TASARIMDA YENİLİĞİN TÜKETİCİLERİN KALPLERİNE VE ZİHİNLERİNE ETKİLERİ İLE İLGİLENİM VE RİSK ALGISININ MODERATÖR ROLÜ

Year 2020, Volume: 13 Issue: 2, 305 - 332, 01.12.2020

Burcu Gümüş , Emine Eser Gegez

Abstract

Hayatın her alanında kullanılan her ürün farklı bir tasarıma sahiptir ve tüketicilerin duygusal ve bilişsel süreçlerine bağlı olarak farklı şekillerde değerlendirilebilmektedirler. Bu bilişsel değerlendirmeler ve duygular bireylerin dünyayı nasıl deneyimledikleri, neye ne tepki verecekleri ve seçimlerini nasıl yapacakları üzerinde önemli bir etkiye sahiptir. Bu çalışmanın amacı ürün tasarımındaki yenilik seviyesinin tüketicilerin ürünlere yönelik eğilimlerini nasıl etkilediğini açıklamaktır. Çalışmada öne sürülen temel iddia, alışılagelmiş, yeni/farklı veya alışılmamış bir tasarımla karşılaşan tüketicinin bu uyarıcıya vereceği duygusal tepkinin ve yapacağı bilişsel değerlendirmenin ürüne yönelip yönelmeyeceğini belirleyeceği, fakat bu etkilerin aynı zamanda ürüne yönelik ilgilenim seviyesi ve algılanan risk seviyesine bağlı olacağıdır. Ürün tasarımını ve duygu-biliş ilişkisini inceleyen çeşitli çalışmalar bulunmakla birlikte, bu çalışmalardan hiçbiri farklı tasarım yenilik düzeylerinin tüketici üzerindeki etkilerine yönelmemiş; tasarım farklılıklarının ilgilenim düzeyi ve algılanan risk ile ilişkisini incelememiştir. Yazındaki bu boşluğu doldurmak üzere yürütülen bu çalışmada, ortaya konulan önerilerin test edilebilmesi için anket çalışması yapılmış ve toplam 750 kullanılabilir anket elde edilmiştir. Çalışmanın sonucunda, beklendiği üzere, ürün tasarımının yenilik seviyesi arttıkça tüketicilerin duygusal ve bilişsel tepkilerinin daha olumlu olduğu bulunmuştur. Ürün ilgilenim seviyesinin, tasarımın yaratacağı etkiyi değiştirmesi beklenirken, tasarımdan bağımsız başlı başına bir belirleyici unsur olduğu ortaya çıkmıştır. Algılanan risk seviyesinin ise duygusal tepkileri etkilememekle beraber bilişsel değerlendirmeler üzerinde anlamlı derecede etkili bir rol oynadığı gözlemlenmiştir

Keywords

Ürün tasarımı, yenilik, duygular, bilişsel değerlendirme, ilgilenim, risk algısı

DESIGN NEWNESS EFFECTS ON CONSUMERS’ HEARTS AND MINDS, AND THE MODERATING ROLES OF INVOLVEMENT AND

Abstract

Every product used in every part of daily life has a different design, and different product designs are accepted differently by consumers depending on their emotional and cognitive processes. These emotional reactions and cognitive evaluations have a significant impact on the way consumers experience the world, how they will respond to different stimuli, and how they will make their choices. This research aims to investigate the effects of product design newness levels on consumers’ approach/avoidance behaviors. The central premise of the study is that consumers’ emotional and cognitive evaluations, while they are faced with a prototypical, novel, or futuristic design, are strong determinants of their behavioral intentions. In addition, product involvement and perceived risk are expected to moderate the hypothesized relationships. Other studies focus on product design and emotion/cognition relationships, but none of them have concentrated on the effects of design newness levels on consumers and the roles of product involvement and perceived risk so far. The current study that has been designed to fill these gaps offers and empirically tests the hypothesized relationships with data collected from 750 usable questionnaires. As expected, the results are in support of the fact that consumers give more positive emotional and cognitive reactions to products with increasing design newness levels. On the other hand, product involvement is found to be not a moderator of design effects, but a significant driver of such emotional/cognitive evaluations. Finally, perceived risk is shown to play an important role in shaping the influence of cognition but not emotions on consumers’ approach behavior

Keywords

Product design, novelty, emotions, cognitive evaluations, involvement, risk perceptions

