995. The place of product design and aesthetics in consumer research. In:
Kardes, F.R. and Sujan, M. (eds.), Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 22, 641-645.
Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research.
Vihma, S., 1995. Products as representations: A semiotic and aesthetic study of design products.
Helsinki: University of Art and Design.
Yamamoto, M. and Lambert, D.R., 1994. The impact of product aesthetics on the evaluation of
industrial products. Journal of Product Innovation Management 11 (4), 309-324.
Zeithaml, V.A., 1988. Consumer perceptions of price, quality, and value: A means-end model and
synthesis of evidence. Journal of Marketing 52, 2-22.

5
HOME Session 1.5

Title: The Relation between Concrete and Abstract Product Attributes

Authors: Dirk Snelders*

Assistant professor of marketing
Delft University of Technology

Jan P.L. Schoormans

Associate professor of consumer research
Delft University of Technology

Track: Rethinking Marketing Research

Rethinking the Value Chain
Rethinking New Product Development and Innovation (suggested new
track!)

Contact Address: Dirk Snelders

Delft University of Technology
Faculty of Industrial Design Engineering
2628 BX Delft
THE NETHERLANDS

Phone: +31 15 278 3108

Fax: +31 15 278 7662
e-mail: h.m.j.j.snelders@io.tudelft.nl

*
The authors thank Caroleyne Willems for her help in collecting the data.
HOME Session 1.5

1
The Relation between Concrete and Abstract Product Attributes

Abstract
The paper investigates to what extent abstract product attributes should be derived
from concrete attributes in consumer research. Results from a laddering study show that
abstract attributes can only be related to concrete attributes in a minority of cases. These
‘related abstract attributes’ are not representative for the majority of ‘unrelated’ abstract
attributes. Related abstract attributes are more about ergonomic aspects of the product,
whereas the unrelated abstract attributes are more about hedonic aspects.
Search keywords: abstract attributes, new product development, laddering

Introduction
Consumers often describe desired product qualities in terms that are more abstract
than companies would like them to be. For example, if a consumer says it is important
for the car to have be comfortable, then the company may not immediately know how
to achieve this. The company’s car designers will be faced with the problem of finding
out how to build comfort into a car, i.e., to create a design that can convincingly be
communicated to the prospective user as ‘comfortable.’ In the literature, this problem is
addressed as one of actionability (Shocker and Srinivasan 1974, Hauser and Clausing
1988). The actionability of product attributes is defined in purely pragmatic terms: “By
“actionable” we mean that the attributes indicate specific actions the manufacturer must
take to build such a product” (Shocker and Srinivasan 1974, p. 922). At the same time,
Shocker and Srinivasan are optimistic, in that even “vague attributes (such as
“sportiness”) may still prove sufficiently actionable for the framework to provide
guidance to manufacturers” (p. 926). The same optimism can be found back in the
various models that connect the attributes that consumers mention to the actions of
product developers to satisfy the consumer’s wishes. However, these models differ in
the extent to which they believe that consumer researchers can help companies by
linking abstract attributes to the more concrete attributes that consumers mention.
In the model of Quality Function Deployment, or QFD (Kogure and Akao 1983,
Hauser and Clausing 1988, Griffin and Hauser 1993), and in the Means-End model of
Quality (Zeithaml 1988) it is argued that consumer attributes can be grouped into a
hierarchy of primary or higher order attributes that are more abstract, and
secondary/tertiary or lower level attributes that are more concrete. Within these
approaches, the aim for the consumer researcher, then, is to find out how the higher
level, abstract attributes are linked to the lower level concrete attributes (for an
example, see Dubé et al. 1999). The justification for these types of explanations is
found in the consumer research literature, where abstract product attributes are often
seen as comprising clusters of concrete attributes (c.f. Bettman and Sujan 1987,
Johnson 1989, Olson and Reynolds 1983). For example, a consumer could favour
airbags because it makes a car safer, and car safety is important when one drives one’s
children to school. Here, car safety, an abstract attribute, is inferred from airbags, a
concrete attribute, by applying a rule of inclusion.
Another approach to product development is Kansei-engineering (Nagamachi
1995, Okazaki 1997, 1998). Kansei engineering stresses that abstract attributes are
important in their own right, regardless of their possible link with concrete attributes
(Harada 1997, 1998). For the sake of the aesthetic purity of engineering, Kansei
advocates a more poetic and intuitive interpretation of the ‘subjective criteria’ (Lee
1998) that consumers provide. For this reason, the link between abstract and concrete
attributes is mostly neglected, or else its complexity and fuzziness is stressed
(Nagamachi 1995, Tsuchiya, Maeda, Matsubara and Nagamachi 1996). Thus, in
HOME Session 1.5

2
Kansei, the relation between abstract and concrete attributes is either regarded as
ininteresting and/or complex. Although never made, a justification for Kansei may also
be found in the consumer research literature. Namely, abstract attributes are also
portrayed as directly perceived in the product, since consumers don’t know through
which concrete attributes the abstract attribute is achieved in a product (Silverman and
Grover 1995). In those cases, a romanticist claim is that abstract product attributes are
valued for irreducibly subjective, emotional reasons (Hirschman and Holbrook 1982,
Snelders 1995). For example, someone may want an elegant car because it is more
enjoyable during car rides. Here, no relation is made between elegance and a more
concrete attribute. Elegance is directly valued for emotional reasons.
To conclude, the various approaches to new product development agree that
abstract attributes can and should be incorporated in a product. However, they differ in
the way this is achieved, whether to interpret abstract attributes through their link with
concrete attributes or whether to do this more directly, and more subjectively. On the
one hand, relating abstract attributes to concrete attributes may be helpful for
organisations to come to grips with abstract attributes. But this approach may also be
reductive because it limits the meaning that abstract attributes can have for consumers
to a combination of concrete attributes.
A first aim of this study is to examine to what degree abstract attributes are
typically related to concrete attributes in consumer arguments. A second aim is to
examine the typical content of arguments where abstract attributes are present or absent,
and where they are related or unrelated to concrete attributes. Does this content reflect
that unrelated abstract attributes are more often found in arguments about aspects of the
product contributing to an emotional experience?

