Close
About
FAQ
Home
Collections
Login
USC Login
Register
0
Selected
Invert selection
Deselect all
Deselect all
Click here to refresh results
Click here to refresh results
USC
/
Digital Library
/
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
/
The motivational power of beauty: how aesthetically appealing products drive purchase effort in consumers
(USC Thesis Other)
The motivational power of beauty: how aesthetically appealing products drive purchase effort in consumers
PDF
Download
Share
Open document
Flip pages
Contact Us
Contact Us
Copy asset link
Request this asset
Transcript (if available)
Content
1
THE MOTIVATIONAL POWER OF BEAUTY:
HOW AESTHETICALLY APPEALING PRODUCTS DRIVE PURCHASE EFFORT
IN CONSUMERS
by
Gratiana Denisa Pol
A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC GRADUATE SCHOOL
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
(BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION)
May, 2013
Copyright, 2013 Gratiana Denisa Pol
2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................................ 4
ABSTRACT .................................................................................................................................... 5
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION AND OUTLINE ....................................................................... 6
Overview of Chapters .................................................................................................................. 9
CHAPTER 2: THEORETICAL BACKGROUND ...................................................................... 10
The Concept of Aesthetic Appeal ............................................................................................. 10
The Motivation- Versus Attitude-Based Value of Product Aesthetics ..................................... 13
Prior Research on Aesthetically Appealing Products ............................................................... 14
Psychological Responses to Aesthetically Appealing Stimuli .................................................. 17
Instantaneous Desire .............................................................................................................. 17
Ownership Pride .................................................................................................................... 20
Alternative Mechanisms: Mood and Performance Quality Expectations ............................. 24
CHAPTER 3: MODEL AND HYPOTHESES ............................................................................. 27
Instantaneous Desire and Ownership as Mediators of the
Aesthetic Appeal—Purchase Effort Link .................................................................................. 27
Alternative Mediators: Mood and Performance Quality Expectations ..................................... 28
Aesthetic Appeal versus Humor as Visually Hedonic Product Attributes ................................ 30
CHAPTER 4: EMPIRICAL INVESTIGATION .......................................................................... 33
OVERVIEW OF STUDIES ...................................................................................................... 33
PILOT STUDY ......................................................................................................................... 34
Overview and Methods.......................................................................................................... 34
Results ................................................................................................................................... 37
Discussion.............................................................................................................................. 39
STUDY 1A ................................................................................................................................ 39
Overview and Methods.......................................................................................................... 39
Results ................................................................................................................................... 41
Discussion.............................................................................................................................. 44
STUDY 1B ................................................................................................................................ 44
Overview and Methods.......................................................................................................... 44
Results ................................................................................................................................... 45
Discussion.............................................................................................................................. 46
STUDY 2 ................................................................................................................................... 47
Overview and Methods.......................................................................................................... 47
Results ................................................................................................................................... 51
Discussion.............................................................................................................................. 56
STUDY 3 ................................................................................................................................... 57
Overview and Methods.......................................................................................................... 57
3
Results ................................................................................................................................... 61
Discussion.............................................................................................................................. 63
STUDY 4 ................................................................................................................................... 64
Overview and Methods.......................................................................................................... 64
Results ................................................................................................................................... 68
Discussion.............................................................................................................................. 74
GENERAL DISCUSSION ........................................................................................................... 75
Theoretical Contributions .......................................................................................................... 76
Managerial Implications ............................................................................................................ 82
Limitations and Directions for Future Research ....................................................................... 84
REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................. 89
4
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE 1: Main Conceptual Model (Hypothesis H1) ................................................................ 28
FIGURE 2: Pilot Study: Examples of the Stimuli Used in this Study .......................................... 35
FIGURE 3: Study 1a; Examples of the Stimuli Used in This Study ............................................ 40
FIGURE 4: Study 1a; SEM Results for the Main Conceptual Model (H1) ...................................... 42
FIGURE 5: Study 2; Stimuli Used in the Lack-of-Cleanliness Condition ................................... 49
FIGURE 6: Study 2 Results; Effect of Aesthetic Appeal and Negative Scenario Type on
Instantaneous Desire ................................................................................................ 53
FIGURE 7: Study 2 Results; Effect of Aesthetic Appeal and Negative Scenario Type on
Ownership Pride....................................................................................................... 54
FIGURE 8: Study 2 Results; Effect of Aesthetic Appeal and Negative Scenario Type on
Purchase Effort......................................................................................................... 56
FIGURE 9: Study 3; Examples of the Stimuli Used in This Study .................................................. 60
FIGURE 10: Study 3: Key Results ............................................................................................... 63
FIGURE 11: Study 4: Stimuli and Manipulations Used in This Study ........................................ 67
FIGURE 12: Study 4: Effects of Aesthetic Appeal and Type of Induced Emotion on
Instantaneous Desire ................................................................................................ 70
FIGURE 13: Study 4: Effects of Aesthetic Appeal and Type of Induced Emotion on
Ownership Pride....................................................................................................... 71
FIGURE 14: Study 4: Effects of Aesthetic Appeal and Type of Induced Emotion on
Purchase Effort......................................................................................................... 73
5
ABSTRACT
Why does aesthetic appeal have such a powerful influence on consumers, who become
willing to go to great lengths in order to acquire products with a good-looking design? Despite the
substantial progress that has been made in recent years in the area of consumer aesthetics research,
this important question still remains unanswered. My dissertation proposes and empirically shows
that high-aesthetics product designs elicit two distinct responses— instantaneous desire (i.e., a
sudden urge to possess an aesthetically appealing product) and ownership pride (i.e., the buyer’s
expected pride of being associated with a good-looking product)—which in turn motivate consumers
to expend a substantial amount of effort towards purchasing high-aesthetics products (Studies 1-4). I
further show that the alternative accounts of positive mood or the beautiful-is-good stereotype—
which have been previously acknowledged in the literature as consequences of a product’s high
aesthetic appeal—are comparatively less effective at explaining the aesthetic appeal—purchase effort
relationship (Studies 1-4). I finally illustrate how another product attribute that is also visually
hedonic in nature—namely, humor in product design— represents a poorer motivator of purchase
effort when compared to a product’s aesthetic appeal, and show that the motivational advantage of
aesthetic appeal over humor can be traced back to differences in instantaneous desire and ownership
pride (Studies 3 and 4). This research contributes toward a much needed theory development in the
field of product aesthetics, while also shedding light on the possibly unique nature of product
aesthetics among visual product attributes that are hedonic in nature.
6
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION AND OUTLINE
The power of beauty is undeniable. Although many consumer products with which we
surround ourselves were not primarily designed for aesthetic appreciation, quite a few of them
possess at least some aesthetically appealing qualities (Ritterfeld, 2002), which can greatly influence
consumers’ responses (Bloch et al., 2003; Charters, 2006; Postrel, 2003; Patrick & Hagtvedt, 2011),
and may explain why we got such aesthetic products in the first place. From a business perspective,
the advantage of developing products that are both functional and beautiful cannot be understated,
since such products allow companies to increase their margins up to tenfold within a year (IBM
Electronics Broadcast, 2005) and are often key to a company’s overall financial success (Bloch,
1995; Dumaine, 1991; Miller & Adler, 2003; Patrick & Peracchio, 2010). Of course, aesthetically
appealing product designs would not be as successful unless consumers saw a great deal of value in
owning them (Richins, 1994)—to the point of treating them like “sacred” possessions (Bloch,
Brunel, & Arnold, 2003)—and were willing to “go the extra mile” by expending a substantial
amount of effort in order to acquire them.
Consistent with this argument, recent research has shown that consumers are willing to pay
substantially more for aesthetically appealing products than for functionally superior, yet
aesthetically inferior ones (Chitturi, Raghunathan, & Mahajan, 2007; Reimann et al., 2010). Even
prices that are three times higher than those charged for less aesthetically appealing items may not
dissuade consumers from pursuing an aesthetically appealing product (Sood, 2011). In addition to
making such staggering financial efforts, consumers also seem willing to engage in other instances of
overt purchase-related behavioral effort (which I will henceforth refer to as “purchase effort”) for the
sake of owning an aesthetically appealing product. Specifically, anecdotal evidence suggests that
7
consumers are willing to drive for hours (Karvonen, 2000), spend a substantial amount of time in
line, or wait for weeks for the delivery of such a product. After its purchase, consumers also go to
great lengths to keep possession of an aesthetically appealing product, including refusing to make
any functional use of it (Decker-Smith, 2004; Sinha, 1979), or refusing to return it, even at the cost
of having to buy additional, complementary items in order to integrate the product into one’s
environment (Patrick & Hagtvedt, 2011). Considering that such displays of effort happen not only for
aesthetically-designed products in the hedonic category (e.g., decorative pillows from Pottery Barn),
but also for aesthetically-designed products that are categorized as primarily utilitarian in nature (e.g.,
the Alessi lemon squeezer), a product’s aesthetically appealing design appears remarkably effective
at mobilizing consumers’ energy and resources across various product categories, which is
reminiscent of French writer Anatole France’s view that beauty represents “the greatest power in
the world” (Karvonen, 2000).
But what motivates consumers to go to such great lengths to gain ownership of aesthetically
appealing products? Despite the critical importance of visual aesthetics to the marketing discipline
(Bloch, 1995; Hoegg & Alba, 2008) and the vast amount of interest that aesthetics research has
garnered in recent years (cf. Patrick & Peracchio, 2010), this basic question remains unanswered.
Such an empirical gap is due to aesthetics research having focused heavily on examining the effect of
a product’s aesthetic appeal on consumers’ judgments and preferences (e.g., Hoegg, Alba, & Dahl
2010; Townsend & Shu 2010; Raghubir & Greenleaf, 2006), while dedicating hardly any attention to
understanding what it is that so strongly drives consumers to pursue aesthetically appealing products
in the first place. As a result, the field is still lacking a fully developed theory of aesthetics (e.g.,
Kumar & Garg, 2010; Orth & Malkewitz, 2008; Patrick & Peracchio, 2010).
8
In light of the field’s current state of research, this dissertation works toward addressing two
critical questions. First, which psychological responses explain why consumers are willing to expend
a disproportionately large amount of purchase effort toward acquiring aesthetically appealing
products? Second, are these psychological responses simply the result of aesthetic appeal being a
visually hedonic attribute, or are these responses associated with aesthetic appeal to a larger extent
than they are associated with other visually hedonic attributes (such as humor in product design)?
This argument is based on the notion that aesthetic appeal may be distinct from other (visually)
hedonic attributes (Townsend, 1997; Wagner, 1999), although aesthetics research lacks a clear
understanding of those differences (Charters, 2006; Patrick & Peracchio, 2010) since this research
stream has only recently started to compare product aesthetics against other hedonic features (e.g.,
Townsend & Sood, 2012). I propose and show over five empirical studies that consumers’
motivation to engage in effort toward the purchase of an aesthetically appealing product is driven by
two separate psychological responses: instantaneous desire (i.e., the sudden urge to possess an
aesthetically appealing product) and ownership pride (i.e., the buyer’s expected pride of being
associated with an aesthetically appealing product). These two responses help explain the
motivational power of product aesthetics even when one accounts for alternative mechanisms, such
as positive mood (e.g., Norman, 2002) or the beautiful-is-good stereotype (e.g., Page & Herr, 2002),
which have long been acknowledged as consequences of aesthetically appealing stimuli. The results
additionally reveal that the strong instantaneous desire and ownership pride elicited by high-
aesthetics products can also explain why such products exert a stronger motivational influence on
consumers than do products endowed with other visually hedonic attributes such as humor.
9
Overview of Chapters
The remainder of the dissertation is organized as follows. Chapter two defines the
concept of aesthetic appeal, briefly reviews the current literature on product aesthetics, and
discusses the various consumer responses that have so far been associated with aesthetically
appealing products in the literature. It further discusses the notion of behavioral effort as an
indicator of motivation, and distinguishes between the motivation- and the attitude-based value
of a product with hedonic attributes. Chapter three presents the conceptual model proposed in the
present research. Specifically, it develops a series of novel hypotheses about the consumer
responses that are most likely to explain the effect of aesthetic appeal on purchase effort (i.e.,
instantaneous desire and ownership pride; H1), as well as the consumer responses that are less
likely to explain the above mentioned effect (i.e., positive mood and high performance quality
expectations; H2). It further develops a hypothesis about the role of instantaneous desire and
ownership pride in explaining why consumers differ in their willingness to exert effort towards
the acquisition of products with similar hedonic attributes (i.e., aesthetics versus humor; H3).