References

• Arnold, M. B. (1960). Emotion and Personality. Volume 1: Psychological Aspects. New York: Columbia University Press.
• Bagozzi, R. P., Gopinath, M. and Nyer, P. U. (1999). The Role of Emotions in Marketing. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 27 (2): 184-206.
• Basalla, G. (1988). The Evolution of Technology. UK: Cambridge University Press.
• Bauer, R. A. (1960). Consumer Behavior as Risk Taking. In Hancock R.S., (Ed.) Dynamic Marketing for a Changing World. American Marketing Association, Chicago: 389-398.
• Baumgartner, H. and Steenkamp, J. E. M. (1996). Exploratory Consumer Buying Behavior: Conceptualization and Measurement. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 13(2): 121-137.
• Berkowitz, M. (1987). Product Shape as A Design Innovation Strategy. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 4 (4): 274-83.
• Berlyne, D. E. (1960). Conflict, Arousal, and Curiosity. New York: McGraw Hill.
• Bettman, J. R. (1979). An Information Processing Theory of Consumer Choice. Boston: Addison-Wesley.
• Bitner, M. J. (1992). Servicescapes: The Impact of Physical Surroundings on Customers and Employees. Journal of Marketing, 56 (2): 57-71.
• Blijlevens, J., Creusen, M. E. H. and Schoormans, J. P. L. (2009). How Consumers Perceive Product Appearance: The Identification of Three Product Appearance Attributes. International Journal of Design, 3: 27-35.
• Bloch, P.H. (1995). Seeking the Ideal Form: Product Design and Consumer Response. Journal of Marketing, 59(3): 6-29.
• Bürdek, B. E. (2005). Design history theory and practice of product design. Berlin, Germany: Architecture Basel.
• Chitturi, R. (2015). Design for Affect: A Core Competency for The 21st century. GfK MIR, 7(2): 16 – 21.
• Chowdhury A., Reddy S.M., Chakrabarti D. and Karmakar S. (2015). Cognitive Theories of Product Emotion and Their Applications in Emotional Product Design. In Chakrabarti A. (Ed.): ICoRD’15 – Research into Design Across Boundaries Volume 1. Smart Innovation, Systems and Technologies, New Delhi, Springer: 329-340.
• Clarke, K. and Belk, R. W. (1979). The Effects of Product Involvement and Task Definition on Anticipated Consumer Effort. In Advances in Consumer Research Volume 06. William L. Wilkie, Ann Abor, (Ed.): Association for Consumer Research: 313-318.
• Crawford, M. C. and Di Benedetto, A. (2007), New Products Management. McGraw-Hill, Boston.
• Creusen, M. E. H. and Snelders, S. (2002). Product Appearance and Consumer Pleasure. In Green, W. D. and Jordon, P. W. (Ed.): Pleasure with Products: Beyond Usability, New York, Taylor and Francis Group: 69-75.
• Creusen, M. E. H. and Schoormans, J. P. L. (2005). The Different Roles of Product Appearance in Consumer Choice. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 22 (1): 63-81.
• Crilly, N., Moultrie, J. and Clarkson, P.J. (2004). Seeing Things: Consumer Response to The Visual Domain in Product Design. Design Studies, 25(6): 547-577.
• Cunningham, W. A., Raye, C. L. and Johnson, M. K. (2005). Neural Correlates of Evaluation Associated with Promotion and Prevention Regulatory Focus. Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience, 5 (2): 202-211.
• Dawar, N. and Parker, P. (1994). Marketing Universals: Consumers’ Use of Brand Name, Price, Physical Appearance, and Retailer Reputation as Signals of Product Quality. Journal of Marketing, 58 (2): 81-95.
• Day, G. S. (1970). Buyer Attitudes and Brand Choice. New York: Free Press.
• Desmet, P. M. A. (2008). Product Emotion. In Hendrik N., J. Schifferstein, Hekkert, P. (Ed.): Product Experience, San Diego, Elsevier: 379–397.
• Dickson, P. R. (1994). Marketing Management. Orlando: The Dryden Press.
• Donovan, R. J. and Rossiter, J. R. (1982). Store Atmosphere: An Environmental Psychology Approach. Journal of Retailing, 58 (1): 34-57.
• Dourish, P. (2001). Where The Action Is: The Foundations of Embodied Interaction. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
• Dowling, G. R. and Staelin, R. (1994). A Model of Perceived Risk and Intended Risk-Handling Activity. Journal of Consumer Research, 21(1): 119-134.