Method
In this study, we will directly probe for consumer arguments by a structured
interview technique called laddering. Laddering is an in-depth interview technique
where consumers are asked why certain attributes are important to them. Subsequently,
the reason the respondent gives is not taken for granted; the interviewer continues to
ask for the importance of this reason, and repeats this for every new reason that comes
up (for a more extensive overview of the technique, see Reynolds and Gutman 1988).
In this way, laddering gives respondents an aid for setting up arguments, in which
subsequent answers serve as justifications for earlier given answers. Within these
arguments, we can then look at the relation between abstract and concrete product
attributes.
Seventy-two members of a consumer panel in a small European town were invited
to be interviewed on telephones and clock radios. The panel is a random sample of the
town population and the surrounding area. Respondents varied normally around the
mean involvement with the two product categories, which was previously assessed, and
there were as many men as women in every group under study. Thirty-seven people
received a laddering interview for the telephone, and 35 for the clock radio.
At the beginning of the interview respondents were asked to name attributes of the
product. After a brief instruction, the respondent was first given a brochure with general
commercial information about one of the product categories. After one minute, the
interviewer asked the respondent to list those attributes to which the respondent would
pay attention when buying a product of the category (respondents were told not only to
consider what they had just seen in the brochure, but also what they were thinking of
themselves). Next, the interviewer asked the respondent to describe each attribute in
terms that were as concrete as possible. This was to make sure that abstract attributes
were not derived from unnamed concrete attributes. At the same time, they were asked
HOME Session 1.5

3
not to give examples of what they meant, since examples would not point to possible
concrete product attributes that are related to abstract attributes, but to whole products
of which any attribute, abstract or concrete, is an aspect.
After a brief instruction the actual laddering procedure began. For each attribute,
the respondent was asked why the attribute was important and why subsequent reasons
were important, until the respondent could give no more answers. This procedure was
repeated for the respondent’s most important attributes, up to five.

Results
The respondents’ exact answers were checked from an audio tape and put on
coding cards. This resulted in 1032 cards for telephone and 1092 cards for clock radio.
These cards were grouped independently by two judges into six answer categories. All
cards had a reference to the original transcripts so that contextual information could
help the judges. These answer categories are based on a classification by Olson and
Reynolds (1983) and will in the remainder be referred to as CAFPIT categories: 1)
Concrete attributes: “responses referring to the product that can be represented as a
distinct material form,” 2) Abstract attributes: “responses referring to the product that
cannot be represented as a distinct material form,” 3) Functional consequences, 4)
Psycho-social consequences, 5) Instrumental values, 6) Terminal values. The initial
reliability of the judges’ classification into the CAFPIT categories was acceptable (for
telephones Cohen’s Kappa = .68, for clock radios Cohen’s Kappa = .75), and after a
discussion between the judges the meaning of the CAFPIT categories could be detailed
to a level where there was full agreement.
We can now look at the typical positions of the CAFPIT answer types in the
ladders that respondents have used. In laddering, each string of answers can be
considered as an argument to justify the stated importance of an aspect of the product.
Below we will look at the position of abstract attributes in the arguments that
consumers have given. The first question we address here is about the extent to which
abstract attributes are related to concrete attributes through rules of inclusion. A first
observation relevant to this question is that: for telephones 66%, and for clock radios
64% of all abstract attributes are positioned at the beginning of a string of answers.
Laddering data are typically presented in a transformation matrix, which provides
the frequency of all links made between two responses (Reynolds and Gutman 1988).
These can be direct links or indirect links, in which case a link between two responses
is counted even when there are other responses between them. The transformation
matrices for telephones and clock radios are shown in Table 1.
The data show that a majority of abstract attributes are unrelated to concrete
attributes. The links from abstract attributes to functional and psycho-social
consequences (77 for telephone, 66 for clock radios) cannot be accounted for by links
from concrete to abstract attributes (9 for telephone, 7 for clock radios), not even when
we also look at indirect links (15 for telephone, 14 for clock radio) or indirect links in
both directions (18 for telephone, 18 for clock radio). A last finding is that abstract
attributes are linked both to functional and psycho-social consequences of the product,
whereas concrete attributes are mainly linked with functional consequences.
The second question in this study is about the content of arguments that feature
abstract and concrete attributes. For this reason, all arguments used by the respondents
are classified on the basis of their content by two new judges. An argument is defined
as a string between a first and a last answer that communicates a distinct motive for
TABLE 1
TRANSFORMATION MATRICES OF LADDERING ANSWER TYPES
Telephone (N=37) Clock radio (N=35)
HOME Session 1.5

4
Direct / Indirect Direct / Indirect
C A F P I T C A F P I T
C 1 9 82 10 6 3 C 4 7 71 12 9 2
3 15 197 27 28 12 9 14 325 109 171 50
A 2 11 38 39 6 1 A 2 11 42 24 7 2
3 20 76 104 19 12 4 23 158 142 106 75
F 5 4 313 45 62 33 F 6 6 263 63 78 24
14 7 1118 206 344 199 12 26 861 395 624 295
P 0 6 35 69 4 27 P 0 2 45 66 23 32
0 28 150 257 29 120 0 5 118 190 144 156
I 0 1 36 11 33 12 I 1 2 36 26 73 24
0 4 153 70 182 132 1 4 131 107 252 131
T 0 1 13 10 7 13 T 1 0 7 8 14 14
0 4 77 68 61 151 1 0 18 21 45 48
NOTE. — Each cell describes a link from the corresponding row to the corresponding
column. Boxed area is discussed in text.

product use. Two judges classified the arguments independently. Both started with the
same classification scheme, based on previously used classifications of choice and
usage motives (Creusen and Schoormans 1998; Löbach 1976; Schürer 1971). Judges
were free to make changes to this scheme, leading to two extra categories about ‘health’
and ‘altruism’. Of all argument identifications made by the two judges, 84%
(telephone) and 91% (clock radio) were made by both. For these arguments there was
high agreement about the type of motive that was communicated (Cohen’s Kappa = .96
for telephone, .93 for clock radio). The arguments for which there was no initial
agreement were omitted or reclassified after discussion between the two judges.
Table 2 presents the content of arguments in which abstract and/or concrete
attributes are present. Here the idea is supported that the content of arguments is
dependent on the presence or absence of concrete and/or abstract attributes in the
arguments. For telephone, χ2 = 57.471, p < .000 and for clock radio, χ2 = 40.355, p <
.01. A test on individual residuals shows that for most content categories where
concrete attributes are relatively more (less) frequent, abstract attributes are relatively
less (more) frequent. Both for telephones and clock radios, arguments with only
abstract attributes are significantly more about the hedonic aspects of the product, and
less about the ergonomic aspects. In contrast, arguments with only concrete attributes
are more about ergonomic aspects (significant for telephone only) and less about
hedonic aspects (because of low cell counts, all reported p values are based on
1.000.000 Monte Carlo simulations). Note that this in line with the idea that unrelated
abstract attributes are about the emotional experience of the product. Still, a small
group of arguments with both concrete and abstract attributes exists, which is mainly
about ergonomic aspects. So, if abstract and concrete attributes are connected in one
single argument, the meaning of it is most like those arguments where only concrete
attributes are named. As a consequence, we can consider this small group of arguments
as responsible for the idea that abstract attributes are inclusive of concrete attributes.
For a much larger part, however, abstract attributes are unconnected with concrete
attributes, and deal with other, more hedonic aspects of the product.