Chapter four presents six empirical studies that were designed to test the three aforementioned
hypotheses. Finally, Chapter five summarizes the main findings of this research, describes its
theoretical and managerial contributions, and provides directions for future research.
10
CHAPTER 2: THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
The Concept of Aesthetic Appeal
The concept of beauty (or “aesthetic appeal”) has fascinated theorists for centuries, yet
remains up to this day notoriously hard to understand and define (Karvonen, 2000; Wagner,
1999; Walker, 1995). In general, the literature (e.g., Goldman, 2001; Reber, Schwarz, &
Winkielman; Tatarkiewicz, 1970) tends to use the term “aesthetic appeal” synonymously with
aesthetic pleasure, aesthetics, visual/aesthetic attractiveness, visual appeal, good looks, or beauty,
and aesthetic judgments/impressions with judgments of beauty—an approach that will also be
used in the present research. While the overlap between these concepts is not perfect, their
convergence is supported by psychological research showing that people’s lay understanding of
aesthetics centers around the notion of beauty, with aesthetic judgments of an object’s beauty
being part of everyday human behavior (Jacobsen et al., 1994). Similarly, consumer
psychologists have used the term “aesthetics” mainly for describing the beauty of material
objects, individuals, or consumption environments, although this terms has also been employed
as synonymous to the overall physical appearance of a stimulus (Patrick & Peracchio, 2010).
Even though no commonly accepted definition of aesthetic appeal currently exists in the
literature (Diessner et al., 2006; Jacobsen et al., 1994; Patrick & Peracchio, 2010), most aesthetics
researchers equate aesthetic appeal with the property of an object that creates visual pleasure in
the absence of any reasoning about the object’s utility (e.g., Holbrook & Zirlin, 1995; Leder et
al., 2004; Reber, Schwarz, & Winkielman, 2004). This definition, however, has been criticized
as inadequate for capturing the rather unique conceptual properties of aesthetic appeal (e.g.,
Armstrong & Detweiler-Bedell, 2008; Silvia, 2005; Wagner, 1999). Instead, several authors have
11
suggested that aesthetic impressions necessarily contain a sensory/hedonic as well as an
evaluative/cognitive component, both of positive valence (e.g., Rozin & Hormes, 2009; Osborne,
1986; Walker, 1995; Walton, 1993). The sensory component involves perceiving an object’s
visual qualities (such as texture, shape, color, etc.) and results in perceptually-experienced
pleasure (Clay, 1908; Osborne, 1986; Walker, 1995), which is similar to the pleasure response
induced by other hedonic object properties such as a pleasant taste or smell (Krishna, Elder, &
Caldara, 2010). The second component of an aesthetic impression is an instinctive evaluation
response, which entails appraising the perceived visual information in terms of its value and
significance (Goodman, 1968; Osborne, 1986; Walton, 1993). A judgment of beauty or high
aesthetic appeal emerges when an object is appraised as having a nearly ideal or perfect visual
appearance (Coates, 2003; Hagman, 2002; Rank, 1932; Wagner, 1999; Woodward, 2003),
potentially due to a high degree of resonance of the object’s appearance with consumers’
internally-held aesthetic schemata (e.g., Patrick & Hagtvedt, 2011; Wagner, 1999). Such an
appraisal should give rise to an implicit emotion of admiration (Diessner et al., 2008; Hagman,
2002; Haidt & Keltner, 2004; Rank, 1932; Walton, 1993), which is often verbally expressed
through admiration- or awe-conveying phrases such as “Wow, it’s beautiful!” (e.g., Konečni,
2005; Rank, 1932). In support of the pivotal role of admiration in the formation of aesthetic
impressions, neuroscientific research has shown that judgments of aesthetic appeal (as opposed
to judgments of other visual features such as symmetry) engage brain areas responsible for social
evaluations (Jacobsen et al., 2006), particularly emotions of admiration (cf., Immordino-Yang et
al., 2009).
One can hence conclude that impressions of aesthetic appeal entail both sensory and
cognitive elements (Armstrong & Detweiler-Bedell, 2008; Biederman & Vessel, 2006; Leder et
12
al., 2004), and are based on a combination of emotions, namely perceptually-driven pleasure and
admiration. Unless individuals enjoy the visual appearance of a stimulus, while experiencing at
least an implicit level of admiration towards it, the object will not be appraised as aesthetically
appealing (Walton, 1993). For the purpose of the present research, I suggest a working definition
of aesthetic appeal as the property of an object that give rise to both perceptual pleasure and
(implicit) admiration.
In line with most leading aesthetic theories, aesthetic appeal will be conceptualized as a
unipolar construct, anchored by the values of “beautiful” (or “aesthetically appealing”/”high-
aesthetics”—which may be used interchangeably in the present research) at one end and
“neutral” (rather than “ugly”) at the other one (Lorand, 1994). Moreover, consistent with the
tradition of aesthetics research being carried out mainly in the field of visual perception (Leder et
al., 2004), the current investigation will be restricted to visually-based aesthetic pleasure, as
opposed to that derived from other senses, such as auditory pleasure. Furthermore, it is important
to note that while the presence of specific design principles—such a symmetry, unity, harmony,
contrast—along with a balance between novelty and meaningfulness typically makes a stimulus
appear high in aesthetic appeal (e.g., Biederman & Vessel, 2006; Berlyne, 1971; Kumar & Garg,
2010; Ramachandran & Hirstein, 1999; Reber, Schwarz, & Winkielman, 2003), a substantial
amount of heterogeneity exists in individuals’ aesthetic preferences (Hutchinson, Kamakura, &
Lynch, 2000), which makes such preferences more idiosyncratic than preferences for other, non-
aesthetic object features (Vessel & Rubin, 2010).
13
The Motivation- Versus Attitude-Based Value of Product Aesthetics
Once a product is perceived as aesthetically appealing, it appears to drive individuals to
expend substantial effort toward its acquisition, as illustrated by both anecdotal evidence (e.g.,
consumers willing to wait for a long time for the delivery of a high-aesthetics product) and empirical
evidence (e.g., Sood, 2011). Stimulus-directed behavioral effort represents a reliable indicator of how
strongly one wants to obtain a stimulus—also known as the incentive or motivational value of that
stimulus (Berridge, 1996; 2003; Dai, Brendl, & Ariely, 2010). An important characteristic of
motivational value is that it cannot be directly observed or measured; instead, it is typically
assessed based on the amount of effort one is willing to exert towards goal attainment (Berridge,
1996; Dai, Brendl, & Ariely, 2010). A classic operationalization of such behavioral effort entails,
for example, pressing a lever in order to gain access or prolong exposure to a motivational
stimulus (Aharon et al., 2001; Dayan & Balleine, 2002). Another characteristic of motivational
value is persistence, meaning that individuals will keep pursuing the goal of obtaining (or
maintaining ownership of) a motivational stimulus even if they face difficulties or incur costs
(Bagozzi, Dholakia, & Basuroy, 2003; Martin & Tesser, 2009).
Research on the psychology of rewards suggests that motivational value represents an
important, but not singular component of the total utility of a stimulus. The other component is
represented by attitude-based value—also referred to as “liking”—which reflects how much one
enjoys (or expects to enjoy) possessing or consuming a stimulus (Dai, Brendl, & Ariely, 2010).
Unlike a stimulus high in a motivation-based value, a stimulus with high attitude-based value will not
necessarily induce goal persistence in the face of obstacles (Bagozzi, Dholakia, & Basuroy, 2003;
Martin & Tesser, 2009).
14
Empirical evidence suggests that, even though largely correlated, the motivational and
attitudinal value of a stimulus can be dissociated from one each other, such that attitudes are not
necessarily a good indicator of one’s motivation to obtain a stimulus (e.g., Aharon et al., 2001;
Berridge, 1996; 2003; Dai, Brendl, & Ariely, 2010; Winkielman & Berridge, 2003). As a result,
individuals can hold multiple representations of their preference toward a stimulus (i.e., an
attitude- and motivation-based preference), even within the same context (Dai, Brendl, & Ariely,
2010). This implies that the motivational and attitudinal value of a stimulus may be predicted by
different aspects of the stimulus, as illustrated by the finding that the motivational value of a human
face is dependent on gender compatibility with the viewer, whereas ratings of how much one likes
that face are not (Aharon et al., 2001; Dai, Brendl, & Ariely, 2010). In light of this evidence, it
follows that by investigating purchase effort, the present research is tapping the motivational—
though not necessarily attitudinal—value of aesthetically appealing products. Moreover, in light of
attitudes not being a strong predictor of effort (Bagozzi, Dholakia, & Basuroy, 2003), the
processing mechanism that explains why aesthetic appeal provides high motivational value may not
overlap with the mechanism(s) that account for why we like aesthetically appealing products.
After having discussed the concept of motivation and how it relates to aesthetically appealing
stimuli, in the next section I will provide a brief overview of the product aesthetics research that has
so far been conducted in the field of consumer psychology.
Prior Research on Aesthetically Appealing Products
The consumer research literature on aesthetically appealing products can be largely
categorized into one of five major themes: (1) antecedents of aesthetic impressions in consumer
15
products, (2) specific psychological responses induced by aesthetically appealing products, (3) the
effects of aesthetically appealing products on consumers’ judgments, choices, and decision-making,
(4) individual differences in consumers’ responses to aesthetically appealing products, and (5) the
consumption of products with aesthetic qualities. I will briefly review each of the five categories
below.
(1) Antecedents of consumers’ aesthetic impressions. Consumer research has drawn on a
large body of literature in experimental aesthetics (cf., Berlyne, 1971; Reber, Schwarz, &
Winkielman, 2003) to show that a product’s aesthetic appeal increases when the product’s visual
appearance incorporates particular design principles and properties. These include, among others,
exhibiting a moderate degree of complexity (Cox & Cox, 1988), being high in unity and
prototypicality (Veryzer & Hutchinson, 1998), using physical proportions that conform to the golden
ratio (Raghubir & Greenleaf, 2006), or striking a balance between the amount of attention and the
amount of pleasure elicited in viewers (Kumar & Garg, 2010). Additionally, aesthetic impressions
are moderated by preferences for particular color combinations (Deng, Hui, & Hutchinson, 2010),
and by prior exposure to an original (versus a visually altered) product image (Pandelaere,
Millet, & Bergh, 2010).
(2) Psychological responses induced by aesthetically appealing products. Prior literature has
shown that high-aesthetics products elicit expectations of high performance quality (Kumar Batra,
Brunel, & Chandran, 2009; Page & Herr, 2002), create positive affect in the form of a “liking”
response (Hoegg, Alba, and Dahl, 2010; Page & Herr, 2002) or a “wanting” response (Reimann et
al., 2010), and can have a self-affirmation effect on consumers, which is stronger than that induced
by other hedonic attributes such as comfort or taste (Townsend & Sood, 2012). These responses will
be discussed in more detail in the next section.
16
(3) The effects of high-aesthetics products on consumers’ choice and decision-making.
Building on some of the above mentioned psychological responses induced by aesthetics, several
authors have shown that aesthetic appeal can bias consumers’ product judgments. Specifically, if
consumers feel a sense of ownership when evaluating a high-aesthetics product, aesthetics will bias
their product valuation, seemingly regardless of product category (Townsend & Shu, 2010).
Occasionally, aesthetic appeal can also create a negative bias, whereby a product that is high in
aesthetic appeal, but low in functionality, will be perceived as violating consumers’ functionality
expectations, and will be evaluated more poorly than a normative model would predict (Hoegg, Alba,
& Dahl, 2010). Further research has shown that when performing choice tasks, consumers will prefer
choosing aesthetically appealing products over branded products (Reimann et al., 2010) or over
functionally superior products, provided that the high-aesthetics products pass a minimum
functionality threshold (Chitturi, Raghunathan, & Mahajan, 2007). Moreover, if an aesthetically
appealing product leads to incongruity with one’s home environment, consumers may choose to
purchase additional, matching items rather than return the high-aesthetics product (Hagtvedt &
Patrick, 2008).
