THE INFLUENCE OF PRODUCT DESIGN
INNOVATION ON BRAND ATTITUDE
And the role of need for uniqueness
The relationship between product design innovation and branding is argued to be fundamental for business competitiveness. However, the connection between both concepts is generally unknown in the literature. Therefore, this study explores how product design innovation influences brand attitude, and to what extent the personal attribute need for uniqueness influences this effect. A product design can be innovated on the aesthetical and/or functional attributes, which is shown by prior research to positively affect consumer reactions. To examine the effect of product design innovation on brand attitude, the respondents were randomly assigned to one of the four stimuli. The four stimulus materials were all pictures of different designs of a power strip. One design was only innovated on the aesthetical attribute (A), one design was only innovated on the functional attribute (F), one design was innovated on both the aesthetical and functional attributes (AF), and the control condition was neither innovated on the aesthetical nor on the functional attributes (C). The experiment (N = 154) shows that product design innovation positively affects brand attitude, especially for people with a high need for uniqueness. When a product design is innovated on both the aesthetical and functional attributes, the consumers evaluate a brand more positively. Moreover, for people with a high need for uniqueness, all product design innovations show to positively affect brand attitude. Theoretically, this shows the importance of product design innovation and its effect on brand attitude, and furthermore the role that need for uniqueness plays in this relationship. As both product design and branding become increasingly important activities for companies to gain competitive advantage, the findings are important for the practical implications of product design innovation.
Rik Doorschodt Amsterdam Business School
5823684 MSc. Business Studies
16-‐12-‐2013 Dr. W. van der Aa Master Thesis
Table of contents
1. Introduction 2
2. Theoretical framework 4
2.1 Product design 4
2.2 Product design innovation 6
2.3 Proposed hypotheses 8
2.3.1 Aesthetics 9
2.3.2 Function 10
2.3.3 Aesthetics and function 11
2.3.4 Need for uniqueness 12
2.3.5 Conceptual model 13 3. Method 14 3.1 Pretest 14 3.2 Participants 17 3.3 Procedure 17 3.4 Materials 18 3.5 Measures 19 3.5.1 Brand attitude 19
3.5.2 Need for uniqueness 19
3.5.3 Control variables 20 4. Results 21 4.1 Manipulation check 21 4.2 Randomization 22 4.3 Analyses 23 4.3.1 Main effect 23
4.3.2 Product design innovation 23
4.3.3 Interaction effect 24
5. Conclusion & Discussion 28
6. Implication 32
7. References 35
8. Appendices 39
1. Introduction
By being innovative in its product designs, Apple was able to become design leader in their industry and achieve record profits during a major recession (Michaels 2010 in Bloch, 2011). According to Bruce and Daly (2007), product design is an important aspect for companies to gain competitive advantage and become successful. Furthermore, to succeed in today’s business world, companies must be innovative with the new products they bring to market (Hauser, Tellis & Griffin, 2006). Therefore product design
innovation is a potential key element for companies in developing new products nowadays.
Within the literature, product design developed from focusing purely on the aesthetics or function of a product to a more integrated practice, where product design is seen as fundamental to firm strategy and market success (Luchs & Swan, 2011). Bloch (1995) was one of the first who argued that product design is a central practice of marketing strategy and is increasing in cultural prominence. Today, product design is seen as an important determinant in positioning products and developing brands (Brunner, Emery & Hall, 2008). Although product design innovation is argued to play a significant role in gaining competitive advantage and managing design is seen as a key aspect of marketing activities, relatively little is known about the connections between product design and marketing (Beverland, 2005; Veryzer, 2005). The present study examines the relationship between product design and marketing, by researching the effect of product design innovation on brand attitude. Until now, this proposed
relationship is not studied before.
This study aims to examine the relationship between product design innovation and the consumers’ attitude towards the brand. A product can be innovated on the aesthetical and functional design attributes. The literature shows that product design
innovation positively affects consumer responses. Moon, Miller and Kim (2013) concluded that innovation on the aesthetical design attributes of a product results in a more positive customer value. Thereby, innovation on the aesthetics of a product design helps it from standing out from the products developed by competitors, and the visual distinction of a product may positively trigger consumer responses (Rindova & Petkova, 2007). Innovation on the functional design attributes of a product is also shown to positively affect customer value (Moon, Miller & Kim, 2013). Next to innovation on either the aesthetical – or functional design attributes, it is also possible to innovate a product on both attributes. Page and Herr (2002) found that a product is liked most by consumers if both aesthetics and function are high.