• Elliot, A. J. and Thrash, T. M. (2002). Approach-Avoidance Motivation in Personality: Approach and Avoidance Temperaments and Goals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82 (5): 804-818.
• Fenech, O. C. and Borg, J. C. (2006). A Model of Human Sensations as A Basis for Design for Product-Emotion Support. International Design Conference, Dubrovnik, Croatia, May 15 -18.
• Finucane, M. L., Alhakami, A., Slovic, P. and Johnson, S. M. (2000). The Affect Heuristic in Judgments of Risks and Benefits. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 13 (1): 1-17.
• Forty, A. (1992). Objects of Desire – Design and Society Since 1750. New York: Thames and Hudson.
• Foxall, G. R. and Greenley, G. E. (1999). Consumers’ Emotional Responses to Service Environments. Journal of Business Research, 46 (2): 149-158.
• Garvin, D. A. (1984). What Does Product Quality Really Mean? MIT Sloan Management Review, 26 (1), 25 – 43.
• Gefen, D. (2000). E-Commerce: The Role of Familiarity and Trust. Omega: The international Journal of Management Science, 28 (6): 725-737.
• Grewal, D., Monroe, K. B. and Krishnan, R. (1998). The Effects of Price- Comparison Advertising on Buyers’ Perceptions of Acquisition Value, Transaction Value, and Behavioral Intentions. Journal of Marketing, 62 (2): 46-59.
• Havlena, W. J. and Holbrook, M. B. (1986). The Varieties of Consumption Experience: Comparing Two Typologies of Emotion in Consumer Behavior. Journal of Consumer Research, 13 (3), 394-404.
• Hekkert, P., Snelders, D. and van Wieringen, P. C. W. (2003). Most Advanced Yet Acceptable: Typicality and Novelty as Joint Predictors of Aesthetic Preference in Industrial Design. British Journal of Psychology, 94: 111–24.
• Hirschman, E. and Holbrook, M. B. (1982). Hedonic Consumption: Emerging Concepts, Methods and Propositions. Journal of Marketing, 46 (3): 92- 101.
• Hoyer, W. D. and Stokburger-Sauer, N. E. (2012). The Role of Aesthetic Taste in Consumer Behavior. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 40 (1): 167-180.
• Jacoby, J. and Kaplan, L. B. (1972). The Components of Perceived Risk. Third Annual Conference, Champaign, Association for Consumer Research, IL
• Jacobs, J. J. (1999). How to Teach, Design, Produce and Sell Product – Related Emotions. First International Conference on Design and Emotion, Delft., 3-5 November.
• Kirmani, A. and Wright, P. (1989). Money Talks: Perceived Advertising Expense and Expected Product Quality. Journal of Consumer Research, 16 (3): 344- 353.
• Kotler, P. and Rath, G. A. (1984). Design: A Powerful but Neglected Strategic Tool. Journal of Business Strategy, 5: 16-21.
• Kleijnen, M., Lee, N. and Wetzels, M. (2009). An Exploration of Consumer Resistance to Innovation and Its Antecedents. Journal of Economic Psychology, 30: 344–357
• Krishnamurthy, P. and Sivaraman, A. (2002). Counterfactual Thinking and Advertising Responses. The Journal of Consumer Research, 28 (4): 650- 658.
• Laurent, G. and Kapferer, J. (1985). Measuring Consumer Involvement Profiles. Journal of Marketing Research, 22 (1): 41-53.
• Levy, J. M. and Tybout, A.M. (1989). Schema Congruity as a Basis for Product Evaluation. Journal of Consumer Research, 16 (1): 39–54
• Loken, B. and Ward, J. (1990). Alternative Approaches to Understanding the Determinants of Typicality. Journal of Consumer Research, 17 (2): 111-26.
• Mano, H. and Oliver, R. L. (1993). Assessing the Dimensionality and Structure of the Consumption Experience: Evaluation, Feeling, and Satisfaction. Journal of Consumer Research, 20 (3): 451-466.
• McGuire, W. J. (1974). Psychological Motives and Communication Gratification. In Blumer J.G., Katz, E. (Ed.): The Uses of Mass Communications: Current Perspectives on Gratification Research, CA, Sage Publications: 167-196.
• Mehrabian A. and Russell J. A. (1974). An Approach to Environmental Psychology. Cambridge, The MIT Press.
• Meyers-Levy, J. and Tybout, A. M. (1989). Schema Congruity as A Basis for Product Evaluation. Journal of Consumer Research, 16 (1): 39-54.
• Moon H., Park, J. and Kim, S. (2015). The Importance of an Innovative Product Design on Customer Behavior: Development and Validation of a Scale. Journal of Product and Innovation Management, 32 (2): 224-232.