(4) Individual differences in consumers’ responses to product aesthetics. Prior research has
shown that the importance of product aesthetics to a consumer is determined by three individual
characteristics: (a) value (i.e., the extent to which the consumer relies on aesthetics to enhance her
quality of life), (b) acumen (i.e., the consumer’s ability to recognize and evaluate beauty), and (c)
level of response (i.e., the extent to which aesthetics triggers a positive emotional response in the
consumer; Bloch, Brunel, & Arnold, 2003). Additionally, gender and Need for Cognition impact the
extent to which consumers rely on the hedonic (versus descriptive) meaning of a stimulus when
evaluating objects with aesthetic characteristics (Meyers-Levy & Zhu, 2010).
17
(5) The consumption of products with aesthetic qualities. By employing an exploratory
approach, this particular stream of research has shown that the consumption of products with
aesthetic qualities can play an important role in consumers’ identity formation and expression
(Venkatesh & Meamber, 2008). Additionally, investigations of specific consumption domains such
as art (Joy & Sherry, 2003) and fashion (Venkatesh et al., 2010) have illustrated the role of the body
in the appreciation and consumption of aesthetics. Specifically, Joy and Sherry (2003) found that art
is consumed not just emotionally and cognitively, but also in an embodied, visceral, manner, while
Venkatesh et al. (2010) illustrate how consumers’ preferences regarding bodily appearance shape
their perceptions of fashion aesthetics.
After identifying and reviewing the major themes in product aesthetic research, in the next
section I will focus on one particular theme—the psychological responses induced by high-aesthetics
products—whose understanding is most central to the present research.
Psychological Responses to Aesthetically Appealing Stimuli
In this section, drawing on the aesthetics research in consumer psychology, social
psychology, and neuroscience, I will conduct an in-depth discussion of four key psychological
responses that have so far been associated with aesthetically appealing stimuli.
Instantaneous Desire
Several authors have proposed, though not empirically verified, that the sight of an
aesthetically pleasing object often causes consumers to spontaneously desire to possess that object
(e.g., Coates, 2003; Meyer & Zhao, 2012; Norman, 2004). Such a response emerges automatically
18
(Wagner, 1999), and prompts one to seek immediate physical proximity to the aesthetically
appealing object (Bloch, 1995; Coates, 2003) and ultimately make it one’s own, in the absence of
more rational considerations about the value of owning and using such a product (Meyer & Zhao,
2012). For the purpose of the present research, I will refer to this “gotta-have-it” response induced by
aesthetics (Meyer & Zhao, 2012) as instantaneous desire, and, drawing from previous literature on
impulses (Rook, 1987), I conceptualize it as a sudden urge to possess an aesthetically appealing
product.
This particular desire response differs from a carefully constructed preference (whereby a
product appears “desirable” based on cognitive considerations; Winkielman & Berridge, 2003) in
that its occurrence is involuntary and reflex-like. Moreover, consumers are typically unable to
explain why they would experience immediate lust for an aesthetically appealing product; they
simply want to have it, sometimes even without knowing what the product is or does (Norman, 2004).
Indirect evidence for the link between aesthetics and such a desire response comes from research
showing that aesthetically appealing objects automatically activate reward areas of the brain that
regulate “wanting” (Kawabata & Zeki, 2004; Reimann et al., 2010). Yet while one can “want” a
rewarding stimulus without being aware of that (Winkielman & Berridge, 2003), the instantaneous
desire response associated with aesthetics is most likely strong enough to be accessible to
consumers’ awareness, as evidenced by the notion that viewers occasional describe beautiful
objects using desire-related terms such as “passionate,” “lustful,” or “seductive” (Cziksentmihalyi &
Robinson, 1990; Norman, 2004).
It has been suggested that aesthetically appealing stimuli are intrinsically desirable because
the presence of beauty fulfills a fundamental, hard-wired human need (e.g., Maslow, 1971;
Santayana, 1955). Though often overlooked in psychological theory (Tractinsky & Hassenzahl,
19
2005), the need for aesthetics is believed to represent a higher-order need, which is distinct from a
more general need for pleasure and entertainment (Rokeach, 1973), and which, when satisfied, helps
promote individuals’ psychological health and well-being (Maslow, 1971; Wagner, 1999; Yalch &
Brunel, 1996). Evidence for the existence of aesthetic needs is best shown in individuals who
actively crave the presence of beauty, experience a state akin to getting sick if surrounded by
ugliness, and can only be “cured” through exposure to beautiful things (Maslow, 1967). Given that
beautiful objects are perceived to have a nearly ideal appearance, aesthetic needs may also be
traced back to a more fundamental need for idealization—that is the elevation of an object’s
qualities to the point of perfection (Clay, 1908; Hagman, 2002). The need for idealization is
typically expressed through a desire to be associated (or symbolically “merge”) with people or
objects worthy of one’s admiration—which would explain the instantaneous desire to possess an
aesthetically appealing object—and its fulfillment is critical to human development and well-
being (Banai, Mikulincer, & Shaver, 2005; Kohut, 1971).
In light of visual aesthetics potentially fulfilling a fundamental human need, the present
conceptualization of instantaneous desire is consistent with the idea of “visceral” factors, as defined
by the behavioral economics literature. Visceral factors represent “drive” (or “hot”) states such as
hunger, sexual desire, or drug craving. Such factors exert a disproportionate attraction on consumers
and can prompt them to temporarily de-activate all previously considered goals and focus their
resources solely on the goal of obtaining or mitigating the triggering, visceral stimulus (Damasio,
1994; Loewenstein, 1996)—often by means of impulsive and impatient behaviors (Loewenstein,
1996)—since failure to obtain the stimulus would trigger a state of akin to deprivation (Hoch &
Loewenstein, 1991). Indirect evidence for the visceral nature of aesthetics comes from research
showing that aesthetically appealing products can give rise to impulse buying tendencies (Bayley &
20
Nancarrow, 1998). Moreover, consumers themselves seem to have a lay understanding about the
visceral nature of their desire for beauty, as suggested by the notion that they may worry that such
desire could overwhelm them and prompt them to act against their best interest (Diefenbach &
Hassenzahl, 2009).
Ownership Pride
In addition to being intrinsically valuable and eliciting instantaneous desire, aesthetically
appealing products also fulfill social/self-related needs and hence offer extrinsic value (e.g., Bloch,
Brunel & Arnold, 2003; Charters, 2006; Hoegg & Alba, 2009; Holbrook & Hirschman, 1982).
Specifically, prior research indicates that choosing or possessing an aesthetically appealing
product affirms consumers’ sense of self (Townsend & Sood, 2012), elevates their self-worth
(Venkatesh & Meamber, 2008), and induces feelings of pride (Townsend & Shu, 2010)—
responses that largely reflect a state of feeling good about oneself through product ownership,
which I will refer to as ownership pride. In general, pride is defined as a positive self-conscious
emotion, meaning that its occurrence is based on a favorable self-evaluation and requires a
certain degree of self-awareness (Tracy, Shariff, & Cheng, 2010). Pride emerges when one
evaluates an aspect of oneself or one’s behavior against a personally or socially valued norm or
goal, and determines that one has succeeded in meeting it (Lewis, 2000).
Aesthetically appealing products are likely to trigger emotions of pride in consumers
through two different routes. The first route entails a simple association effect, and can be best
explained by appraisal theory (Ortony, Clore, & Collins, 1988). Specifically, aesthetically
appealing objects—which, according to appraisal theory, would be considered external agents—
have traditionally commanded a great deal of value in any culture, and are socially praised and
21
appreciated (Postrel, 2003; Wagner, 1999). Once such objects get incorporated into consumers’
extended sense of self through ownership (Belk, 1988)—in which case the consumer and the
external agent combine into one—the admiration felt towards the high-aesthetics objects will
transfer upon the consumer and result in a self-directed emotion of pride (cf., Ortony, Clore, &
Collins, 1988). This route requires the least amount of cognitive processing, and is most likely to
operate when consumers do not choose the product themselves (for example, when they receive
it as a gift).
The second potential route involves a signaling account. Specifically, since consumers
often use their own choices as information sources about their own character (Bodner & Prelec,
2001), the symbolic connotations associated with particular products can help express or enhance
important aspects of consumers’ identities (Belk, 1988; Landon, 1974; Sirgy, 1982), which
ultimately results in positive self-directed feelings (cf. Solomon, 1983; Swann, De La Ronde, &
Hixon, 1994). At a basic level, aesthetically appealing products help enhance consumers’
identities because such products often possess a rather novel and distinctive appearance (e.g.
Armstrong & Detweiler-Bedell, 2008; Kumar & Garg, 2010), and typically appear to be more
expensive than their less aesthetically appealing counterparts (e.g., Diefenbach & Hassenzahl, 2009;
Yalch & Brunel, 1996). As a result, being associated with a good-looking product can work towards
satisfying consumers’ needs for uniqueness and status (e.g., Dubois & Czellar, 2002). In this respect,
aesthetic appeal delivers self-related benefits similar to those provided by other symbolic attributes
such as luxury. At a deeper level, aesthetically appealing products help express a very particular
aspect of consumers’ identities (Woodward, 2003), which cannot be as readily conveyed by means of
other symbolic attributes. Specifically, in order for consumers to be able to appreciate an
aesthetically appealing object, they need to have good personal taste (Wagner, 1999). Whereas
22
personal tastes and preferences in objects with aesthetic qualities are subjectively construed and vary
greatly across consumers (Bloch, 1995; Charters, 2006; Hoyer & Stokburger-Sauer, 2012; Vessel, &
Rubin, 2010), having good taste implies that one’s personal preferences coincide with what
design/art experts would consider aesthetically pleasing (Eysenck, 1983; Holbrook, 2005), with
social norms potentially playing a moderating role in determining standards for good taste
(Gronow, 1993). Since consumers are often judged by others (or by themselves) based on their
personal taste (Lorand, 1994; Lihua, 2000), and since demonstrating good taste carries social value
(Cziksentmihalyi & Robinson, 1990), several authors have noted that expressing good taste
through the possession of a high-aesthetics product induces self-confidence and pride in
consumers (Chang & Wu, 2007; Woodward, 2004).
In summary, the ownership pride that comes from possessing an aesthetically appealing
product entails consumers feeling good about themselves because (1) they are associated with an
object that is socially perceived as admiration-worthy (typically when no product choice is
involved), or because (2) the choice of a high-aesthetics object allows consumers to convey (to
themselves or to others) uniqueness, status, or, more specifically, good taste—or any
combination of these benefits, depending on the perceived importance of each benefit to a
consumer’s sense of self. Moreover, each of these benefits can be valued either because it helps
enhance consumers’ social image—such that aesthetically appealing products would ultimately
serve as tools for fulfilling self-presentation goals (DeBono, Leavitt, & Backus, 2003; Dubois &
Czellar, 2002; V enkatesh & Meamber, 2008; Wilk, 1997) and making their owners appear more
attractive (e.g., Sigall & Landy, 1973)—or because it allows a consumer to enrich her sense of self
through genuinely self-expressive consumption (Postrel, 2003; Woodward, 2003).
23
As a psychological response, ownership pride differs from instantaneous desire in that the
latter represents an automatic response to an aesthetically appealing product, whereas
anticipating or experiencing ownership pride requires cognitive processing (e.g., Lewis, 2000;
Tracy, Shariff, & Cheng, 2010) along with some form of association between one’s self and the
product (Ortony, Clore, & Collins, 1988). While actual product ownership would provide such
association, imagined ownership can work as well (e.g., Townsend & Shu, 2010). Imagined
ownership typically occurs during decision-making processes, when consumers construct
“mental pictures” of a future consumption situation (Gilbert, Gill, & Wilson, 2002; Pham, 1998;
Phillips, Olson & Baumgartner, 1995). Particularly products that are affect-rich and visually
processed—such as high-aesthetics designs—tend to elicit vivid mental pictures of future
ownership (Holbrook & Hirschman, 1982). Norman (2004) refers to this processing stage as the
“reflective” level of consumers’ response to a product design. It entails consumers elaborating on
what it means for them own the product, how it would make them feel, and what symbolic image
the product would portray about its owner. It is during this stage that that an aesthetically
appealing product will elicit expectations (or anticipatory feelings) of pride in consumers, which
are later fully experienced through product ownership.