Furthermore, this study aims to examine whether personal preferences influence the proposed relationship between product design innovation and brand attitude. The consumer has to value the innovated product design. Research has shown that
consumers vary in the way they are affected by a product design (Becker, Van Rompay, Schifferstein & Galetzka, 2011; Bloch, Brunel & Arnold, 2003). Consumers evaluate a product more positively when its form is congruent with their personal tastes and preferences (Bloch, 1995). Because innovation is central in this study, it is expected that the personal preference to feel unique may be of importance. Therefore the present study investigates whether the relationship between product design innovation and brand attitude is moderated by need for uniqueness.
2. Theoretical framework
An overview of the literature will be given to put the present study into perspective and to ultimately propose hypotheses.
2.1 Product design
Bloch (1995) was one of the first who developed a conceptual model of product design. In his model, the form of a product is developed according a company’s strategic design goals and constraints. Once the product form is developed, it may elicit a variety of psychological responses from consumers. These psychological responses include both cognitive and affective components. The psychological cognitive and affective responses lead in their turn to the actual behavioral responses in the form of either approach or avoidance behavior. The three phases of product design and the conceptual model design by Bloch (1995) are widely discussed as a fundamental basic for product design in the academia. However, throughout the years of research the model of product design and its three phases developed by Bloch (1995) is broadened. In the next paragraphs a more in-‐depth view will be given on the three phases of product design.
The first phase of the product design process is identified by the academia as the managerial and designers activities that take place before a product is formed.
According to Veryzer and Borja de Mozota (2005) the primary theme of these design activities is the understanding and the explicit consideration of customer needs. The determination of the customer needs is not the only principle of the design activities. Marsh and Stock (2006) showed that design becomes a powerful source of competitive advantage in a changing environment. Therefore design activities are considered as an important element of a firm’s strategy (Luchs & Swan, 2011). As design activities are part of the firm’s strategy, Gorb (1990) stated that managers need to effectively deploy
the available design resources in the pursuance of its corporate objectives. So in the phase of design activities it becomes clear how design choices are or should be made by the firm (Ravasi & Stigliani, 2012).
In the second phase, the actual product is designed. In this phase of the product design model it becomes clear how design choices made in phase 1, affect the formal and functional properties of the product (Ravasi & Stigliani, 2012). Whereas Bloch’s (1995) focus is mainly on the physical form or aesthetics of a product, subsequent research now has extended its attention with the function of a product as an important determinant of product design (Luchs & Swan, 2011). According to Ravasi and Stigliani (2012) there are two lines of inquiries regarding the outcome of innovation in the functional parameters and formal features of a product, namely technological and stylistic innovation. The authors state that changes in the configuration of technological parameters define and thereby determine the relative functionality of a product. Ravasi and Stigliani (2012) define stylistic innovation as the change of the physical form or aesthetics of a product, which changes its semantics and gives meaning to the product. Both functional and aesthetical changes in product design are derived by decisions made by the firm regarding product innovation.
In the third phase, product form and function can have independent effects on consumers’ responses to product design and firm performance. Luchs and Swan (2011) distinguished two fields of inquiry regarding the consequences of product design for the firm, namely product success and firm performance. Product success can be improved through the influence of new product meaning by innovating in product aesthetics or function (Verganti, 2008). The success of a product is often tied together with firm performance variables such as market share, quality, sales, innovativeness and profit (Luchs & Swan, 2011). Next to the consequences of product design for the firm, also a
stream of inquiry focused on the consequences of product design for consumers.
According to Ravasi and Stigliani (2012), research documented the influences of product aesthetics on consumers’ affective preferences, their purchase decisions, and their understanding and categorizations of products or brands. The authors also state that consumers’ preferences and satisfaction are mainly driven by utilitarian product benefits and thereby product function. So in the third phase it becomes clear how the aesthetical and functional properties of products established in the previous phase, hold subsequent consequences for the firm’s performance and consumer behavior (Ravasi & Stigliani, 2012).