TABLE 2
NUMBER OF ARGUMENTS CONTAINING CONCRETE ATTRIBUTES,
ABSTRACT ATTRIBUTES, OR BOTH, ACCORDING TO CONTENT
Content Telephone Clock Radio
HOME Session 1.5

5
Category Concrete Abstract Both Concrete Abstract Both
Ergonomic 77 19 9 44 22 10
17a -21a .3 2.6 -10.3b 2.5
Price 8 10 3 10 3 1
-3.6 2.3 1.3 3.4 -2.2 -.2
Hedonic 9 31 2 11 29 2
-13.7a 15.9a -1.3 -8.4 b
13.9a -1.5
Symbolic 3 4 0 1 5 1
-.5 1.6 -.5 -2.5 2.3 .4
Quality 7 8 0 8 8 1
-.6 3 -1.1 -.4 1.5 -.5
Altruism 4 0 1 18 6 2
1.5 -1.7 .6 5.2 -4 -.3
Low Involv. 3 2 1 1 1 0
0 0 .6 .1 .3 -.2
Health _ _ _ 7 4 1
0 -1.5 -.3
NOTE. — Residuals (observed minus expected frequencies) are listed in italics.
a
Significant at .0001, b Significant at .01.

Discussion
To resume, a small minority of abstract attributes were found to be related to
concrete attributes. These related abstract attributes featured in arguments that had very
similar contents as arguments containing concrete attributes only. In this sense, the
related abstract attributes must be regarded as formally distinct to concrete attributes
(since they have an inferred status), but functionally equivalent to them (since they are
about the same product aspects). However, it is far more common that abstract
attributes are not related to concrete attributes. Like concrete attributes, they are most
often a premise in the arguments on which consumer judgments are based. In addition,
unrelated abstract attributes are typically about hedonic aspects of the product, whereas
concrete attributes are typically about ergonomic aspects of a product. In this sense,
unrelated abstract attributes must be regarded as formally equivalent, but functionally
distinct to concrete attributes.
It is worth noting that both types of abstract attributes have been suggested in the
laddering literature. On the one hand, Olson and Reynolds (1983) have suggested that
abstract product attributes are derived from concrete attributes and linked to functional
consequences, while one the other Van Raaij and Schoonderbeek (1993) have
suggested that abstract attributes are unrelated to concrete attributes and linked with
psycho-social consequences. It appears that both positions can find support in our data,
although the last position of Van Raaij et al. wins on points.
HOME Session 1.5

6
References
Bettman, J.R., Sujan, M., 1987. Effects of framing on evaluation of comparable and noncomparable
alternatives by expert and novice consumers. Journal of Consumer Research 14, 141-154.
Creusen, M.E.H., Schoormans J.P.L., 1998. The effect of observation time on the role of product design
in consumer preference. In: Alba et al (Eds.), Advances in Consumer Research 25. Provo, UT:
Association for Consumer Research.
Dubé, L., Johnson, M.D., Renaghan, L.M., Gupta, K., 1998. Translating consumer values in operational
and structural attributes for extended service transactions. Working paper, presented at the 26th
conference of the Association for Consumer Research. Montreal, October, 1998.
Griffin, A., Hauser J.R., 1993. The voice of the customer. Marketing Science 12 (1), 1-27.
Harada, A., 1997. The framework of Kansei engineering – The area and object of Kansei engineering. In:
Okazaki (ed.), Report of special research project on modelling the evaluation structure of Kansei
(Vol. 1). Tsukuba, Japan: University of Tsukuba.
Harada, A., 1998. The definition of Kansei. In Okazaki (ed.), Report of special research project on
modelling the evaluation structure of Kansei (Vol. 2). Tsukuba, Japan: University of Tsukuba.
Hauser, J.R., Clausing D., 1988. The house of quality. Harvard Business Review (May-June), 63-73.
Hirschman, E.C., Holbrook, M.B., 1982. Hedonic consumption: Emerging concepts, methods and
propositions. Journal of Marketing 46 (Summer), 92-101.
Johnson, M.D., 1989. On the nature of product attributes and attribute relationships. In: Srull (Ed.),
Advances in Consumer Research 16. Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research, 598-604.
Kogure, M., Akao, Y., 1983. Quality function deployment and CWQC. Quality Progress, 16 (10), 25-29.
Lee, S., Harada, A., 1998. A mutual supported design approach by objective and subjective evaluation of
Kansei information. In Okazaki (Ed.), Report of special research project on modelling the evaluation
structure of Kansei (Vol. 2). Tsukuba, Japan: University of Tsukuba.
Löbach, B., 1976. Industrial Design. Munich: Karl Thiemig.
Nagamachi, M., 1995. Kansei engineering: A new ergonomic consumer-oriented technology for product
development. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 15, 3-11.
Okazaki, A. (ed.), 1997. Report of special research project on modelling the evaluation structure of
Kansei (Vol. 1). Tsukuba, Japan: University of Tsukuba.
Okazaki, A. (ed.), 1998. Report of special research project on modelling the evaluation structure of
Kansei (Vol. 2). Tsukuba, Japan: University of Tsukuba.
Olson, J.C., Reynolds, T.J., 1983. Understanding consumers’ cognitive structures: Implications for
advertising strategy. In: Percy et al. (Eds.), Advertising and consumer psychology. Lexington, MA:
Lexington, 77-90.
Reynolds, T.J., Gutman J., 1988. Laddering theory, method, analysis, and interpretation. Journal of
Advertising Research (February/March), 11-31.
Schürer, A., 1971. Der Einfluss Produktbestimmender Factoren auf die Gestaltung. Clausthal-Zellerfeld:
Bönecke-Druck.
Shocker, A.D., Srinivasan, V., 1974. A consumer-based methodology for the identification of new
product ideas. Management Science 20 (6), 921-937.
Silverman, S.N., Grover, R., 1995. Forming perceptions of overall product quality in consumer goods: A
process of quality element integration. In: Sheth et al. (eds.), Research in Marketing 12. Greenwich,
Connecticut: JAI Press.
Snelders, H.M.J.J., 1995. Subjectivity in consumer judgments. Delft: Delft University of Technology
(doctoral thesis).
Tsuchiya, T., Maeda, T., Matsubara, Y., Nagamachi, M., 1996. A fuzzy rule induction method using
genetic algorithm. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 18, 135-145.
Van Raaij, W.F., Schoonderbeek, W.M., 1993. Meaning structure of brand names and extensions. In:
Van Raaij et al. (Eds.), European advances in consumer research 1. Provo, UT: Association for
Consumer Research, 479-484.
Zeithaml, V.A., 1988. Consumer perceptions of price, quality, and value: A means-end model and
synthesis of evidence. Journal of Marketing 52 (July), 2-22.
HOME Session 1.5

Social Desirability Bias in Responses to Free Elicitation Techniques

Magne Supphellen
Norwegian School of Economics and Business Adm.