• Mugge, R., and Schoormans, J. P.L. (2012). Newer is Better The Influence of a Novel Appearance on The Perceived Performance Quality of Products. Journal of Engineering Design, 23 (6): 469-484.
• Nussbaum, B. (1993). Hot Products: How Good Design Pays Off. Business Week. June: 54 -57.
• Page, C. and Herr, P. M. (2002). An Investigation of the Processes by Which Product Design and Brand Strength Interact to Determine Initial Affect and Quality Judgments. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 12 (2): 133-147.
• Raghubir, P. and Greenleaf, E.A. (2006). Ratios in Proportion: What Should the Shape of the Package Be? Journal of Marketing, 70 (1): 95-107.
• Ram, S., and Sheth, J. N. (1989). Consumer resistance to innovations: The marketing problem and its solutions. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 6(2): 5–14.
• Rindova, V. P. and Petkova, A. P. (2007). Technological Change, Product Form Design, and Perceptions of Value. Organization Science, 18: 217-232.
• Schachter, S. and Singer, J. Cognitive, Social, and Physiological Determinants of Emotional State. Psychological Review, 69(5), 379–399.
• Schmidt, M. (2004). Investigating risk perception. Doctoral Thesis, Vienna, Austria.
• Smith, C. A. and Kirby, L. D. (2001). Towards Delivering on the Promise of Appraisal Theory. In Scherer, K., Schorr, A., Johnstone, T. (Ed.): Appraisal Processes in Emotion: Theory, Methods, Research, New York, Oxford University Press: 121-138.
• Slovic, P. and Peters, E. (2006). Risk Perception and Affect. Psychological Science, 15(6): 322-325.
• Seva, R. R., Duh, H. B. L. and Helander, M. G. (2007). The Marketing Implications of Affective Product Design. Applied Ergonomics, 38(6): 723-731.
• Talke, K., Salomo, S., Wieringa, J.E. and Lutz, A. (2009). What About Design Newness? Investigating the Relevance of a Neglected Dimension of Product Innovativeness. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 26 (6): 601-615.
• Turner, P. (2008). Towards an Account of Intuitiveness. Behavior & Information Technology, 27 (6): 475-482.
• Ulrich, K. T. (2011). Design Is Everything? Journal of Product Innovation Management, 28 (3): 394-398.
• Veryzer, R. W. (1995). The Place of Product Design and Aesthetics in Consumer Research. Advances in Consumer Research, 22: 641-645.
• Veryzer, R.W. Jr., and Hutchinson, J.W. (1998). The Influence of Unity and Prototypicality on Aesthetic Responses To New Product Designs. Journal of Consumer Research, 24 (4), 374-385.
• Walsh, V. (1996). Design, Innovation and The Boundaries of the Firm. Research Policy, 25 (4): 509-529.
• Watson, D., Wiese, D., Vaidya, J. and Tellegen, A. (1999). The Two General Activation Systems of Affect: Structural Findings, Evolutionary Considerations, and Psychobiological Evidence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 76(5): 820-838.
• Westbrook, R. A. and Oliver, R. L. (1991). The Dimensionality of Consumption Emotion Patterns and Consumer Satisfaction. Journal of Consumer Research, 18(1): 84-91.
• Wu, T. Y., Hsu, Y. and Lee, G. A. (2015). The Effect of Product Appearances on Consumer Emotions and Behaviors: A Perspective of Involvement. Journal of Industrial and Production Engineering, 32(8): 486-499.
• Zhao, X., Wang, Y., Liu, D., and Zhou, R. (2011). Effect of Updating Training on Fluid Intelligence in Children. Chinese Science Bulletin, 56: 2202–2205.
• Zajonc, R. B. (1968). Attitudinal Effects of Mere Exposure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Monograph Supplement, 9 (2): 1-27.
• Zajonc, R. B. (1980). Feeling and Thinking: Preferences Need No Inference. American Psychologist, 35: 151-175.
• Zajonc, R.B. and Markus H. (1982). Affective and Cognitive Factors in Preferences. Journal of Consumer Research, 9 (2): 123–131.
• Zaichkowsky, J. L. (1985). Measuring the Involvement Construct. Journal of Consumer Research, 12 (3): 341-352.
• Zaichkowsky, J. L. (1986). Conceptualizing Involvement. Journal of Advertising, 15 (2): 4-14.
• Ziamou, P. L. and Ratneshwar, S. (2003). Innovations in Product Functionality: When and Why Are Explicit Comparisons Effective? Journal of Marketing, 67(2): 49-61.