Thus, product design not only encompasses both product aesthetics and function, but it can also be seen as a process that is integral to, and an antecedent of, strategy development, as well as the consequences of product design decisions from both the firm and the consumer perspectives (Luchs & Swan, 2011). This view on product design is fundamental for the present study. The independent variable is product design
innovation in both the aesthetics and function of the product, which takes place in the second phase where design choices are made by the firm. The dependent variable of the present study takes place in the third phase, where the consequences of the product design for the firm and consumers are made clear. Now an overview of the literature is given and the present study can be put into perspective, a more in depth view will be given on the used constructs and hypotheses.
2.2 Product design innovation
Hauser, Tellis and Griffin (2006) stated that innovation, defined as the process of bringing new products and services to a target market, is necessary for firms to succeed in today’s business world. According the authors, the key to successful innovation is to
develop innovative products that satisfy the customer needs. This process of innovation in a way relates to the model of product design described above. One of the first authors who defined innovation was Joseph Schumpeter (in the 1930’s). According to
Schumpeter there are five main types of innovations: a new good, a new method of production, a new market, a new source of supply of raw materials, and the carrying out of a new organization in any industry (Knudsen & Swedberg, 2009). Despite subsequent research has broadened our view on innovation today, Schumpeter provided an
important element to connect the concepts of innovation and product design for the present study, namely: a new good. Herewith Schumpeter connects the newness
element of innovation and the tangible good element of product design into one concept. In the academia product design is referred to as either an outcome in the form of a tangible good (i.e. a product) or as the activity or process of product development (Luchs & Swan, 2011). In the present study the consumer responses on product design will be examined and our definition of product design will focus on the outcome of the product design process in the form of a tangible product. To define product design innovation in the form of a new artifact or product, the literature regarding the concept of innovation and the concept of product design have to be combined. Luchs and Swan (2011) defined product design as:
“The set of properties of an artifact, consisting of the discrete properties of the form (i.e., the aesthetics of the tangible good and/or service) and the function (i.e., its capabilities) together with the holistic properties of the integrated form and function (p. 338)”.
The comprehensive definition of product design by Luchs and Swan (2011) is very useful for the present study, because there is a clear distinction between the
aesthetics and the function of a product. Aesthetic attributes focus on the form of the product design itself, whereas the functional attributes focus on the product features and functional aspects that are required to satisfy customer needs (Moon, Miller & Kim, 2013). However, this definition does not incorporate the element of newness, whereas this is an important element in the concept of innovation. The definition provided by Gemser and Leenders (2001) does combine the concepts of product design and innovation into one definition of product design innovation:
“The introduction of designs that are original or new in the sense of being truly different from designs developed at an earlier date by competitors (p. 31)”.
Although this definition is not very comprehensive regarding the definition of product design, it does incorporate the concept of newness. When these two definitions are ultimately taken together, the definition of product design innovation as used in the present study is as follows: the set of properties of an artifact, consisting of the discrete properties of the form (i.e., the aesthetics of the tangible good) and the function (i.e., its capabilities) together with the holistic properties of the integrated form and function, that are original or new in the sense of being truly different from those developed at an earlier date by competitors.
2.3 Proposed hypotheses
As conceptualized in the present study, product design innovation has two dimensions, namely: aesthetic attributes and function attributes. Next to the possibility of innovating the product design on either the aesthetics or function, it is also possible to innovate the product design on both aesthetics and function. These innovations in
product design are expected to influence the consumer attitudes towards the brand. Keller and Lehmann (2006) identified the product design-‐brand relationship as fundamental for business competitiveness. Page and Herr (2002) were one of the first who connected product design innovation with brand strength of the firm. Their research investigated how product design interacts with brand strength to influence consumers’ evaluations. However, until now, no research studied the direct effect of product design innovation on the consumer evaluation of the brand. Brand attitude will be used in the present study to identify the consumer’s positive or negative attitude towards a brand.
2.3.1 Aesthetics
The aesthetics of a product are widely discussed as an important determinant for companies to create value for both the firm and the consumer. The aesthetic properties of a product are derived from its formal attributes such as shape, proportions, color and material (Boztepe, 2007; Bloch, 1995; Rindova & Petkova, 2007; Veryzer, 1995).