Paper submitted to EMAC 2001

Track: Rethinking Marketing Research

HOME Session 1.5

Social Desirability Bias in Responses to Free Elicitation Techniques

Abstract
Free elicitation techniques are believed to evoke valid representations of thoughts. However,
this assumption remains largely untested within marketing research. In this paper we develop
a rationale for expecting social desirability effects in responses to free elicitation tasks.
Correspondingly, brand associations elicited under anonymous conditions or by means of
indirect questioning were expected to correlate more strongly with brand attitudes than
associations elicited in a non-anonymous direct questioning control condition. The hypotheses
were tested and largely confirmed by the data from an experiment.

Introduction
The free elicitation technique is one of the most commonly used methods in market research
for the purposes of eliciting product attributes, brand associations or cognitive responses to
advertising (Malhotra 1999; Keller 1993; Sampson 1986). The popularity of this technique,
which is also called thought-listing, free listing or one-word associations, is probably due to
two main factors. First, the technique is easy to administer. Respondents are simply asked to
report any thoughts (orally or in written) that come to mind when hearing a stimulus word
(e.g. a brand name) or watching a commercial. The response time is adapted to the specific
purpose of the research. In-depth responses require longer response time (several minutes) and
perhaps repetition of the stimulus word (Friedman 1986). Still, most elicitation sessions are
completed in only a few minutes time. Secondly, the strong position of the free elicitation
technique in market research is probably due to the widespread opinion that responses from
this technique are valid representations of thoughts. For example, Szalay and Deese (1978)
state that:
Because one-word associations are not encumbered by the constraints of organized
language (e.g., self-censoring, rationalization, selectivity), they have been proposed as
extremely strong and uncluttered representations of thoughts.
In the present research, this assumption is challenged. Specifically, we focus on brands and
advance the conjecture that free elicitation of brand associations could be subjected to social
desirability biases. The following section presents the rationale for expecting social
desirability biases in responses to free elicitation techniques. Subsequently, hypotheses are
developed and tested on the data form an experiment.

Theoretical background
Why should open responses from free elicitation tasks be subjected to social desirability
biases (SDB)? The existence of SDB is believed to stem from two sources: (1) the nature of
brand associations, and (2) the nature of the free elicitation technique.
(1). Brands are highly relevant vehicles of identity development and self-esteem
enhancement (Solomon 1983). Indeed, from a symbolic interactionist perspective, brands may
primarily serve a symbolic function. For example, wearing an Armani suit may signal wealth
and personal success and thus support the owner’s self-perception of being successful and
well-off. This self-image is further nurtured by the imagined or actual appraisals of others.
Thus, many brand associations are inherently self-relevant. However, since people in general
hesitate to disclose information about the self (Jourard 1964; Sirgy 1982), we should expect
some underreporting of self-relevant brand associations in elicitation interviews. Moreover, in
addition to being self-relevant, many symbolic associations are related to socially
HOME Session 1.5

unacceptable motives for preferring or desiring brands, e.g., the prestige or status associated
with the Mercedes brand. Urge for social approval through consumption is undesirable in
most Western cultures, in part because independence is a more favored cultural value than
social recognition (Rokeach and Ball-Rokeach 1989, p.778). Still, social recognition and
identity development are very important psychological needs which are exploited by
marketers all over the world for powerful brands such as Rolex, Armani, and Mercedes. In
other words, many brands, especially those with a symbolic brand concept (Park, Jaworski,
and McInnis 1986), are based on psychological needs which are not socially accepted as
reasons for preferring one brand to another.
(2). The other potential source of SDB is the nature of the free elicitation technique itself.
First, we need to recognize that interviews in general induce an extraordinary focus on the self
of respondents. Attention is directed toward the thoughts and opinions of the respondent, and
since interviews are unique one-shot experiences, the responses, as such, are the only basis on
which the respondent defines his or her identity in that situation (Alexander and Knight 1971).
In this sense, the respondent and his responses become intertwined.
In addition to the general tendency of interviews to evoke distortion motives, some
specific aspects of free elicitation techniques may reinforce the focus on the self of
respondents. Free elicitation tasks imply that respondents are subjected to a stimulus word and
subsequently “left alone” to activate associations from memory. During this time period, the
attention of the respondent is focused on his or her own thoughts — the researcher makes no
intervention. In this situation, respondents have ample opportunity to engage in self-analysis,
that is, reflections on the reasons for their thoughts about the brand (see Wilson, Dunn, Bybee,
Hyman, and Rotondo 1984). Self-reflection processes will likely lower the accuracy and the
validity of the responses, in part because the focus on self results in active impression
management (Wilson et al. 1984, p. 6). On the basis of the literature reviewed in this section
we conclude that: (1) some brand associations are probably sensitive to distortion, and (2) the
free elicitation technique provides ample opportunity for distortion.

Hypotheses: Effects of anonymity and indirect questioning

Anonymity and indirect questioning have both the potential of alleviating censoring
effects. Anonymity, or rather the perception of anonymity, is outwardly directed, toward one
or several interviewers (Sudman and Bradburn 1983). Under conditions of high levels of
anonymity, respondents are confident that their responses cannot be traced back to them.
Thus, when respondents concern for approval and positive feedback is socially directed,
anonymity may induce respondents to report brand associations more freely. Third person
questioning induces another kind of psychological state than anonymity procedures. When
using this technique, subjects are asked to respond “on the behalf of” some ambiguous in-
group person, e.g., “what do you believe most teenagers at your school associate with Levis?”
With this approach, the focus is no longer on the respondent, but on some other person or
group of persons. Thus, a psychological separation is created between the self of the
respondent and the associations reported (Fisher 1993; Lewis, Bates, and Lawrence 1994). In
a sense, the result is a kind of “self-anonymity”. Responses reported under this condition
should be relatively free of social desirability biases (Fisher 1993). However, in order to elicit
valid responses respondents must project their own thought onto the third person referred to.
For this to happen, respondents have to be motivated to project (which is the case when
associations are sensitive) and the third person referred to must be an ambiguous in-group
figure with whom the subject identifies (e.g., “most students your age”) (Lewis et al. 1994). In
sum, given the existence of sensitive brand associations, both anonymity and indirect
questioning should alleviate social desirable responding. One consequence of this effect
HOME Session 1.5

would be that associations elicited under conditions of anonymity or by indirect questioning

should be more predictive of overall brand attitudes than brand associations elicited by direct
questions under conditions of no anonymity. When respondents are asked directly to report
associations, and their identity is revealed to the interviewer, subjects are more likely to
withhold sensitive associations or report associations that are irrelevant to their personal
attitudes, but socially acceptable. Thus, we expect that:

H1 Brand associations elicited under conditions of anonymity or by means of indirect

questioning are more predictive of brand attitudes than associations elicited under
conditions of no anonymity.