Overall, ownership pride is best understood as a psychological response which, even
though conceptually related to instantaneous desire (because they are both triggered by a
product’s aesthetic appeal), exists and operates largely independently of instantaneous desire.
This means that one should be able to empirically manipulate either of the two responses without
necessarily affecting the other.
24
Alternative Mechanisms: Mood and Performance Quality Expectations
Aside from triggering instantaneous desire and ownership pride, a product’s aesthetic appeal
has long been acknowledged as having a favorable influence on consumers’ evaluations of other
product attributes and of the product as a whole (e.g., Hoegg & Alba, 2008, Tractinsky, Katz, & Ikar,
2000). In this section I will address several alternative processing mechanisms through which
aesthetic appeal can impact consumers’ product evaluations (cf. Tractinsky, Katz, & Ikar, 2000).
The first potential processing mechanism is a mood effect. Specifically, a substantial body
of research argues that the sight of a visually appealing product induces positive affect in
consumers (e.g., Bloch, 1995; Charters, 2006; Page & Herr, 2002), with several authors (e.g.,
McCall, 1999; Norman, 2002) suggesting that this affect is incidental in nature, meaning that it
enhances viewers’ mood. Consistent with this idea, numerous studies have employed visually
attractive stimuli for mood manipulation purposes (e.g., Miller, 1970; Murphy & Zajonc, 1993).
Based on this argument, designer Don Norman (2002) proposes that consumers’ motivation to
own and use attractive products is driven by the positive mood triggered by such products—an
argument widely referenced in both industrial design and consumer behavior (e.g., Hoegg &
Alba, 2008; Patrick & Perrachio, 2010).
The second alternative processing mechanism refers to the “beautiful-is-good stereotype”
(Dion, Berscheid, & Walster, 1972; Eagly et al., 1981), which is rooted in social psychology and
postulates that physically attractive people are believed to possess superior social abilities and
higher job competencies compared to less attractive individuals (see Langlois et al., 2000, for a
review). A stereotype represents a pre-existing, socially shared belief about a particular social
group, which is applied almost automatically towards any member of that group (Forgas, 1995;
Greenwald & Banaji, 1995). In a consumption context, the beautiful-is-good stereotype entails that
25
when a product has an aesthetically pleasing design, consumers will implicitly assume that it also
provides a high level of performance quality. This stereotype has been explicitly confirmed by a
survey indicating that 60% of consumers believe that good-looking products tend to offer
superior functionality (Hoegg, Alba, & Dahl, 2009), and has been shown to represent a fairly
robust finding in consumer research (e.g., Kumar Batra, Brunel, & Chandran, 2009; Page & Herr,
2002; Richardson, Jain, & Dick, 1996). Additionally, it appears that this stereotype can be
persistent enough to occasionally distort even the processing of objectively available product
performance information (Hoegg, Alba, & Dahl, 2010; Pol, Park & Eisingerich, 2011).
Finally, a third potential mechanism is a halo effect (Greenwald & Banaji, 1995), whereby
the aesthetic appeal of a stimulus creates a globally favorable attitude, which then unconsciously
biases impressions of not just one stimulus feature, but of all the subsequently encountered stimulus
attributes. The halo effect of product aesthetics has been frequently noted in consumer research
(e.g., Derbaix & Pham, 1998; Hoegg & Alba, 2008), and is based on the notion that, since a
product’s aesthetic appeal will be perceived early on in a product encounter and can create strong
first impressions, it has the potential to color perceptions of a variety of other product
characteristics (Derbaix & Pham, 1998; Tractinsky et al., 2000). Empirical evidence, however, has
failed to confirm the existence of a halo effect of aesthetics (e.g., Eagly et al., 1991; Hassenzahl,
2004). For example a meta-analysis of the halo effect of beauty in a social psychology context has
found that the visual attractiveness of an individual correlates with judgments of social
competence, but not with assessments of integrity and concern for others (Eagly et al., 1981).
Similarly, in a consumption context, a product’s high aesthetic appeal elicits positive
expectations of product performance, but not necessarily product usability (Hassenzahl, 2004).
Together, these findings suggest that aesthetic appeal is more likely to be associated with a
26
stereotyping effect (i.e., the beautiful-is-good stereotype) rather than a true halo effect. For this
reason, the halo effect of beauty will not be directly examined as part of the present research.
In sum, the literature suggests that two particular consumer responses—positive mood and
expectations of high performance quality (the latter as indicator of the beautiful-is-good
stereotype)—are most likely to play a role in shaping consumers’ subsequent evaluations of
aesthetically appealing products (e.g., Norman, 2002; Page & Herr, 2002). These two responses will
hence be further discussed with regard to their potential to explain the aesthetics—purchase effort
link, and their mediating effectiveness will be contrasted to that of the previously discussed responses
of instantaneous desire and ownership pride.
Overall, Chapter 2 identified and reviewed four key consumer responses that have so far been
empirically associated with aesthetically appealing products, including instantaneous desire,
ownership pride, positive mood, and high performance quality expectations (the latter as an indicator
of the beautiful-is-good stereotype). In Chapter 3 I will develop a series of hypotheses about the
mediating properties of each of the four constructs, as well as the role that these constructs play in
distinguishing the purchase effort directed towards high-aesthetics products from that directed
towards products endowed with other visually hedonic attributes such as humor.
27
CHAPTER 3: MODEL AND HYPOTHESES
Based on insights from prior literature as well as logical deductions, in this chapter I will
introduce a series of hypotheses about the psychological responses that mediate the impact of a
product’s aesthetic appeal on purchase effort, and about the role of these potential mediators in
helping distinguish aesthetic appeal from other visually hedonic attributes such as humor in
product design.
Instantaneous Desire and Ownership as Mediators of the
Aesthetic Appeal —Purchase Effort Link
Generally, both desire and pride have been shown to predict instances of behavioral effort.
Research in consumer behavior as well as neuroscience indicates that desire is a powerful
motivational state that prompts individuals to exert effort toward goal pursuit (e.g., Aharon et al.,
2001; Belk, Ger, & Askegaard, 2003; Berridge, 1996). Moreover, feeling proud represents a self-
rewarding experience (Tracy et al., 2010), such that consumers are intrinsically motivated to pursue
products and experiences that instill feelings of pride in them, even when such pursuit requires effort
and perseverance (Williams & DeSteno, 2008). Given that instantaneous desire and ownership pride
represent distinct responses that can be independently triggered by high-aesthetics products, I
hypothesize that:
H1: Both instantaneous desire and ownership pride explain (i.e., mediate) the relationship
between product’s aesthetic appeal and purchase effort.
28
Hypothesis H1 is graphically illustrated in Figure 1 below.
FIGURE 1
Main Conceptual Model (Hypothesis H1)
Note that according to the model presented in Figure 1, I assume that even though
instantaneous desire and ownership pride impact purchase effort through two independent paths, the
two variables themselves are correlated due to sharing aesthetic appeal as an antecedent (hence the
double arrow between them).
Alternative Mediators: Mood and Performance Quality Expectations
So far I have argued that instantaneous desire and ownership pride are instrumental to
explaining the effect of aesthetic appeal on purchase effort. In light of the two additional responses—
Aesthetic
Appeal
Ownership
Pride
Instantaneous
Desire
Purchase
Effort
29
positive mood and expectations of high performance quality (the latter as indicator of the beautiful-
is-good stereotype)—that have been empirically associated with high-aesthetics products, I will now
discuss the extent to which these additional mechanisms may or may not be able to explain purchase
effort.
While positive mood has been clearly shown to bias product judgments and enhance product
evaluations (Clark & Isen, 1982; Gardner, 1985), evidence that mood has the potential to
spontaneously motivate behavior is lacking. Indeed, extant literature indicates that good mood acts as
a behavioral motivator only to the extent that it prompts one to engage in strategies aimed at
protecting one’s affective state (Forgas, 1995). However, the finding that exerting effort tends to
elicit negative feelings (Luce, Payne, & Bettman, 1999) rules out the notion that the effort directed
towards the purchase of aesthetically appealing products would be motivated by mood maintenance
concerns.
As for the beautiful-is-good explanation, it is also unlikely that the high quality expectations
induced by aesthetically appealing products can explain why consumers are willing to invest a
substantial amount of effort toward acquiring such products. Specifically, if a product exceeds an
upper threshold in terms of aesthetic appeal, a “too-good-to-be-true” belief may emerge, such that
consumers will associate highly attractive products with lower performance ratings than those
elicited by moderately attractive products (Kumar Batra, Brunel, & Chandran, 2009). This
finding suggests that the beautiful-is-good stereotype should be unable to account for what
appears to be a rather linear relationship between a product’s aesthetic appeal and consumers’
purchase effort. Moreover, when a product is very high in aesthetic appeal, consumers may, in fact,
switch to a “too-pretty-to-use” mindset (Sinha, 1979)—whereby they abstain from utilizing the
product in order to protect its pleasing appearance—or they may hold on to the product even long
30
after it stopped working (Martin, 1998), which suggests that at very high levels of aesthetics, a
product’s performance quality may not represent a major factor explaining purchase effort.
In summary, when comparing the focal constructs of instantaneous desire and ownership
pride against positive mood and high performance quality expectations, I expect the latter set of
constructs to represent the less effective explanatory variables, and formally hypothesize that:
H2: Instantaneous desire and ownership pride explain the relationship between a
product’s aesthetic appeal and consumers’ purchase effort better than mood and high
performance quality expectations do.
Aesthetic Appeal versus Humor as Visually Hedonic Product Attributes
Aesthetic appeal is typically considered a hedonic product design attribute (e.g., Bloch, 1995;
Hirschman, 1986; Holbrook & Hirshman, 1982; Hoyer & Stokburger-Sauer, 2012) and, as such, falls
under the research category of hedonic consumption (cf. Chitturi, Raghunathan, & Mahajan, 2007;
Dhar & Wertenbroch, 2000). In a broad sense, hedonic attributes are conceptualized as evoking
multisensory consumption experiences, strong mental imagery, salient emotional reactions, or any
combination thereof (Hirschman & Holbrook, 1982), while in a more narrow sense they are
conceptualized as triggering pleasure or positive affect in consumers (cf., Chaudhuri &
Holbrook, 2001). Even though products with hedonic attributes have been shown to elicit a series
of well-established effects on consumers (see Alba & Williams, 2012, for a review), I do not
expect all product attributes that, similarly to aesthetics, are 1) hedonic in nature and are 2) visually
communicated (which I will hereby refer to as “visually hedonic” attributes) to elicit instantaneous
desire, ownership pride, and ultimately purchase effort to the same extent as a product’s aesthetic
31
appeal does. In other words, aesthetic appeal should distinctively possess additional motivational
power over other visually hedonic attributes—such as humor in product design—and this power can
be traced back to the high levels of instantaneous desire and ownership pride associated with
aesthetics.
A product’s design is typically perceived as humorous if its shape or features remind one—
usually unexpectedly—of a human being, a non-human animal, or an object that is completely
unrelated to what the product is or does (Chang & Wu, 2007). A comparison between aesthetic
appeal and humor is driven by the notion that product designers often strive to create designs
whose sight elicits an immediate positive emotional reaction in consumers (Desmet, 2003), with
aesthetics and humor representing the most effective approaches for creating such an emotional
reaction (Chang & Wu, 2007). Since both humor and aesthetics can be conveyed through a product’s
appearance, designers can substitute one for the other without having to alter the product’s
functionality, which makes a direct, experimental comparison between the two possible. Moreover,
such a comparison has potentially far-reaching marketing implications as humorous-looking
appearances are becoming increasingly popular in product design research and practice, yet research
on their psychological effects is currently still scant (cf. Ludden, Schifferstein, & Hekkert, 2008).