Innovation on the aesthetic properties of product design can be used to alter the visual similarity of a new product to existing products and thereby triggering consumer reactions evoked by the aesthetical properties of the product design (Rindova &
Petkova, 2007). By creating a stylistic identity that is distinctively different from those of their competitors, a firm’s product could be more easily recognized by consumers
(Ravasi & Lojacono, 2005). This indicates that the aesthetics of a product are an
important determinant for firms to enhance their brand and to let their products stand out from those of competitors.
Furthermore, Page and Herr (2002) investigated the influence of product design on consumers’ initial product liking and quality evaluations. The authors concluded that
the aesthetics of a product design enhanced consumers’ product liking. Products that scored high on the aesthetical attribute of product design, where significantly liked better by the consumers. These results suggest that product liking is determined by the aesthetics of a product. More recently Moon, Miller and Kim (2013) further elaborated on the supposed relationship between the aesthetics of a product design and consumer valuation, by studying the effect of product design innovation on customer value. The authors concluded that innovation on the aesthetical attributes of a product design positively affects the perceived customer value. Considering the positive relationship between the aesthetics of a product design and product liking, and more specifically the positive effect of aesthetical product design innovation on perceived customer value, a positive effect on brand evaluation is expected in the present study. Therefore the following hypothesis is proposed:
H1: Innovation on the aesthetical attributes of a product design will positively affect brand attitude, compared to when the product design is not innovated.
2.3.2 Function
Next to innovation on the aesthetical attributes of a product design, innovation on functional product design attributes are also expected to positively affect brand attitude. Product function is an integral component to product design and is seen as an important determinant of long-‐term product success (Ulrich & Eppinger, 1995). The functional attributes of a product design aim to satisfy the operative or utilitarian needs of the consumer (Boztepe, 2007; Dell’Era & Verganti, 2007; Moon, Miller & Kim, 2013; Verganti, 2008). Moon, Miller and Kim (2013) concluded that innovation on the
value, which ultimately results in a higher customer value and satisfaction of customer needs.
Seva and Helander (2009) studied how product design attributes of cellular phones influence the affective experiences of consumers in Asia. The researchers empirically proved that the pre-‐purchase affect is intensified mostly by the functional attributes of a product design. Moreover, Page and Herr (2002) found that, besides aesthetics, function positively influenced liking judgments by the consumer. However, unlike aesthetics, functional attributes also enhanced quality evaluations. In their
research, high function products were rated as being of higher quality than low function products. Furthermore the researchers found that in order to make a quality judgment, functional attributes interacts with brand information. These results suggest there is a possible positive relationship between the functional attributes of a product design and attitude towards the brand. The following hypothesis is proposed:
H2: Innovation on the functional attributes of a product design will positively affect brand attitude, compared to when the product design is not innovated.
2.3.3 Aesthetics and function
While the independent effects of product innovation on the aesthetics and function of a product design are expected to affect brand attitude, the interdependency of aesthetics and function may also have a positive effect on consumers’ attitude
towards the brand. The results of a study by Page and Herr (2002) indicate that, for both liking judgments and quality evaluations, consumer valuation is most positive when aesthetics and function are both high. This suggests that innovation on both the aesthetical and functional attributes of a product design may result in an even greater
effect on brand attitude than innovation on either the aesthetics or function of a product design on its own. Rindova and Petkova (2007) stated that incremental changes of a single product design attribute are not very exiting for consumers. In contrast,
innovation on more product design attributes is perceived as more interesting. Taken together, the following hypothesis is proposed:
H3: Innovation on both the aesthetical and functional attributes of a product design will positively affect brand attitude, compared to when the product design is not innovated or innovated on either the aesthetical or functional attributes of a product design.
2.3.4 Need for uniqueness
The product properties and its design attributes reside in the object itself, but are interpreted by the consumer. Through the visible and intrinsic characteristics, the product conveys certain uses and meanings, which are valued and interpreted by the consumer’s context (Boztepe, 2007). So, consumers vary in the extent to which they are affected, or pay attention to product design (Becker, Van Rompay, Schifferstein & Galetzka, 2011; Bloch, Brunel & Arnold, 2003). Therefore it is expected that consumer reactions to a product design are moderated by personal taste and preferences. Bloch (1995) found that consumers evaluate product forms that are congruent with their individual tastes and preferences positively, whereas negative evaluations occur where the congruence is low.