In support of the contention that subjects may report irrelevant, but socially acceptable
associations, research on self-disclosure has shown that when people are asked to respond to
sensitive issues, they tend to replace disclosure depth with disclosure breadth (e.g., Jones and
Archer 1976). However, there is a psychological cost attached to holding back information
(see Grice 1975). Consequently, one likely scenario is that some sensitive associations are first
withheld, but later in the course of the reporting session, when respondents feel that they have
displayed an acceptable image, sensitive associations are finally reported. The result is
distortion of the order at which sensitive associations are reported. This could be a serious
problem because, in line with recommendations of Fishbein and Ajzen (1975), market
researchers often select the associations first mentioned to be included in quantitative follow-
up studies or strategic brand development processes. Because some respondents are likely to
postpone reporting of sensitive associations until the end of their reporting session, the
distortion-alleviating effects of anonymity and indirect questioning should be more
pronounced for the associations first mentioned than for all associations reported.

H2 The superior level of predictive validity of brand associations elicited anonymously or

by indirect questioning (H1), is more pronounced when only the most salient (first
mentioned) associations are included – compared to when all associations are included
in the analysis.

Method
Mercedes was chosen as the stimulus brand. Mercedes is often regarded as a symbol of status,
wealth and success. It is a well-known, differentiated and luxurious brand and thus more
likely to evoke salient symbolic associations than other car brands (Wright, Claiborne, and
Sirgy 1992). Moreover, Mercedes is typically associated with successful business people — a
highly relevant aspect to the (ideal) self-concepts of the business students participating in the
experiment. 162 business students (mean age: 23.7, percent females: 30.7) at two
Scandinavian business schools took part in a lottery for two checks of $400 for participating
in the experiment. They were assigned randomly to four groups using a 2 (anonymity versus
no anonymity)✕ 2 (direct versus indirect questioning) between-subjects factorial design.
Measurements were made at two stages. In stage 1, undergraduate students were
recruited at the end of two obligatory courses, guided to another part of the building, and
randomly assigned to one of the four experimental conditions. All interviewers administered
all four instructions in order to control for interviewer-bias. Subjects reported associations to
the Mercedes brand by writing without any specified time limit (mean number of seconds
spent on the elicitation task was 211; range: 60 - 458 seconds). In the direct questioning
groups, respondents were asked to “write down all your thoughts about the Mercedes brand”.
With indirect questioning, subjects were instructed to “write down all the thoughts that you
HOME Session 1.5

believe most business students have for the Mercedes brand”. Respondents in the non-
anonymous conditions were told to mention their names before the elicitation session started.
The interviewers then wrote the names on the elicitation response sheet before handing them
to the subjects. Respondents in the anonymous conditions did not reveal their names and did
not hand in the response sheets. Instead they put their responses in an anonymous envelope
which were dropped in a mailbox at the entrance. All subjects in all experimental groups were
instructed to write down the initials and the date of birth of a person close to them on the
response sheet. This was done because we wanted to develop individually adapted
questionnaires in the second stage of the research without revealing the identity of the subjects
in the anonymous groups. Also, after the elicitation session all subjects responded to a short
questionnaire with a scale on perceived anonymity (manipulation check). Item-wording: “this
way of responding secured that no one but myself would know what I wrote”, “I felt that no
one, not even the researcher, could trace my responses back to me”, and “I was confident that
no one would be able to couple my name with the responses I gave”, anchors: strongly agree =
7, strongly disagree = 1, α= .80).
About four weeks after the free elicitation task, individually developed questionnaires
were distributed to all the participants of the first part of the study. 162 students completed the
second stage (N = 162). The questionnaires were distributed at the end of lectures of the same
courses as for the elicitation interviews. Subjects found their questionnaires by checking the
codes they had written on the envelopes. Each questionnaire was uniquely developed
according to the specific associations reported by the individual subject. Notably, nothing was
said to reveal that questionnaires were individually developed. Completed questionnaires were
put back in the anonymous envelope by the respondents and dropped in a mailbox at the
entrance.
Measures. The strength of brand associations was measured on nine-point Likert scales
with “very descriptive of the brand” (= 9) and “not at all descriptive of the brand” (= 1) as
anchors. Brand attitudes were measured by four standard attitude items: “I like this brand”,
“this is a good brand”, “this brand is high quality”, and “I have a good impression of this
brand” on nine-point Likert scales with labels strongly disagree ( =1), disagree (= 3), neither
nor (= 5), agree (= 7), and strongly agree (= 9). Cronbach´s alpha for the brand attitude
measure was .87. Predictive validity of associations was measured by Pearson correlations
between the summated strength of brand associations on the one side — and brand attitudes
on the other.

Results
The mean total number of associations reported across conditions was 8.34 (SD: 3.31, range:
2-23). A one-way ANOVA of the perceived anonymity measure revealed a strong main effect
of anonymity (F(1,161) = 8.36, p < .001, Eta-square = .15). More importantly, Scheffe
comparisons of group means showed that the level of anonymity was perceived as
significantly higher in the two groups subjected to anonymous direct questioning than in the
other groups. Hence, the manipulation of anonymity was successful. Correlations between the
strength of associations and overall brand attitudes are reported in Table 1. Group differences
were tested by means of the Fisher Z-test for comparison of correlations (Battacharyya and
Johnson 1977). In line with our expectations, correlations for the groups with either
anonymous response condition (ANO) or indirect questioning (INQ) are significantly higher
than correlations in the non-anonymous direct questioning group (CTRL). Thus, H1 is
supported. However, in the group were subjects are both anonymous and respond to indirect
questioning (INQ&ANO), the correlation is not higher than in the control group.
HOME Session 1.5

Table 1. Pearson correlations between overall brand attitudes and strength of associations.

Experimental groups (correlations)____

Fisher’s Z
CTRL ANO INQ INQ&ANO comparisons
(n=40) (n=43) (n=42) (n=37)

1. All assoc- .323** .540*** .591*** .318* INQ>CTRL**

iations included ANO>CTRLns
INQ>ANOns
INQ>INQ&ANO*

2. Five most .092 .387** .604*** .344* INQ>ANO*

salient assoc- INQ>INQ&ANO**
iations
NOTE: CTRL = control group, ANO = anonymous direct questioning, INQ = non-anonymous
indirect questioning, INQ&ANO = anonymous indirect questioning. *** = <.01, ** = <.05, *
= <.10

H2 stated that the hypothesized superior effects of anonymity and indirect questioning would
be more pronounced when only the associations first mentioned were included in the analysis.
To test this hypothesis, correlations for the five first associations are reported in the second
row of Table 1. The five first associations were selected for two reasons. First, Ajzen and
Fishbein (1980) suggest that people usually base their attitudinal judgements on five to nine
beliefs. Second, in order to study the associations first mentioned, we needed to select a
number substantially smaller than average (M=8.34). The results in Table 1 provide support
for H2. In this analysis, the correlation in the CTRL group is not significant. However, the
correlation between associations and brand attitudes is significant in the ANO group (rANO=
.387) and even more so in the INQ group (rINQ= .604). Thus, in addition to supporting H2, we
find that, when comparing the correlations for the most salient associations, indirect
questioning outperforms anonymous direct questioning.