Even though both aesthetics and humor are hedonic attributes that are visually conveyed,
humor and aesthetics appear to substantially differ with regard to their motivational character. The
emotion associated with humor—amusement—despite its highly pleasurable character, has been
shown to have relatively weak motivational consequences (Algoe & Haidt, 2009), such that
consumers may enjoy the sight of humorous items, but would experience little impetus to pursue
them. This consequence is potentially due to humor drawing its pleasurable character from
surprise—which quickly loses its appeal after an initial exposure (Biederman & Vessel, 2006)—and
32
being unable to trigger a strong approach reaction in viewers (Gable & Harmon-Jones, 2008). I
therefore expect that products with humorous designs are much less effective than aesthetically
appealing ones at eliciting and sustaining a desire response in consumers. Additionally, even though
humorous products are typically perceived as interesting and original (Ludden, Schifferstein, &
Hekkert, 2008), humor can also be accompanied by negative social connotations (Walton, 1993),
including impressions of inappropriateness or low source credibility (Eisend, 2008; Bressler &
Balshine, 2006). In the context of a utilitarian product, such connotations may cause one to
dismiss a humorous-looking product as a gimmick because of a perceived disconnect between its
appearance and its functional purpose (Buchanan, 1989). As a result, compared to the multiple
social benefits offered by the ownership of an aesthetically appealing product, possessing a
humorous product should be less effective at triggering ownership pride in consumers.
In sum, I expect humorous designs to be inferior to high-aesthetics ones at triggering
instantaneous desire and ownership pride on one hand, and purchase effort on the other, and
hypothesize that:
H3: Instantaneous desire and ownership pride explain why high-aesthetics products have
a motivational advantage over humorous products (as measured by purchase effort).
This chapter presented a series of hypotheses that identify the precise mechanism through
which aesthetic appeal impacts consumers’ purchase effort, and illustrated how this mechanism helps
differentiate aesthetics from other visually hedonic product attributes such as humor in product
design. Chapter 4 presents six empirical studies that are meant to test the hypotheses developed in
Chapter 3.
33
CHAPTER 4: EMPIRICAL INVESTIGATION
OVERVIEW OF STUDIES
This chapter focuses on testing hypotheses H1-H3 in a series of six empirical studies. In
particular, since previous research has not directly shown that a product’s aesthetic appeal triggers
both instantaneous desire and expectations of ownership pride, I first conduct a Pilot Study that
employs a verbal protocol to (1) illustrate that consumers—regardless of their sensitivity to
aesthetics—consciously experience these two key psychological responses when exposed to
aesthetically appealing products, and to (2) validate the use of two scale measures for assessing these
constructs. Study 1a utilizes a survey-based design to show that instantaneous desire and ownership
pride mediate the relationship between a product’s aesthetic appeal and purchase effort (testing
hypothesis H1), and are superior to the alternative mediators of mood and performance quality
expectations (testing hypothesis H2). Study 1b also employs a survey-based design to replicate the
results from Study 1a and, additionally, rule out product attitudes as playing an important role in the
aesthetics—purchase effort relationship. Study 2 employs an experimental design to replicate Studies
1a and 1b and to demonstrate that instantaneous desire and ownership pride represent distinct
constructs that independently contribute toward explaining the effect of aesthetic appeal on purchase
effort. Study 3 utilizes a direct comparison between high-aesthetics and humorous products to show
that, even when controlling for mood and performance quality expectations (along with several other
variables, such as particular functional inferences and perceived expensiveness), differences in
purchase effort between a high-aesthetics and a humorous product are associated with differences in
both instantaneous desire and ownership pride (testing hypothesis H3). Finally, Study 4 provides
causal evidence that the motivational benefit of aesthetics over humor can indeed be explained by
instantaneous desire and ownership pride.
34
PILOT STUDY
Overview and Methods
Thus far, the aesthetics literature has shown that aesthetically appealing objects provide
self-related benefits to consumers (e.g., DeBono, Leavitt, and Backus 2003; Townsend and Sood
2012), but has not yet verified whether the association between aesthetics and pride is universal or
applies only to consumers who ascribe high value to product aesthetics. Additionally, there is no
direct empirical evidence showing that aesthetically appealing products trigger instantaneous desire
or that such a desire response is potent enough to reach consumers’ awareness. Therefore, the goals
of the Pilot Study were to investigate (1) whether a product’s aesthetic appeal does indeed elicit
instantaneous desire (and ownership pride) at a conscious level, and (2) if so, whether these effects
hold for the general consumer population rather than only for a subset of aesthetically sensitive
individuals. Moreover, the study aimed to (3) validate the use of two scale measures for assessing
instantaneous desire and ownership pride. The study used a 2 (aesthetic appeal: high vs. low) x 2
(aesthetic sensitivity: high vs. low) between-subjects design with instantaneous desire and ownership
pride as dependent variables. Participants were randomly assigned to one of the two conditions.
Procedure. A total of 118 participants, who had not previously seen the target product they
would evaluate in this study, were recruited via a commercial web survey provider to take part in the
study in exchange for monetary compensation. Participants were randomly assigned to either the
high-aesthetic or the low-aesthetic condition. In both conditions, they saw the same set of twelve
images of audio speakers, which differed in visual design (see Figure 2), but were described as
identical in terms of quality, brand, and price.
35
FIGURE 2
Pilot Study: Examples of the Stimuli Used in this Study
Participants were then asked to select the one speaker (or pair of speakers) that they would
best describe as beautiful, as well as the one speaker (or pair of speakers) that they would best describe
as neutral in appearance (i.e., it did not elicit any kind of emotional response from them).
1
In order to
reduce the salience of the manipulation, I also asked participants to select the speaker that seemed the
most unusual and the speaker that seemed the most enjoyable to touch. They were then informed that
the system would randomly choose one item for them to evaluate. Participants in the high-aesthetics
condition were shown the product they had deemed beautiful, while participants in the low aesthetics
group were shown the product they had deemed neutral; participants in both conditions were then
asked to respond to several measures regarding the target product
Measures. Participants provided open-ended responses to two different questions pertaining
to the target product. The first question, which was designed to capture participants’ spontaneous
thoughts and feelings upon encountering the product—and thereby identify any evidence for
instantaneous desire— read as follows: “If you were to see this product in a store, please indicate
1
The use of the terms “beautiful” (versus “neutral”) to indicate products high (versus low) in aesthetic appeal was
informed by the existing literature (e.g., Lorand, 1994), which suggests that impressions of aesthetic appeal should be
measured on unipolar scales bounded by “beautiful” and “neutral.”
36
what your most immediate reaction to this product would be.” The second question, which was
designed to tap ownership-related thoughts and feelings—and hence identify any evidence for
ownership pride—read as follows: “Imagine that you are about to purchase this product. Please
indicate how you would feel if you were the owner of this product.”
I supplemented the open-ended measures for instantaneous desire and ownership pride with
scale measures. Given the lack of a direct scale measure for assessing instantaneous desire, I drew from
the literature on buying impulses (e.g., Rook, 1987) and measured desire using the items “I wanted to
have this product the moment I saw it” and “I felt an immediate urge to make this product mine” (α =
.94). Ownership pride was measured using a slightly modified version of the two-item scale employed
by Williams and DeSteno (2008), including the items “Having this product can make me feel prouder”
and “Having this product can make me feel more satisfied with myself” (α = .93). I further assessed
participants’ aesthetic sensitivity using the Centrality of Visual Product Aesthetics (CVPA) scale
(Bloch, Brunel, & Arnold, 2003), which captures the importance of a product’s aesthetic appeal to
consumers. Even though the initial description of the audio speakers was meant to control for a number
of alternative perceptions that can be induced by a product’s design, I also collected measures for these
product expectations, including product novelty (“novel,” “unusual,” “unexpected,” α = .95) and
performance quality (“high-quality” and “superior performance,” α = .87). I further assessed the
product’s aesthetic appeal using a scale adapted from Hirschman (1986), which asked participants to
indicate the extent to which they perceived the product’s visual appearance as “attractive,” “appealing,”
and “beautiful” (α = .96). I finally asked participants to indicate their current need for new audio
speakers, which served as a control variable. All the scale items were measured on a seven-point scale
anchored by 1 (“not at all”) and 7 (“extremely”); this type of scale was used throughout the studies,
unless indicated otherwise.
37
Data coding. Two trained independent coders, who were blind to the study’s purpose, coded
the open-ended responses as follows. For the first question, which was meant to capture instantaneous
desire, “1” was used to code responses indicating a sudden desire to own the product, in the absence of
any motivation beyond the product’s appearance (e.g., “I would most probably inspect them first, then I
would buy them right away” or “Wow! That is so cool. I really want those speakers”), and “0” was
used to code all other responses. For the second question, which aimed to assess ownership pride, “1”
was used to code responses indicating either pride or a conspicuous display behavior indicative of pride
(e.g., “I would feel proud and sophisticated” or “I would be happy to own it and show it off”), and “0”
was used to code all other responses. Inter-coder agreement was high (r = .87), and disagreements were
resolved through discussions between coders.
Results
Manipulation and data checks. A manipulation check confirmed that the two products were
perceived to differ in aesthetic appeal (M
high-aesthetics
= 5.83, M
low-aesthetics
= 2.92), t(116) = 11.00, p <
.001.
2
In support of the validity of the measures used, I found that the open-ended measures for
instantaneous desire and ownership pride were significantly correlated with their corresponding scale
measures (r = .34 instantaneous desire and r = .46 for ownership pride, ps < .01).
Group differences based on open-ended responses. An analysis of the open-ended responses
showed that 21% of participants in the high-aesthetics condition (versus only 2% of those in the low-
aesthetics condition) reported experiencing instantaneous desire at the sight of the target product
(difference significant at p < .001). Even when controlling for alternative product perceptions and for
2
In support of the notion that aesthetic preferences are rather heterogeneous, I found that the pool of speakers rated
“beautiful” included ten of the twelve speakers presented, and no dominant choice emerged (the most preferred item was
chosen by 33.9% of the participants). This suggests that a self-selection procedure is highly useful for matching research
participants with stimuli perceived as high versus low in aesthetic appeal.
38
product need, aesthetic appeal was a significant predictor of the frequency of desire-related thoughts (z
= 2.41, p < .001), whereas sensitivity to aesthetics (as measured by the CVPA score) was not (z = -.37,
n.s.), and neither was the interaction between aesthetic appeal and sensitivity to aesthetics (z = -.67,
n.s).
This pattern of results also replicated for ownership pride, with 25% of participants in the
high-aesthetics condition (versus only 4% of those in the low-aesthetics condition) reporting pride
expectations associated with product ownership (difference significant at p < .001). Additionally,
aesthetic appeal significantly predicted the frequency of pride-related thoughts (z = 2.52, p < .001),
whereas sensitivity to aesthetics did not (z = .85, n.s.), and neither did the interaction between aesthetic
appeal and sensitivity to aesthetics (z = .38, n.s.).
Group differences based on scale measures. In line with the previous results, when using the
scale measures as dependent variables I found that aesthetic appeal had a significant effect on the
measures for both instantaneous desire (M
high-aesthetics
= 4.96, M
low- aesthetics
= 1.84), F(1,114) = 21.44, p <
.001) and ownership pride (M
high- aesthetics
= 3.86, M
low- aesthetics
= 1.76), F(1,113) = 6.88, p < .001.
Regression analyses further revealed that instantaneous desire was predicted by the product’s aesthetic
appeal (t(112) = 4.63, p < .001), but not by participants’ sensitivity to aesthetics (t(112) = .-12, p > .10)
or by the interaction between aesthetic appeal and sensitivity to aesthetics (t(112) = .62, p > .10). For
ownership pride, aesthetic appeal (t(112) = 3.34, p < .05), sensitivity to aesthetics (t(112) = 2.74, p <
.05), and their interaction (t(112) = 2.08, p < .05) were all significant predictors. I used spotlight
analyses to probe the interaction (Aiken & West, 1991), and found that the effect of aesthetic appeal
on ownership pride was significant at one standard deviation above the mean, t(112) = 3.72, p < .05,
and was marginally significant at one standard deviation below the mean, t(112) = 1.66, p = .09.
39
Discussion
Using both open-ended and scale measures, the Pilot Study shows that exposure to a high-
(versus low-) aesthetics product elicits both instantaneous desire and expectations of ownership pride,
and that such effects occur across consumers—largely regardless of their aesthetic sensitivity—and are
accessible to consumers’ awareness.
STUDY 1A
Overview and Methods
The goal of Study 1a was to directly test the proposed conceptual model, which posits (1)
that instantaneous desire and ownership pride explain the relationship between a product’s aesthetic
appeal and purchase effort (hypothesis 1) and (2) that instantaneous desire and ownership pride
explain the link between a product’s aesthetic appeal and purchase effort more effectively than mood
and performance quality expectations do (hypothesis 2).