Bloch (1995) argued that persons vary in their needs to feel themselves distinct from others. The material objects or products that consumers choose to display, often express that they are different or distinct from others (Tian, Bearden & Hunter, 2001). The display of distinct products can be the primary, intended outcome of a person’s
actions that are driven by the need to feel unique. This suggests that people with a high need for uniqueness tend to have a higher need for unique products and thereby are more receptive for product design innovations. It Therefore is expected that people with a high need for uniqueness value the brand of innovative design products more
positively than people with a low need for uniqueness. The following hypothesis is proposed:
H4: Product design innovation will positively affect brand attitude, especially for people with a high need for uniqueness (compared to people with a low need for uniqueness).
2.3.5 Conceptual model
The hypotheses of the present study are graphically shown in the conceptual model (see Figure 1). In short, product design innovation is the independent variable and brand attitude is the dependent variable. The product design can be innovated on the aesthetical, functional, or both aesthetical and functional design attributes, which are all expected to positively influence brand attitude, compared to when the product design is not innovated. Furthermore, the consumers need for uniqueness is expected to
moderate the relationship between product design innovation and brand attitude. More specific, the effect of product design innovation on brand attitude for people with a high need for uniqueness is expected to be stronger than for people with a low need for uniqueness.
Figure 1. Conceptual research model with proposed hypotheses: Effect of product design innovation on brand attitude, which is moderated by consumers’ need for uniqueness
3. Method 3.1 Pretest
A pretest was conducted in order to ensure the effectiveness of the product design innovation manipulations. Power strips were selected as product stimuli for the present study, because of product familiarity to, and – experience of the subjects. Thereby variations in the design of such a product are not commonly known by the respondents, which makes it possible to isolate aesthetical – and functional product design attributes as well as combine both of these product design attributes to ultimately measure its effect on brand attitude.
A selection of fifteen different product designs of the power strip is made (representing four power strips innovated on only the aesthetical product design
attributes, four power strips innovated on only the functional product design attributes,
!"#$%"$&'# ()*'$&+* ,-.*/0.$$&$)/" 1""/02+-0 )*&3)"*"## !"#$%"$&'#040 ()*'$&+* !"#$%&'($)*+,-(+--#./'+#-( /''"+0%')* 12(3 14(3 15(3 16(3
four innovated on both aesthetical – and functional product design attributes and three control variations which are neither innovated on the aesthetical product design
attributes nor on the functional product design attributes). The fifteen selected stimuli are all photos of the product or prototype, whereas photos are most superior to
research the effects of product design, compared to drawings or computer animated images (Holbrook & Moore, 1981; Bloch, 1995). The stimuli were found through searching with the terms “power strip”, and “stekkerdoos” on Google images. In total thirteen participants evaluated the fifteen product variations representing the intended product design innovation manipulation using a 2-‐item novelty construct, comprising the items aesthetical product design innovation, and functional product design innovation (Osgood, Suci & Tannenbaum, 1957; Hung & Chen, 2012). Participants indicated (using 9-‐point rating scales ranging from “typical” to “unique”) to what extent they considered these items descriptive for the product variants. The fifteen different product designs were presented in random order. The thirteen participants of the pretest are excluded from the main study.
For each product variation both items were summed and averaged, resulting in four usable conditions (see Figure 2). A3 scored high on aesthetical product design innovation and low on functional product design innovation (Maesthetics = 7.85, SD = 1.07; Mfunction = 3.38, SD = 3.04). F4 scored high on functional product design innovation and low on aesthetical product design innovation (Maesthetics = 3.15, SD = 2.64; Mfunction = 6.85, SD = 1.21). AF3 scored highest on both aesthetical – and functional product design innovation (Maesthetics = 8.00, SD = 0.82; Mfunction = 8.08, SD = 1.04), whereas C3 scored lowest on both aesthetical – and functional product design innovation (Maesthetics = 1.23, SD = 0.83; Mfunction = 1.23, SD = 0.83).
Based on the findings of this pretest, four conditions are used, varying in product design, resulting in a 2 (aesthetical product design innovation: low versus high) x 2 (functional product design innovation: low versus high) between-‐subjects factorial design.