Implications
The findings of this study imply that for symbolic brands, the use of indirect questioning and
anonymity may elicit associations, which are more predictive of brand attitudes than ordinary
direct questioning. To our knowledge, this is the first empirical evidence of social desirability
bias in the use of free elicitation techniques. The major implication of our findings is that
indirect questioning and use of anonymity should be considered also in the use of free
elicitation techniques. Another implication is that, if only the most salient associations are
needed, indirect questioning should be used in particular, at least in addition to other
techniques, in order to evoke the more sensitive associations. The results also indicate that
indirect questioning and anonymity should not be mixed and used within subjects (see the
lower correlations in the INQ&ANO group in Table 1).
The indication of greater distortion effects for the most salient associations supports
the contention that respondents may distort responses by first holding back sensitive
associations, and then report them later in the interview session when an acceptable image has
been displayed. One practical implication of this is that subjects should be given the time they
need to retrieve and report associations. If the time is restricted, respondents may be more
concerned with making a good impression before the elicitation session is ended and they may
HOME Session 1.5

not have had the time to finally report sensitive associations. Also, the observed indication of
“order distortion” suggests that conventional rules for selection of salient attitude-relevant
associations may be insufficient or even misleading. In line with recommendations of
Fishbein and Ajzen (1980), it is common practice to select the first associations mentioned in
qualitative interviews since these associations are deemed most relevant to attitudes and
intentions. However, if important sensitive associations are held back and reported later in a
free association test, salience scores could be biased.

References
Alexander, C. N. Jr., and G. W. Knight (1971), “Situated Identities and Social Psychological
Experimentation”, Sociometry, 34, 65-82.
Bhattacharyya, G.K., and R.A. Johnson (1977), Statistical Concepts and Methods, NY: John
Wiley & Sons.
Cramer, P. (1968), Word Associations, NY: Academic Press.
Fishbein, Martin and Icek Ajzen (1975), Belief, Attitude, Intention, and Behavior, Reading,
MA: Addison-Wesley.
Fisher, Robert J. (1993), “Social Desirability Bias and the Validity of Indirect Questioning”,
Journal of Consumer Research, 20 (September), 303-315.
Grice, H.P. (1975), “Logic and conversation”, in Syntax and Semantics, vol 3, eds. P. Cole
and J. L. Morgan, NY: Academic Press.
Jones, E. E. and R. L. Archer (1976), “Are There Special Effects of Personalistic Self-
disclosure?”, Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 12, 180-193.
Jourard, S. M. (1964), The Transparent Self, NY: D. Van Nostrand.
Keller, Kevin L. (1993), “Conceptualizing, Measuring, and Managing Customer-Based Brand
Equity”, Journal of Marketing, 57, 1-22.
Lewis, J. Rees, B. C. Bates, and S Lawrence (1994), “Empirical Studies of Projections: A
Critical Review”, Human Relations, 47, 1295-1319.
Park, C. Whan, Bernhard J. Jaworski and Deborah J. MacInnis (1986), “Strategic Brand
Concept-Image Management”, Journal of Marketing, 50, 135-145.
Rokeach, Milton and Sandra J. Ball-Rokeach (1989), “Stability and Change in American
Value Priorities”, American Psychologist, 44 (May), 775-784.
Solomon, Michael R. (1983), “The Role of Products as Social Stimuli: A Symbolic
Interactionism Perspective”, Journal of Consumer Research, 10, 319-329.
Sudman, Seymour and Norman M. Bradburn (1983), Asking Questions, San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Szalay, L. and J. Deese (1978), Subjective Meaning and Culture: An Assessment Through
Word Associations, NJ: LEA.
Wilson, Timothy D., D.S. Dunn, J.A. Bybee, D.B. Hyman, and J.A. Rotondo (1984), “Effects
of Analyzing Reasons on Attitude-Behavior Consistency”, Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 47, 5-16..
Wright, Newell D., C.B. Claiborne, and M. Joseph Sirgy (1992), “The Effects of Product
Symbolism on Consumer Self-concept”, in Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 19,
eds., John F. Sherry, jr., and Brian Sternthal, Chicago, Ill: Association for Consumer
Research, 311-318.
HOME Session 1.5

“Honey, have you seen our hamster?”

Consumer responses to smart domestic products

Serge A. Rijsdijk*
Erik Jan Hultink

Delft University of Technology

Paper prepared for the 30th EMAC Conference, Bergen, Norway, May 8-11, 2001.

Suggested tracks:
1. Rethinking New Product Development & Innovation (suggested new track!)
2. Rethinking Marketing Strategy
3. Rethinking Markets & Competition

* Contact address: Delft University of Technology, Faculty of Design, Engineering and

Production, Department of Product Innovation and Management, Marketing Section,
Jaffalaan 9, 2628 BX Delft, The Netherlands. Tel: +31 15 278 9336, Fax: +31 15 278 7662
Email: s.a.rijsdijk@io.tudelft.nl
HOME Session 1.5

“Honey, have you seen our hamster?”

Consumer responses to smart domestic products

Abstract
In the past few years several autonomous domestic products have been launched in the
marketplace. It is unclear, however, to what extent consumers appreciate this autonomy.
Consumers may consider these products complex and the purchase of such products risky. In
addition, people often show a desire for control. In using autonomous products users need to
hand over some usage control to the product. The advantages of autonomous products may
thus be partly compensated by several disadvantages. The present study aims to explain
overall consumer liking for autonomous products by integrating the above mentioned factors
in a conceptual model. We also discuss a laboratory experiment that was set up to investigate
the conceptual model. Data collection is almost finished at the time of writing this abstract.

Keywords: smart products, product autonomy and consumer evaluations.

Introduction
Consumer products are becoming smarter due to the decrease in the costs of microchips.
Representative examples are small sized products like mobile phones and palmtops that show
an astonishing increase in the number of new features and functions. But there is more. The
Swedish firm Husqvarna is selling several autonomous lawnmowers. The Solar-mower, for
example, is a lawn mower working on solar energy. This robot-mower measures the length of
the grass and decides whether there is a need for mowing. When mowing is necessary, the
machine starts mowing without any human interference. A comparable product is the
autonomous vacuum cleaner developed by the British firm Dyson. This machine runs on a
battery and moves around the house cleaning the floor. In addition, Ericsson recently
launched the first products compatible with Bluetooth technology. Bluetooth technology
enables wireless communication among all products containing a Bluetooth chip within a
range of twenty meters. Predictions made by authors like Brand (1987) and Negroponte
(1995) about ‘intelligent’ homes seem to become reality. Although interesting and exciting,
up till now, there is insufficient insight into how consumers will appreciate such intelligent
products. It is the aim of the present study to explore this issue.