Procedure. A total of 259 participants, who had not previously seen the product they would
evaluate in this study, were recruited via a commercial web survey provider to take part in the study
in exchange for monetary compensation. Participants were shown images of twelve consumer
electronic products (e.g., laptops, eBook readers, flash drives, see Appendix A, Panel A) and were
asked to select the product whose appearance they would best describe as “beautiful”; this product
was subsequently shown to them for further evaluation. By having participants select from a mix of
electronic products, this study aimed to extend the generalizability of the results beyond a single
product category (cf. the Pilot Study in Web Appendix A, which focused on one product category
only). Next, participants responded to a series of measures related to the product they had chosen.
40
FIGURE 3
Study 1a: Examples of the Stimuli Used in This Study
Measures. Mood was assessed based on the scale used by Adaval (2001), which included
both positive items (“happy,” “pleased,” “delighted,” and “glad”) and negative items (“angry,” “sad,”
and “distressed”), with the latter being reverse-coded (α = .79). I used the items validated in the Pilot
Study to assess instantaneous desire and ownership pride. I measured purchase effort with four items
assessing consumers’ willingness to (1) buy the product even if it were outside their price range, (2)
pay a 10% price premium for the product, (3) drive a long distance in order to buy the product, and
(4) wait for the product for several weeks if the product were unavailable in stores (α = .75) (Park et
al. 2010). Among these four items, I used two separate items for financial effort because it is the
most common type of purchase effort (cf. Yalch & Brunel, 1996). Finally, aesthetic appeal was
assessed using a scale adapted from Hirschman (1986), which measured the extent to which
participants perceived the product’s visual appearance as “attractive,” “appealing,” and “beautiful” (α
= .85). I will henceforth refer to products that score high (or low, respectively) on the aesthetic appeal
scale as high-aesthetics products (or low-aesthetics products, respectively).
41
Results
Mediation analyses. I conducted a structural equation model (SEM) analysis using LISREL
8.8 to verify whether instantaneous desire and ownership pride can explain the relationship between
aesthetic appeal and purchase effort. The proposed model (with aesthetic appeal as independent
variable, effort as dependent variable, and instantaneous desire and ownership pride as simultaneous
mediators) fit the data well (χ
2
(38) = 49.76; p = .09, RMSEA = .03, GFI = 0.97, AGFI = .94). In
support of hypothesis 1, I found that the indirect effect of aesthetic appeal on purchase effort was
significant for both instantaneous desire (indirect effect = .12, p < .05) and ownership pride (indirect
effect = .15, p < .05), whereas the direct effect was not (β = .06, n.s.). The individual path coefficients
are shown in Figure 4.
42
FIGURE 4
Study 1a: SEM Results for the Main Conceptual Model (H1)
χ
2
(38) = 49.76; p =.09, RMSEA = .03, GFI = 0.97, AGFI = .94
NOTE. Coefficients represent standardized values, numbers in parentheses are t-values, and solid lines represent
significant paths.
Comparison to alternative mediators. Using the originally proposed model, I further
compared the mediating properties of instantaneous desire and ownership pride against those of the
alternative mediators (i.e., mood and performance quality expectations—the latter as an indicator of
the beautiful-is-good stereotype). When all four constructs were entered into the analysis as potential
mediators, the indirect effects were significant through both instantaneous desire (indirect effect =
.16, p < .05) and ownership pride (indirect effect = .19, p < .05), but were not significant through
43
either positive mood (indirect effect = .00, n.s.) or performance quality expectations (indirect effect =
.08, n.s.). In support of H2, these results suggest that in the aesthetics-purchase effort relationship,
instantaneous desire and ownership pride represent mediators with superior explanatory power
compared to mood and performance quality expectations.
Additional analyses. Although the main model tested in this study performed satisfactorily, it
is possible that it does not accurately reflect the existing relationship between a product’s aesthetic
appeal and the two proposed mediators. Two conceptual reasons exist for this potential caveat:
aesthetic appeal may, for example, represent a dependent variable, such that consumers would be
drawn to products that are desirable and pride-inducing in the first place, and subsequently perceive
such products as high in aesthetic appeal. Alternatively, consumers may initially be attracted to
products that look novel and unexpected—attributes that are particularly effective at inducing
elaboration (Meyers-Levy & Tybout, 1998)—and then form aesthetic impressions and
expectations of ownership pride in a manner that is consistent with their initial reaction to the
product’s novelty. In order to examine these alternative explanations, I tested two additional
models. In the first model, instantaneous desire and ownership pride were used as independent
variables, aesthetic appeal served as a mediator, and purchase effort was the dependent variable.
The model included paths from instantaneous desire and from ownership pride to both aesthetic
appeal and purchase-related effort, as well as a path from aesthetic appeal to purchase-related
effort. This model provided a very poor fit to the data (χ
2
(39) =, 201.54; p = .00, RMSEA = .13,
GFI = . 88, AGFI = .79). The second model had novelty as independent variable, aesthetic appeal
and ownership pride as simultaneous mediators, and purchase-related effort as dependent variable.
This model also fit the data only poorly (χ
2
(52) = 507.67; p = .00, RMSEA = .18, GFI = . 75, AGFI
44
= .63). Together, these results suggest that among the three models considered, the hypothesized
model does indeed fit the data best.
Discussion
The findings of Study 1a revealed that, consistent with hypothesis H1, instantaneous desire
and ownership pride are instrumental to explaining the link between a product’s aesthetic appeal and
purchase effort. Consistent with hypothesis H2, I also find that the explanatory power of these two
constructs is superior to that of mood (serving as an indicator of the positive mood effect) and
performance quality expectations (serving as an indicator of the beautiful-is-good stereotype).
Despite this compelling initial evidence for the proposed theoretical model, I conducted Study 1b in
order to replicate the results from Study 1a and to shed more light on the role of product attitudes in
the aesthetic appeal—purchase effort relationship.
STUDY 1B
Overview and Methods
The main goal of Study 1b was to replicate the theoretical model proposed in this research
(hypotheses 1 and 2) using a different sample and an alternative mediation methodology. This study
also included a measure of product attitudes in order to probe the role of attitudes within the
nomological network of this research. Specifically, I wanted to investigate whether the impact of
aesthetic appeal on behavioral effort is mediated by attitudes, such that instantaneous desire and
ownership pride would impact purchase effort through their effect on product attitudes.
45
Procedure. A total of 104 undergraduate student participants from the University of
Southern California, who had not previously seen the product they would evaluate in this study, took
part in the study exchange for course credit. The procedure was identical to that used in Study 1a.
Measures. The measures were also identical to those used in Study 1a, except that they also
included a measure of product attitudes (Park et al. 2010), which were assessed using a seven-point,
three-item scale anchored by “good/bad,” “favorable/unfavorable,” and “like/dislike” (α = .89).
Results
First, using Preacher and Hayes’s (2008) bootstrapping method, I conducted a mediation
analysis to verify the extent to which instantaneous desire, ownership pride, mood, and performance
quality expectations explained the effect of aesthetic appeal on purchase effort. Consistent with the
results obtained in Study 1a, the indirect effect of aesthetic appeal on purchase effort was significant
through both instantaneous desire (point estimate (PE) .14, 95% confidence interval (CI) [02, .24],
which did not include zero, thus indicating a significant effect) and ownership pride (PE .12, 95% CI
[.02, .24]). In contrast, mood (PE -.07, 95% CI [-.16, .01]) and performance quality expectations (PE
-.03, 95% CI [-.02, .13]) did not emerge as significant mediators. Second, attitudes did not mediate
the relationship between aesthetic appeal and purchase effort (PE -.001, 95% CI [-.12, .16]),
suggesting that attitudes do not necessarily play a role in predicting purchase effort. Third, another
mediation analysis with attitudes as dependent variable showed that, in contrast to the results
obtained when purchase effort was used as dependent variable, the effect of aesthetic appeal on
attitude was mediated neither by instantaneous desire (PE .08, 95% CI [-.03, .20]) nor by ownership
pride (PE -.04, 95% CI [-.10, .03]). Interestingly, however, mood emerged as a significant mediator
46
of the relationship between aesthetics and attitudes (PE .08, 95% CI [.03, .15]), as did performance
quality expectations (PE .08, 95% CI [.02, .14]).
Discussion
Study 1b provides convergent empirical evidence that, when it comes to the link between a
product’s aesthetic appeal and purchase effort, instantaneous desire and ownership pride serve as
crucial explanatory constructs (providing additional support for hypothesis 1), and that their
explanatory power is superior to that of mood and performance quality expectations (providing
additional support for hypothesis 2). Importantly, Study 1b also offers initial evidence that product
attitudes are not necessarily part of the nomological network of aesthetic appeal, instantaneous effort,
ownership pride, and purchase effort. Consistent with other studies that have found attitudes to be a
poor predictor of behavioral effort (e.g., Bagozzi, Dholakia, & Basurov, 2003), it appears that one’s
favorable attitude towards a high-aesthetics product is not necessarily a good indicator of how much
effort one is willing to expend towards actually acquiring that product. Additionally, it appears that,
unlike purchase effort—which is best explained by instantaneous desire and by ownership pride—
product attitudes are best explained by a different set of constructs, including mood and performance
quality expectations. Taken together, these findings rule out product attitudes as a key construct
involved in accounting for the motivational value of high-aesthetics products.
Despite the convergent empirical support obtained for the meditational role of instantaneous
desire and ownership pride in the aesthetics–purchase effort link, the findings of Studies 1a and 1b
are based on correlational data. In order to establish causality for the aforementioned link and to
show that instantaneous desire and ownership pride represent distinct factors that independently
47
contribute toward explaining aesthetics-induced purchase effort, I conducted Study 2, in which I
experimentally manipulated instantaneous desire and ownership pride.
STUDY 2
Overview and Methods
The goal of Study 2 was to experimentally replicate Studies 1a and 1b by showing that (1)
instantaneous desire and ownership pride represent distinct constructs, which, despite their close
association with high-aesthetics products, can be independently manipulated, and that (2) decreasing
either instantaneous desire or ownership pride will lower consumers’ willingness to exert effort
toward acquiring aesthetically appealing products (hypothesis 1). Additionally, I aimed to show that
(3) these effects will hold even when controlling for the alternative mediators of mood and
performance quality expectations.
In order to test (1) and (2), I employed manipulations meant to affect only one of the two key
mediational variables at a time (i.e., either instantaneous desire or ownership pride). To do so, I used
two negative scenarios: a lack-of-cleanliness scenario, which was meant to decrease instantaneous
desire, and a lack-of-authenticity scenario, which was meant to decrease ownership pride. It is
important to note that these negative scenario manipulations were designed to avoid biasing any
additional consumer responses (e.g., mood, performance quality expectations).
The lack-of-cleanliness scenario entailed informing consumers, both verbally and visually,
that a target product’s surface had accidentally gotten stained, after which it was returned to its
original, clean state. Since an object’s high aesthetic appeal is closely linked to having an ideal visual
appearance, with all of the object’s visual elements combined in a harmonious way (Coates, 2003;
48
Wagner, 1999), I expected that seeing a cosmetic flaw on a good-looking product—even if the flaw
is known to be only transient—should disrupt the visual balance that is intrinsic to the product’s
aesthetic appeal, and involuntarily dampen one’s instantaneous desire for the product. In contrast,
such a flaw should have little to no impact on consumers’ already-low instantaneous desire for a
product lacking in aesthetic appeal (and otherwise devoid of any other hedonic attributes to
compensate for the lack of aesthetics). One’s expectations of ownership pride, which are cognitive in
nature, should also not be affected by a product flaw perceived as transient in nature.
The lack-of-authenticity scenario entailed visually exposing consumers to a target product,
and then informing them that the product was a counterfeit. Because of the negative social
connotations of counterfeit products, I expected this information to decrease the perceived social
value of a high-aesthetics product, such that one would expect to experience less pride from owning
such a product. In contrast, the counterfeit information should have little to no impact on one’
already-low ownership pride for a product lacking in aesthetic appeal, or on one’s experience of
instantaneous desire, since such desire should have emerged upon initial exposure to the product,
prior to one’s exposure to the counterfeit information.