Figure 2. Scatter plot of the conducted pre-‐test resulting in four usable stimuli (C3, F4, A3, and AF3)
!"# !$# !%# !&# '"# '$# '%# '&# !'"# !'$#!'%# !'&# ("# ($# (%# )# "# $# %# &# *# +# ,# -# .# )# "# $# %# &# *# +# ,# -# .# /0 12 345 # ### 67 28 9:# /012345 # # # #67289:# !#;#!:<=>:?345#1@AB93=#B:<2C7#277AD4?A7#<?E952# '#;#'973?A745#1@AB93=#B:<2C7#277AD4?A7#<?E952# !'#;#!:<=>:?345#F#47B#G973?A745#1@AB93=#B:<2C7#277AD4?A7#<?E952# (#;#(A7=@A5#<?E952# !"#$%"&'()"#*+,(!-.*/0$"#( 10 ,' &2 ,( ) "# *+ ,( !-.*/ 0$ "# (
3.2 Participants
In total 154 Dutch people participated in the experiment. The average age was 34 (SD=13,31), 44% were female. All participants were naïve as to the purpose of the study and participated voluntarily. Participants were randomly assigned to one of the four conditions.
3.3 Procedure
Participants were contacted trough social media and email about participating in a study. A hyperlink was provided that redirected the participants to the online
questionnaire. The questionnaire started with a short introduction to the study and with an instruction on how to fill out the questionnaire. Participants were told that personal information was used discretely and that they could stop the questionnaire at any time. Subsequently, participants were randomly assigned to one of the four conditions. They were exposed to either a product design only innovated on aesthetical product design attributes, a product only innovated on functional product design attributes, a product innovated on both aesthetical – and functional product design attributes, or a product neither innovated on aesthetical – nor functional product design attributes (the control condition). An identical short text about a fictive company was provided with every condition. A fictive brand is used to ensure that no prior knowledge about the brand would influence the results. The text contained information about the company, namely that company ‘Electrik’ is a manufacturer of home electronic appliances. Furthermore, every photo of the shown stimulus included a short description about the product (see Appendices 1-‐4). Directly after exposure to one of the stimuli, the participants were asked questions regarding respectively the dependent variables, moderating variable,
and control variables. Furthermore a manipulation check was conducted to ensure that the used stimuli were representative conditions.
3.4 Materials
The stimulus materials consisted of photos of four different designs of a power strip. The basic function of a power strip is to extend power over multiple outlets, so that more electronic devices can be plugged in than originally was possible. Power strips were selected as stimuli for the present study, because of product familiarity and – experience to the subjects, however variations in product design are not commonly known.
The four different stimulus materials were derived from the conducted pretest, which resulted in one stimulus only innovated on aesthetical product design attributes (A), one stimulus only innovated on functional product design attributes (F), one stimulus innovated on both aesthetical – and functional product design attributes (AF), and one control condition neither innovated on aesthetical – nor functional product design attributes (C).
Every stimulus contained a short product description, so that it was clear for the respondents what the product features of the shown product design were. The stimulus that was only innovated on aesthetical product design attributes was a yellow power strip in the form of a thunderbolt. The description contained with the photo was as follows: “Power strip in the form of a thunderbolt”. The stimulus that was only
innovated on functional product design attributes was a power strip with the commonly known design, however this power strip has the ability to directly plugin USB-‐portals into the power strip. The text contained with the photo was: “Power strip with an USB input”. The stimulus innovated on both aesthetical – and functional product design
attributes was a power strip, which makes it possible to adjust the amount of outlets. The single outlets that can be (un)plugged are either red or white of color, and have a somewhat fluid shape. The following description was included with the photo: “Power strip which makes it possible to (un)plug the individual outlets”. The control condition was the stimulus that was neither innovated on aesthetical – nor functional product design attributes. This was a power strip with a commonly known design and no special functions. The description contained with the photo was as follows: “Power strip with three outlets”. The product descriptions were the same as used in the pretest and were displayed above the product photos and clearly readable for the participants.
3.5 Measures 3.5.1 Brand attitude
Brand attitude was measured using a six 7-‐point semantic differential scales: negative/positive, unpleasant/pleasant, bad/good, unfavorable/favorable, dislike/like, and poor quality/high quality (Boerman, Reijmersdal & Neijens, 2012). A principle component analysis showed that this is a valid construct (EV = 4.92; R2 = .82). The scores of the six items were summed and averaged to arrive at a highly reliable measurement of brand attitude (α = .96; M = 4.85, SD = 1.19).