Background
The literature on smart or intelligent products provides no clear definition of ‘smartness’ or
‘intelligence.’ Authors writing on product intelligence often provide a number of
characteristics of such products like ‘reactivity’, ‘adaptivity’ and ‘personality.’ A recurring
characteristic mentioned by all authors that is also found in several products nowadays is
‘product autonomy.’ Autonomy can be defined as the ability of products to ‘operate on their
own without the need of human guidance’ (Nwana & Azarmi, 1997). Products exhibiting high
levels of autonomy are, for example, the above mentioned vacuum cleaner and lawn mower.
Baber (1996) distinguishes four levels of autonomy. The lowest level is the manual level at
which the human will continually operate the product. The next level is bounded autonomy.
At this level ‘the user issues commands, performs an initial action and awaits an outcome.’ At
the third level, supervised autonomy, ‘the user issues commands but the product is able to
make some decisions.’ The final level, symbiosis, assumes ‘ongoing communication between
user and product to fulfill some goal’ (Baber, 1996). This final level implies an integration of
products and sensors in an environment, for example, in the house. All products in the house
constantly adapt to the user and his actions.

1
HOME Session 1.5

Conceptual model and hypotheses

We expect product autonomy to have both positive and negative impacts on several variables
that play a role in forming consumer evaluations for an intelligent product. Figure 1 presents
the conceptual model and the hypotheses for this study.

Figure 1. The conceptual model

H1 Perceived H5
Complexity
(+) (-)

Product H3 Product H7 Overall

Autonomy Advantage Consumer
∩)
(∩ (+) Liking

H2 Perceived H6
Risk
(+) (-)

H4 (+)

Desire for
Control

Product autonomy and perceived complexity: Autonomous products usually offer several new
functions that are not yet known to the consumer. Therefore, the technological sophistication
of these products may be ahead of the understanding of those who are intended to use them.
This line of reasoning leads us to hypothesize:
H1: The higher product autonomy, the higher the perceived complexity.
Product autonomy and perceived risk: Based on Rogers (1983) we expect product autonomy
to have a positive effect on perceived risk. A higher level of autonomy may lead consumers to
perceive the risks of a malfunctioning product and its consequences (see the title of this
abstract) higher. Hence, we hypothesize:
H2: The higher product autonomy, the higher the perceived risk.
Product autonomy and product advantage: Taking the classification of Baber (1996) into
account, we expect product advantage to first increase with the level of autonomy. The
product takes over tasks from the user, which leaves the user the opportunity to take part in
other activities. However, at a certain level, the user may feel that he is losing control. It is
known from psychology (Gleitman, 1991) that the desire to maintain control over the
environment in humans is substantial. Therefore, we expect a curvilinear relation between
product autonomy and product advantage. This line of reasoning can be expressed by means
of the following hypothesis:
H3: The relationship between product autonomy and product advantage is an inverted U-
shaped curve.

2
HOME Session 1.5

Product autonomy, desire for control and perceived risk: Desire for control is likely to have
an influence on the effect of product autonomy on perceived risk. People with a high desire
for control may perceive the risks of autonomous products higher. Hence, we hypothesize:
H4: Desire for control strengthens the positive relationship between level of autonomy and
perceived risk.
Perceived complexity, perceived risk and overall consumer liking: Following Rogers (1983),
we expect perceived complexity and perceived risk to have a negative impact on the overall
consumer liking of the product. Thus, we hypothesize:
H5: The higher the perceived complexity, the lower overall consumer liking.
H6: The higher the perceived risk, the lower overall consumer liking.
Product advantage and overall consumer liking: Several studies have found that product
advantage is an important determinant of new product success (Cooper & Kleinschmidt,
1987; Li & Calantone, 1998; Montoya-Weiss & Calantone, 1994). Consumers appreciate this
advantage, and therefore, we hypothesize:
H7: The higher the product advantage, the higher overall consumer liking.

Method

Subjects
Seventy-five respondents, both men and women, participated in this study. The subjects
ranged in age from 20 to 45 years. Subjects were selected from a household panel consisting
of an a-select sample of inhabitants of a mid-sized Dutch city. Participation was voluntary and
was rewarded with a small financial compensation.

Stimuli
Stimuli were printed verbal product descriptions of a vacuum cleaner, a refrigerator and a
television set (see Appendix 1). These products were selected because we expected
participants to have sufficient experience in using these products. For each product three
descriptions were designed: one version at a low level of autonomy, one version exhibiting a
medium level, and one version exhibiting a high level of autonomy. In total nine product
descriptions were developed.

Measures
Six multi-item scales were pre-tested and subsequently used (Appendix 2). Each subject filled
out a general questionnaire containing a scale for ‘desire for control.’ This scale was
developed especially for this study and consisted of 5 new items. The product descriptions
were evaluated on product autonomy, product advantage, perceived risk, perceived
complexity and overall consumer liking. The scale for product autonomy (that was based on
the literature and on preliminary pilot interviews with development teams of intelligent
products) was developed especially for this study and consisted of 5 new items. The ratings
on this scale served as a manipulation check for the levels of autonomy across product
descriptions. The product advantage scale was a translation of the scale used by Cooper &
Kleinschmidt (1987). Managers usually fill out this scale. We therefore slightly modified the
scale to adapt it to the use by consumers. Subjects had to determine the advantage of the
presented products in comparison to the version of the product they owned themselves. The
concepts of perceived risk and perceived complexity were adapted from Rogers (1980). The
measure for overall consumer liking of the product was based on the literature and consisted
of 7 items. All items in this study were scored on anchored 7-point rating scales.

3
HOME Session 1.5

Design
The laboratory experiment was a 3 within (product description: a vacuum cleaner, a
refrigerator and a television set) by 3 between (level of autonomy: low, medium and high)
design. This implies that each subject evaluated one vacuum cleaner, one refrigerator and one
television set. Each subject evaluated one product description at a low level, one at a medium
level and one at a high level of autonomy. Both products and levels of autonomy were
presented in balanced orders to avoid systematic carryover effects of one product-level of
autonomy combination to another (Elmes, Kantowitz, & Roediger, 1992).

Procedure
Subjects were invited to the product evaluation laboratory individually. Subjects first filled
out a general questionnaire that contained questions about the subject’s age, sex and
education. This questionnaire also contained the ‘desire for control’ scale. Then, a product
description was presented to the subject lying on top of a second questionnaire. This
questionnaire contained the scales for product autonomy, product advantage, perceived risk,
perceived complexity and overall consumer liking of the product. The subject was asked to
fill out this questionnaire directly after reading the product description. The product
description was available for the subject while filling out the questionnaire. Subsequently,
these steps were repeated for the second and third product.