Procedure. A total of 229 participants, who had not previously seen the products they would
evaluate in this study, were recruited via a commercial web survey provider to take part in the study
in exchange for monetary compensation. The study employed a 2 (level of aesthetic appeal: high vs.
low) x 3 (type of negative scenario: lack of cleanliness vs. lack of authenticity vs. control) between-
subjects design, with instantaneous desire, ownership pride, and purchase effort as dependent
variables. Participants were randomly assigned to one of six groups. As stimuli, I used two wireless
computer speakers, which in a pretest (n = 109) had been rated as different in aesthetic appeal (M =
4.79 vs. M = 2.99), t(107) = 5.44, p < .001.
49
Control condition. In the control condition, participants saw an original, unaltered product
image for each speaker, accompanied by a brief, positively-valenced product description.
Lack-of-cleanliness scenario. As part of this manipulation I presented participants with a
service failure cover story, in which an electronics store employee, while painting a damaged wall,
accidentally splashed some paint onto a nearby speaker. The employee subsequently cleaned and
tested the speaker thoroughly, and then returned it to the shelf looking and working like new (a piece
of information meant to prevent the emergence of negative functional inferences about the speaker).
After reading this story participants were shown side-by-side images of the speaker before and after
it was cleaned (see Appendix A, Panel B), and were asked to respond to a series of measures about
the speaker, as reported below. To increase the believability of the cover story, I also asked
participants to evaluate how well they believed the employee handled the paint-spilling incident.
FIGURE 5
Study 2: Stimuli Used in the Lack-of-Cleanliness Condition
50
Lack-of-authenticity scenario. As part of this manipulation, I showed participants the original
image of the computer speaker, which was described as being a high-quality product. Participants
subsequently learned that the product was an unauthorized replica of a Japanese design, and had been
criticized in the industry for potential copyright infringement.
Measures. Following the manipulation, participants in all groups were exposed to the same
measures used in Study 1a. Since visual design cues shape not only consumers’ aesthetic impressions
of a product but also their product-related beliefs (Bloch, 1995)—that is, comparing products that
differ in aesthetic appeal can introduce a series of confounds in terms of product-related inferences
and perceptions—it was important to also assess and control for specific functional inferences that
consumers may make based on a product’s visual design, which could account for some of the
observed effects of aesthetic appeal on purchase effort. For this reason, I measured participants’
expectations of the speaker’s ability to provide “powerful sound” and “clean sound,” as well as how
“durable” and “easy-to-use” the speaker would be. Given the relationships between high-aesthetics
and high-price perceptions (Yalch & Brunel, 1996) as well as high-aesthetics and visual uniqueness
(Armstrong & Detweiler-Bedell, 2008), I also assessed how expensive the speaker appeared, and
whether it was perceived as visually unique (“unique” and “original,” α = .81). Additionally, since
audio speakers are functional products that are unlikely to trigger purchase effort unless they are
somewhat relevant to consumers’ needs, I further measured the extent to which the speaker was
relevant to participants (“This particular speaker is relevant to me” and “I currently need a product
like this,” α = .91). Finally, for manipulation check purposes I asked participants to indicate the
extent to which they perceived the speaker as visually clean throughout the study (to verify the
effectiveness of the lack-of-cleanliness manipulation) and the extent to which they believed it to be
an authentic product (to verify the effectiveness of the lack-of-authenticity manipulation).
51
Results
Boxplot analyses indicated the presence of nine outliers (i.e., values located more than
three standard deviations above or below the mean) distributed over several variables (two for
ownership pride, four for mood, and two for performance quality expectations). In order to
minimize the potentially distorting effect of these outliers, I followed the procedure reported in
other consumer research studies (e.g., Krishna, 2006) and removed these outlier values from the
subsequent analyses.
Manipulation checks. I conducted a series of manipulation checks to verify how the
aesthetic appeal manipulation, the negative scenario manipulations, and their interaction
impacted perceptions of the product’s aesthetic appeal, visual cleanliness, and authenticity. The
high-aesthetics speaker was perceived as more aesthetically appealing (M = 4.82) than the low-
aesthetics one (M = 3.39), F(1, 223) = 39.75, p < .001. The negative scenario manipulation did
not affect aesthetic appeal ratings, F(2, 223) = 1.21, n.s., nor did the interaction of the negative
scenario manipulation with the aesthetics manipulation, F(2, 223) = .72, n.s. With regard to
visual cleanliness, participants exposed to the lack-of-cleanliness scenario perceived the target
speaker as overall lower in cleanliness (M = 3.43) than did those in the control condition (M =
5.69), F(1, 143) = 59.01, p < .001, regardless of the speaker’s aesthetic appeal, F(1, 143) = 1.05,
n.s. Finally, with regard to authenticity, participants exposed to the lack-of-authenticity scenario
perceived the target speaker as more likely to be an inauthentic replica (M = 5.43) than did those
in the control condition (M = 2.25), F(1, 145) = 138.81, p < .001, regardless of the speaker’s
aesthetic appeal, F(1, 145) = 1.53, n.s.
Control checks. I also checked whether the high- and low-aesthetics speakers differed on
any dimensions other than aesthetic appeal, and found no significant differences in perceived
52
sound power (Ms = 4.09 and 4.27), F(1, 227) = .77, n.s., sound clarity (Ms = 4.39 and 4.36), F(1,
227) = .90, n.s., durability (Ms = 4.05 and 4.11), F(1, 227) = .10, n.s., or ease-of-use (Ms = 4.93
and 4.58), F(1, 227) = 3.38, n.s. The two speakers, however, differed in perceived expensiveness
(Ms = 4.87 and 4.43), F(1, 227) = 4.93, p < .05, perceived visual uniqueness (Ms = 5.35 and
4.19), F(1, 224) = 26.54, p < .05, and relevance to respondents (Ms = 3.65 and 3.18), F(1, 224) =
6.28, p < .05. These results suggest that expensiveness, uniqueness, and relevance should be
controlled for when assessing the impact of aesthetic appeal on purchase effort.
Effects of aesthetic appeal and negative scenario type on instantaneous desire. I ran an
ANOVA with level of aesthetic appeal and negative scenario type as independent variables and
instantaneous desire as dependent variable. As expected, there was a significant main effect of
aesthetic appeal on instantaneous desire, F(1, 223) = 24.64, p < .001, as well as a significant
interaction effect of aesthetic appeal and negative scenario type on instantaneous desire, F(2,
223) = 3.90, p < .05. Follow-up ANOVAs with planned contrasts revealed that negative scenario
type had no effect on instantaneous desire when the speaker was low in aesthetic appeal, F(2,
115) = 1.29, n.s., but had a significant main effect when the speaker was high in aesthetic appeal,
F(2, 108) = 3.81, p < .05. Specifically, for the high-aesthetics speaker, exposure to the lack-of-
cleanliness scenario lead to significantly lower desire (M
= 2.72) compared to the control
condition (M = 3.88, p < .05), whereas exposure to the lack-of-authenticity scenario did not (M =
3.20, n.s.; see Figure 6).
53
FIGURE 6
Study 2 Results:
Effect of Aesthetic Appeal and Negative Scenario Type on Instantaneous Desire
NOTE. * indicates significant group differences at p < .05; ** indicates significant group differences at p < .001
Effects of aesthetic appeal and negative scenario type on ownership pride. When I
performed the same set of analyses with ownership pride as dependent variable, there was a
similar main effect of aesthetic appeal on ownership pride, F(1, 221) = 6.00, p < .05, as well as
an interaction effect of aesthetic appeal and negative scenario type on ownership pride, F(2, 221)
= 3.65, p < .05. Follow-up ANOVAs with planned contrasts revealed that negative scenario type
had no effect on ownership pride when the speaker was low in aesthetic appeal, F(2, 114) = .60,
n.s., but had a significant main effect when the speaker was high in aesthetic appeal, F(2, 107) =
3.69, p < .05. Specifically, for the high-aesthetics product, exposure to the lack-of-authenticity
scenario lead to significantly lower ownership pride (M = 2.19) compared to the control
condition (M = 3.20, p < .05), while exposure to the lack-of-cleanliness scenario did not (M =
2.51, n.s.; see Figure 7 below).
Instantaneous Desire
* 5
4
3
2
1
3.88
Control
High-Aesthetics
2.72
3.20
1.93
2.16
2.48
Low-Aesthetics
Lack-of-cleanliness
Lack-of-authenticity
54
FIGURE 7
Study 2 Results:
Effect of Aesthetic Appeal and Negative Scenario Type on Ownership Pride
NOTE. * indicates significant group differences at p < .05; ** indicates significant group differences at p < .001
In summary, the results obtained for the high-aesthetics speaker indicate that
instantaneous desire in the lack-of-cleanliness condition decreased relative to the control
condition (M
= 2.72 vs. M = 3.88, p < .05), while ownership pride did not (M = 2.51 vs. M =
3.20, n.s.). Conversely, ownership pride in the lack-of-authenticity condition decreased relative
to the control condition (M = 2.19 vs. M = 3.20, p < .05), but instantaneous desire did not (M =
3.20 vs. M = 3.88, n.s.). For the low-aesthetics speaker, neither instantaneous desire nor
ownership pride decreased in either of the two conditions.
Effects of aesthetic appeal and negative scenario type on mood and performance quality.
When mood was used as a dependent variable, there was a significant main effect of aesthetic
appeal, F(1, 219) = 35.43, p < .05 (which is consistent with the notion that high-aesthetics
products trigger a positive mood effect in consumers), as well as a significant main effect of
Ownership Pride
*
3.20
2.51
2.19
2.01
2.07
2.35
Control
High-Aesthetics
Low-Aesthetics
Lack-of-cleanliness
Lack-of-authenticity
5
4
3
2
1
55
negative scenario type, F(2, 219) = 6.19, p < .05., but no interaction effect of aesthetic appeal
and negative scenario type, F(2, 219) = 2.08, n.s. When performance quality expectations were
used as a dependent variable, there was no main effect of aesthetic appeal, F(1, 220) = .71, n.s.,
no main effect of negative scenario type, F(2, 220) = 2.34, n.s., and no interaction effect of
aesthetic appeal and negative scenario type, F(2, 220) = .03, n.s. Together, these results support
the presence of a mood effect of aesthetics in the present data set (which implies that
participants’ mood should be controlled for when examining the impact of negative scenario on
purchase effort), but no mood effect induced by the negative scenarios. Additionally, there was
no evidence for the beautiful-is-good stereotype in the present data set, or for the negative
scenarios impacting performance quality expectations.
Effects of aesthetic appeal and negative scenario type on purchase effort. I conducted an
ANCOVA using purchase effort as dependent variable, while controlling for the measures that
differed between the high- and low-aesthetics products (i.e., mood, expensiveness, uniqueness,
and product relevance). Mood (F(1, 217) = 4.36, p < .05) and product relevance (F(2, 217) =
27.37, p < .05) emerged as significant covariates. There was a significant main effect of negative
scenario type on purchase effort, F(2, 217) = 9.20, p < .05, as well as a significant interaction of
aesthetic appeal and negative scenario type on purchase effort, F(2, 217) = 3.06, p < .05. Follow-
up ANOVAs revealed that negative scenario type had no significant effect on purchase effort for
the low-aesthetics speaker, F(2, 115) = 1.11, n.s., but had a significant effect on purchase effort
for the high-aesthetics speaker, F(2, 108) = 9.26, p < .001. In the high-aesthetics condition,
planned contrasts further showed that, compared to the control group (M
= 4.00), purchase effort
was lower both in the lack-of-cleanliness group (M = 3.33, p < .05) and in the lack-of-
authenticity group (M = 2.77, p < .001; see Figure 8 below).
56
FIGURE 8
Study 2 Results:
Effect of Aesthetic Appeal and Negative Scenario Type on Purchase Effort
NOTE. * indicates significant group differences at p < .05; ** indicates significant group differences at p < .001
Discussion
The results of Study 2 provide convergent empirical evidence by experimentally
replicating the results obtained in Studies 1a and 1b. Specifically, Study 2 shows that
instantaneous desire and ownership pride are distinct constructs that can be independently
manipulated and that are uniquely associated with high- but not low-aesthetics products. In
particular, I find that the negative scenario manipulations decreased instantaneous desire and
ownership pride only for the high-aesthetics product, which suggests that these two motivational
responses emerge—and are thus likely to inform consumers’ subsequent behaviors—when a
product is high in aesthetic appeal, but not when a product is low in aesthetic appeal (and does
not benefit from any other hedonic attribute to compensate for the lack of aesthetics).