3.5.2 Need for uniqueness
The need for uniqueness (NFU) is used to measure the differences in participants’ need for unique products. The NFU measures the extent to which consumers hold as a personal goal the acquisition and possession of consumer goods, services, and
experience that few others possess (Lynn & Harris, 1997). People with a high NFU have an increased tendency to acquire and use products that are innovative, scarce, and
customized. NFU was measured using eight items that were rated on a 5-‐place bipolar scale (ranging from ‘strongly disagree’ to ‘strongly agree’), which resulted in a valid construct (EV = 3.52; R2 = .44). Item scores were summed and averaged to create the NFU score (α = .82; M = 3.28, SD = .63). Thereafter the group with a score higher than the mean summed with the standard deviation is perceived as high NFU (n = 21) and the group with a score lower than the mean subtracted with the standard deviation is perceived as low NFU (n = 24.
3.5.3 Control variables
A number of control variables were measured to control that the measured effects were not caused by other differences between experimental groups. Research has shown that product evaluations may be affected by consumers’ product category knowledge (Sujan, 1985). Therefore, in accordance of Page and Herr (2002),
participants were asked to indicate their subjective knowledge about the treatment. The self-‐reported product knowledge of the participants was measured on a two item, five-‐ point scale (ranging from ‘little or no knowledge’ to ‘great deal of knowledge’). The two items assessed the participants’ product knowledge relative to their friends and the participants’ product knowledge relative to the general population. Furthermore, sex, age, and education were measured. All the control variables were measured at the end of the questionnaire.
4. Results 4.1 Manipulation check
For the manipulation check a MANOVA was conducted with the four groups (product not innovated on design attributes, product innovated on aesthetical design attributes, product innovated on functional design attributes, product innovated on both aesthetical and functional attributes) as independent variable, and novelty of aesthetical design attributes and novelty of functional design attributes as dependent variables. The multivariate analysis revealed significant effect of the four conditions (Wilks’ λ = .22, F (6, 298) = 56.31, p < .001, partial eta squared = .53). This means there is a significant difference in both dimensions of product design innovation between the four
conditional groups. Given the significance of the overall test, the univariate main effects were examined. Significant univariate main effects for the conditions were obtained for aesthetical innovation (F (3, 150) = 80.21, p < .001, partial eta square = .62) and
functional innovation (F (3, 150) = 47.09, p < .001, partial eta square = .49).
Follow-‐up univariate post-‐hoc comparisons between groups using F statistics and Bonferroni-‐type simultaneous confidence intervals based on aesthetical innovation showed that significant differences were obtained between all conditions except between A and AF (see Table 1). The aesthetical treatment group significantly differed from the functional treatment group (p < .001). The functional treatment group
significantly differed from the aesthetical and functional treatment group (p < .001). The control treatment group significantly differed from the aesthetical treatment group (p < .001), the functional treatment group (p < .001), and the aesthetical and functional treatment group (p < .001).
Follow-‐up univariate post-‐hoc comparisons between groups using F statistics and Bonferroni-‐type simultaneous confidence intervals based on functional innovation
showed that significant differences were obtained between all conditions except between F and AF (see Table 1). The functional treatment group significantly differed from the aesthetical treatment group (p < .001). The aesthetical treatment group
significantly differed from the aesthetical and functional treatment group (p < .001). The control treatment group significantly differed from the aesthetical treatment group (p < .001), the functional treatment group (p < .001), and the aesthetical and functional treatment group (p < .001). These results showed that all the conditions were successfully manipulated.
Table 1
Scores of used manipulations on product design innovation attributes
Control Aesthetics Function Aesthetics
& Function Aesthetical product design innovation 1.69 (1.03) a 6.30 (1.71)b 3.64 (2.01)c 6.33 (1.29)b Functional product design innovation 1.77 (1.18) a 3.52 (2.04)b 5.74 (1.65)c 5.42 (1.68)c
Note. Mean scores with standard deviations between parentheses.
a,b c Means with a different superscript in the same row differ significantly at p < .001.