Results
Data is now being collected. Results will be available in May 2001.

References
Baber, C. (1996). Humans, servants and agents: human factors of intelligent domestic
products. Paper presented at the Artificial intelligence in consumer and domestic
products, Savoy Place, London.
Bradshaw, G. (1998). Software agents.
Brand, S. (1987). The Media Lab: Inventing the future at MIT. New York: Penguin Books.
Cooper, R. G., & Kleinschmidt, E. (1987). New products: What seperates winners from
losers? Journal of Product Innovation Management, 4, 169-184.
de Silva, C. W. (Ed.). (2000). Intelligent machines: Myths and realities. Boca Raton: CRC
Press LLC.
Elmes, D. G., Kantowitz, B. H., & Roediger, H. L. (1992). Research methods in psychology
(4th ed.). St. Paul: West Publishing Company.
Gleitman, H. (1991). Psychology (4th ed.). New York: W. W. Norton & Company, Inc.
Li, T., & Calantone, R. J. (1998). The impact of market knowledge competence on new
product advantage: Conceptualization and empirical examination. Journal of
Marketing, 62, 13-29.
Montoya-Weiss, M. M., & Calantone, R. J. (1994). Determinants of new product
performance: A review and meta-analysis. Journal of Product Innovation
Management, 11, 397-417.
Negroponte, N. (1995). Being digital. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, Inc.
Nwana, H. S., & Azarmi, N. (Eds.). (1997). Software agents and soft computing. Towards
enhancing machine intelligence. Berlin: Springer.
Rogers, E. M. (1983). Diffusion of innovations (4th ed.). New York: The Free Press.

4
HOME Session 1.5

Appendix 1: Stimulus Material (products and levels of autonomy)

Low level Vacuum cleaner

Capacity: 1500 Watt. This vacuum cleaner is wireless. When using this vacuum cleaner you will not
trip over the wire and you don’t have to move the plug from socket to socket. The vacuum cleaner has
a battery that can be recharged when the product is not used. This vacuum cleaner allows you to
move through the house easily.
Medium Vacuum cleaner
level Capacity: 1500 Watt. This vacuum cleaner is placed in the room you want to clean and the vacuum
cleaner will move around the room until the whole surface of the room has been cleaned. The vacuum
cleaner signals when it is ready cleaning the room and you will have to take it to another room. When
the battery can only supply power for less than 10 minutes the vacuum cleaner will signal this. You
will have to put the vacuum cleaner in a recharging-station. All together you don’t have to pay a lot of
attention to the machine while it’s cleaning.
High level Vacuum cleaner
Capacity: 1500 Watt. This vacuum cleaner has to be placed in its recharging-station. With a sensor
the vacuum cleaner determines whether there is a need to clean. The vacuum cleaner drives around
until all rooms on a certain floor are cleaned. When the battery can only supply power for less than 10
minutes the vacuum cleaner drives back to the recharging-station to recharge the battery. After
recharging, the vacuum cleaner continues cleaning. This vacuum cleaner operates completely
autonomously.

Low level Refrigerator

This refrigerator can read the barcodes of the products placed in your refrigerator. There is a display
on the door of the refrigerator. You can read from the display which products are available in the
refrigerator without having to open the door.
Medium Refrigerator
level This refrigerator can read the barcodes of the products placed in your refrigerator. There is a display
on the door of the refrigerator. The refrigerator registers which products are taken out of the
refrigerator and which are not placed back within one hour. The refrigerator then assumes the article
is used and is out of stock. The refrigerator adds the article to a shopping list. This shopping list is
shown on the display. When you are going to do the groceries you can see which products to buy in a
blink of an eye. All together this refrigerator makes up a shopping list for you.

High level Refrigerator

This refrigerator can read the barcodes of the products placed in your refrigerator. There is a display
on the door of the refrigerator. The refrigerator registers which products are taken out of the
refrigerator and which are not placed back within one hour. The refrigerator then assumes the article
is used and is out of stock. The refrigerator adds the article to a shopping list. After you have given
permission to do so, the products on the shopping list will be ordered at the supermarket by the
internet when the shopping list contains ten products or more. These products will then be delivered
at your home. All together this refrigerator creates a shopping list and orders the products at the
supermarket automatically.
Low level Television set
You can tell this television set which TV shows you enjoy. While you are watching television you
can ask the television set whether one or more of your favorite shows will be broadcast. With this
television set you can easily find the shows you really like to see.
Medium Television set
level You can tell this television set which TV shows you enjoy. When you’re watching television the
television set notifies you that one of your favorite shows will be broadcast in five minutes. All
together this television set draws your attention to the fact that there is a show going to be broadcast
you would probably like to see.
High level Television set
You can tell this television set which TV shows you enjoy. When one of your favorite shows is
broadcast the television set stores it in its memory in case your television set is off or in case you are
watching another channel. You can watch the show later. All together this television set records a
favorite show in case you are not able to watch the show when it is broadcast.

5
HOME Session 1.5

Appendix 2: Measurement Summary

Scales Items
Overall What is your overall judgement of this product?
consumer 1. Very negative – very positive
liking 2. Very bad – very good
3. Very unfavorable – very favorable
4. Very unattractive – very attractive
Items for which 1=‘strongly disagree’ and 7=‘strongly agree’:
5. I would like to have this product in my house
6. I would like to have more information on this product
7. I would like to try this product
Desire for Items for which 1=‘strongly disagree’ and 7=‘strongly agree’:
control 1. Most of the time I don’t like giving things out of hand
2. I like to be in control over the things happening around me
3. Usually I prefer doing things by myself instead of delegating them
4. I trust myself more than others
5. Sometimes I’m afraid to lose control
Perceived risk Items for which 1=‘very unlikely’ and 7=‘very likely’:
1. How likely do you think it is that this product will operate improperly?
2. How likely do you think it is that this product will have breakdowns?
3. How likely do you think it is that this is a bad product?
Perceived Items for which 1=‘not much at all’ and 7=‘very much’:
complexity 1. How much instruction do you think you need to learn how to use this product?
2. How much knowledge is needed to use this product?
3. How much help is needed in taking this product into use?
4. How much effort do you think it costs to learn how to use this product?
5. How many people do you think will find the use of this product complicated?
Product Items for which 1=‘strongly disagree’ and 7=‘strongly agree’:
advantage 1. This product offers unique benefits to me – benefits not found in my own product
2. This product is of higher quality than my own product
3. In my eyes this product is superior to my own product
4. This product solves a problem that I have with my own product
5. I think this product is innovative – the first of its kind on the market
Product Items for which 1=‘strongly disagree’ and 7=‘strongly agree’:
autonomy 1. This product goes its own way
2. This product does things by itself
3. This product takes initiative
4. The user of this product doesn’t have to bother about this product a lot
5. This product works independently