4.2 Randomization
As mentioned, the research controlled for product knowledge, age, sex, and level of education. First, it was investigated and confirmed that respondents were divided equally across the four conditions with respect to product knowledge, (F (3, 150) = .35, p = .79), age (F (3, 150) = .23, p = .88), sex (χ² (3) = .31, p = .96), and level of education (χ² (15) = 21.56, p = .12).
4.3 Analyses
After the manipulation and randomization checks were conducted, the data was analyzed to test the hypotheses. In the following part the results of these analyses are given. First the main effect of product design innovation on brand attitude was tested. Second, the results are given of the hypothesized effect of product design innovation on brand attitude. Thereafter, the results of the analyzed interaction effect of need for uniqueness are shown.
4.3.1 Main effect
For explorative purposes we first looked at the difference of brand attitude between all four conditions (C, A, F, and AF) as independent variable, and brand attitude as dependent variable. The analysis of variance did not show a significant main effect of product design innovation (F (3, 150) = 1.93, p = .128, Mcontrol = 4.51, SD = 1.35; Maesthetics = 5.00, SD = 1.13; Mfunction = 4.81, SD = 1.10; Maesthetics & function = 5.12, SD = 1.13) on brand attitude.
4.3.2 Product design innovation
To test H1, H2 and H3, a multiple regression analysis was used to analyze if innovation on the product design attributes significantly predicted participants' brand attitude. First dummy variables were made of all the manipulated conditions, to be able to compare them with the control condition. The independent variables were the dummies of the three manipulated conditions (aesthetics, function, aesthetics & function), and need for uniqueness. The effect of the independent variables on brand attitude was hypothesized and Therefore brand attitude was used as the dependent variable. Innovation on both the aesthetical and functional product design attributes,
compared to the control condition that was neither innovated on aesthetics nor on the function, showed to be a significant predictor of brand attitude (β = .22; t = 2.22, p < .05), controlling for the other independent variables. Aesthetical product design innovation showed to be an insignificant predictor of brand attitude (β = .18; t = 1.78, p = .08). Also functional product design innovation was not a significant predictor of brand attitude (β = .11; t = 1.08, p = .28), compared to the control condition and controlling for the other independent variables (see Table 2). Therefore both H1 and H2 are rejected and H3 is accepted.
Table 2
Effect of product design innovation on brand attitude and the interaction effect of product design innovation and need for uniqueness on brand attitude.
Effect design innovation Interaction effect
Variable B SE B β B SE B β
(Constant) 4.32 .53 7.35 1.04
Aesthetics .48 .27 .18* -‐4.19 1.49 -‐1.55
Function .29 .27 .11 -‐2.98 1.48 -‐1.09
Aesthetics & Function .61 .27 .22** -‐3.18 1.36 -‐1.13
Need for Uniqueness .06 .16 .03 -‐.90 .32 -‐.47
A x Need for uniqueness 1.44 .45 1.83**
F x Need for uniqueness 1.03 .45 1.29**
AF x Need for uniqueness 1.19 .42 1.40**
R2 .04 .11
F 1.47 2.61**
* Indicates marginally significance at p <0,08 ** Indicates significance at p < 0.05
4.3.3 Interaction effect
To test H4 and to analyze if need for uniqueness interacts with product design innovation attributes, interaction terms were made and a multiple regression analysis was conducted with the four conditions (A, F, and AF), need for uniqueness, and the
interaction terms (A x NFU, F x NFU, AF x NFU) as independent variables and brand attitude as dependent variable. The analysis revealed a R2 of .11 (F (7, 146) = 2.61, p < .05) for the prediction of brand attitude. The results showed that all interactions
between product design innovation and need for uniqueness significantly positive affect brand attitude (see Table 2), and Therefore H4 is accepted.
More specifically, the interaction between need for uniqueness and aesthetical product design innovation showed to have the strongest effect on brand attitude (β = 1.83; t = 3.21, p < .01). This means that especially for people with a high need for
uniqueness, innovation on the aesthetical product design attributes has a positive effect on brand attitude (see Figure 3). When the product design is not innovated on its
aesthetics, people with a high need for uniqueness evaluate the brand significantly less positive than people with a low need for uniqueness.
Figure 3. The interaction effect between aesthetical product design innovation and need for uniqueness on brand attitude
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Low A High A
Bran
d A
ttitude
Low Need for Uniqueness High Need for Uniqueness