Purchase Effort
*
**
5
4
3
2
1
4.00
3.33
2.77
3.39
3.30
3.00
Control
High-Aesthetics
Low-Aesthetics
Lack-of-cleanliness
Lack-of-authenticity
57
Moreover, Study 2 provides strong convergent support for this research’s argument that
both instantaneous desire and ownership pride play independent mediational roles in the
aesthetic appeal–purchase effort link. Specifically, in support of hypothesis 1, the lack-of-
cleanliness scenario illustrates that, without affecting expectations of ownership pride, one can
manipulate instantaneous desire, which then drives purchase effort; the lack-of-authenticity
scenario illustrates that, without affecting instantaneous desire, one can manipulate ownership
pride, which then drives purchase effort. I observed these effects while strictly controlling for a
variety of product inferences and perceptions that may explain the effect of aesthetic appeal on
purchase effort. Further, the effects indicated above held even when controlling for the beautiful-
is-good stereotype (which was ruled out experimentally) and for the mood effect (which was
statistically controlled for). Incidentally, the results also suggest that, since the high- (versus low)
aesthetics speaker triggered higher (versus lower) evaluations of some product attributes (like
expensiveness), but not others (like durability or ease-of-use), a halo effect of aesthetics was not
at play in the current study, and hence could not have explained the observed effect of aesthetics
on purchase effort in this study. Next, Study 3 was conducted to test hypothesis 3, which
specifically contrasts aesthetic appeal to another visually hedonic product attribute: humor.
STUDY 3
Overview and Methods
The main goal of Study 3 was to compare aesthetic appeal to an alternative visually
hedonic attribute, which is becoming increasingly popular in product design: humor. I expected
that, even in cases in which aesthetic appeal and humor create the same levels of positive mood
58
and high performance quality expectations, aesthetically appealing products should induce
higher instantaneous desire and higher ownership pride, resulting in a higher level of purchase
effort (hypothesis 3). Additionally, I aimed to rule out another potential mechanism that may
account for the aesthetics–effort link. Specifically, consumers can value a product’s aesthetic
appeal for its own sake, since looking at a high-aesthetics object represents a rewarding,
enjoyable experience that one may deliberately seek out (Creusen & Schoormans, 2005;
Holbrook, 1980). Hence, it is important to examine whether the direct, hedonic utility of
aesthetics—i.e., the general sense of enjoyment derived from looking at an aesthetically
appealing stimulus (Holbrook, 1980), which is different from a simple mood effect—may
explain the effect of aesthetics on purchase effort. Moreover, since the previous studies
employed electronics (e.g., laptops, speakers) as stimuli, in Study 3 I used a different product
category (household items such as water kettles, teapots, and alarm clocks) in order to test the
generalizability of the proposed theoretical account. Household items were chosen because of the
wider availability of humorous-looking items in this particular product category than in other
categories, which should increase the ecological validity of this examination.
Procedure. A total of 77 participants, who had not previously seen the product they
would evaluate in this study, were recruited via a commercial web survey provider to take part in
the study in exchange for monetary compensation. The study employed a one-way (type of
visually hedonic attribute: high-aesthetics vs. humor) between-subjects design, with
instantaneous desire, ownership pride, and purchase effort as dependent variables. Participants
were randomly assigned to one of the two conditions. They were then told that a product design
firm had created a series of high-quality designs that needed to be evaluated and that their
feedback would help the firm to decide which products to market. Next, they were shown a set of
59
nine product images, one per screen. The high-aesthetics group saw a set of aesthetically
appealing, non-humorous designs, while the humor group saw a set of items with humorous
designs (see examples in Figure 9 below). Product type was matched between the two groups,
such that each group saw the same number of each type of product (teapots, lamps, etc.). In order
to allow participants to select products whose look they preferred, while avoiding instructions
that specifically called attention to the product’s visual appearance, in each condition participants
were asked to recommend one product that the firm should market. Participants subsequently
evaluated the product they had recommended.
Measures. The measures used were similar to those employed in Study 2, with the
exception of the functional inferences, which were tailored to the product category used in the
present study (i.e., household items) and included the items “useful” and “convenient to use.”
Additionally, I included a measure of visual enjoyment (“I enjoy looking at this product” and
“Looking at this product makes me feel good,” α = .89), and a measure of how humorous the
target product’s appearance was (“humorous” and “funny,” α = .96).
60
FIGURE 9
Study 3: Examples of the Stimuli Used in This Study
High-Aesthetics Products
Humorous Products
In each condition, participants were asked to recommend one product that the firm should
market. Building on the assumption that participants would recommend items whose appearance
they personally enjoyed, these instructions were meant to prompt participants to choose a
61
preferred product without directly calling attention to the products’ visual appearance.
Participants subsequently evaluated the product they had previously recommended
3
.
Measures. The measures used were similar to those employed in Study 2, with the exception
of the functional inferences, which were tailored to the product category used in the present study
(i.e., household items) and included the items “useful” and “convenient to use.” Additionally, I
included a measure of visual enjoyment (“I enjoy looking at this product” and “Looking at this
product makes me feel good,” α = .89), and a measure of how humorous the target product’s
appearance was (“humorous” and “funny,” α = .96).
Results
Manipulation and control checks. Several independent-sample t-tests revealed that the
high-aesthetics target product was perceived as higher in aesthetic appeal (M
aesthetics
= 5.80 vs.
M
humor
= 4.97), t(75) = 2.89, p < .05, but lower in humor (M
aesthetics
= 2.37 vs. M
humor
= 5.84), t(75)
= 10.41, p < .001 than the humorous product. Importantly, the two types of products did not
differ in the extent to which they induced positive mood (M
aesthetics
= 5.80 vs. M
humor
= 5.84),
t(75) = .20, n.s., or visual enjoyment (M
aesthetics
= 5.05 vs. M
humor
= 5.13), t(75) = -.25, n.s..
Performance quality expectations also did not differ between the two products (M
aesthetics
= 5.11
vs. M
humor
= 4.68), t(75) = .14, n.s.
With regard to the additional product-related inferences and perceptions, the employed
manipulation had no impact on inferences of the usefulness (M
aesthetics
= 4.82 vs. M
humor
= 4.53),
3
An examination of the open-ended responses suggested that a majority of participants (87% in the high-aesthetics group
and 76% in the humorous group) recommended the target product because of its likeable visual design, as opposed to
other concerns such as the product’s functionality or its overall marketability.
62
t(75) = .39, n.s., or convenience (M
aesthetics
= 4.59 vs. M
humor
= 4.18), t(75) = .26, n.s., of the target
product, which again disconfirms the presence of a halo effect of aesthetics in this study. The
humorous design, however, was perceived as more unique than the high-aesthetics design
(M
aesthetics
= 4.94 vs. M
humor
= 5.97), t(75) = 3.43, p < .05, while the latter were perceived as more
expensive (M
aesthetics
= 5.25 vs. M
humor
= 4.57), t(76) = 2.35, p < .05. Product relevance did not
differ significantly between the two groups (M
aesthetics
= 4.03 vs. M
humor
= 3.34), t(75) = 1.97, n.s.
These results suggest that uniqueness and expensiveness should be controlled for when
examining the impact of hedonic attribute type on purchase effort.
Effect on instantaneous desire and ownership pride. Although the two groups reported
the same level of mood and of visual enjoyment, participants in the high-aesthetics group
indicated both higher instantaneous desire (M
aesthetics
= 4.65 vs. M
humor
= 3.63), t(76) = 2.59, p
<.05, and higher ownership pride (M
aesthetics
= 3.67 vs. M
humor
= 2.63), t(76) = 3.10, p < .05, than
those in the humor group (see Figure 10).
Effect on purchase effort. Results of an ANCOVA with purchase effort as dependent
variable and uniqueness and expensiveness as covariates (out of which only uniqueness was
significant, F(1,74) = 1.84, p <.05) indicated that product appearance impacted purchase effort;
participants in the high-aesthetics group were more willing than those in the humor group to
expend behavioral effort toward product purchase (M
aesthetics
= 4.41, M
uniqueness
= 3.90), F(1,77) =
7.99, p <.05 (see Figure 10 below).
63
FIGURE 10
Study 3: Key Results
NOTE. * indicates significant group differences at p < .05; ** indicates significant group differences at p < .001
Discussion
Study 3 shows that, even when a high-aesthetics product and a humorous product provide
similar levels of mood and of visual enjoyment, as well as similar performance quality expectations,
the high-aesthetics product elicits higher instantaneous desire, higher ownership pride, and,
ultimately, greater purchase effort. These results support hypothesis 3, while also allowing one to
rule out the direct, hedonic value of aesthetics (as measured in terms of visual enjoyment) as
accounting for the observed purchase effort advantage of aesthetics over humor in the present study.
The findings provide further evidence for the critical association of instantaneous desire and
ownership pride with purchase effort, while illustrating how instantaneous desire and ownership
pride can differentiate aesthetic appeal from other visually hedonic attributes. The findings also
offer convergent evidence for hypothesis 2 by showing that neither mood (i.e., the positive mood
6
5
4
3
2
1
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
4.41
3.90
4.67
3.63 3.65
2.63
5.88
5.84
5.11
4.68
High-
aesthetics
Humor
High-
aesthetics
Humor
Purchase
Effort
Instantaneous
Desire
Ownership
Pride
Mood Performance
Quality
*
*
*
64
effect) nor performance quality expectations (i.e., the beautiful-is-good stereotype) is as effective
as instantaneous desire and ownership pride at explaining purchase effort.
Study 3 relied on a very strictly controlled one-way comparison between a high-aesthetics
and a humorous product in order to show that the pattern of associations between the key dependent
variables in the model (i.e., instantaneous desire, ownership pride, and purchase effort) is consistent
with hypothesis 3. The study, however, was not designed to specifically test causal relationships
among these variables. In order to test these relationships, I conducted Study 4, in which I directly
examined whether altering either the instantaneous desire advantage or the ownership pride
advantage of a high-aesthetics over a humorous product will correspondingly alter the purchase effort
advantage of aesthetics over humor.
STUDY 4
Overview and Methods
The main goal of Study 4 was to provide convergent, causal evidence that the purchase
effort advantage that aesthetically appealing products enjoy over humorous ones can indeed be
traced to instantaneous desire and ownership pride. In particular, I aimed to show that decreasing
either the instantaneous desire or the ownership pride advantage of a high-aesthetics product
over a humorous product will result in a corresponding decrease in the purchase effort advantage
of the high-aesthetics item over the humorous one. I used an experimental design similar to that
employed in Study 2, but manipulated instantaneous desire and ownership pride using a different
approach. Specifically, I showed the target product surrounded by unrelated yet highly salient
images that were neutral (in the control condition), desire-inducing, or pride-inducing.
Participants were directed to focus their attention on the target product; however, due to the high
65
salience of the auxiliary stimuli, they had to process the target product in the context of those
additional stimuli. I built on the assumption that in the control condition, exposure to the high-
aesthetics target product would—due to desire- and pride-related properties of aesthetics—
activate in consumers the goal of alleviating their instantaneous desire for the product, while
additionally providing a means for consumers to satisfy their intrinsic need for pride-inducing
experiences. By contrast, pairing the high-aesthetics product with other salient, desire-inducing
stimuli should simultaneously activate multiple goals (i.e., wanting to obtain the target product,
while also wanting to obtain one or more of the additional, desire-inducing stimuli); pairing the
high-aesthetics product with a series of pride-inducing stimuli should provide multiple
simultaneous means for consumers to fulfill their need for pride. The goal system theory
(Kruglanski et al., 2002), which is applicable not only to goals per se but also to human needs in
general (e.g., Deci & Ryan, 2000), postulates that (1) alternative goals or (2) alternative means
for satisfying the same goal/need compete for a common and finite set of mental resources, and
may draw resources away from each other. On the basis of this theory, I expected that (1) the
presence of additional stimuli with desire-inducing properties would decrease the extent to which
consumers experience desire for the target stimulus, and (2) the presence of additional stimuli
with pride-inducing properties would limit the extent to which the target product would be seen
as instrumental to satisfying consumers’ pride needs. Consistent with hypothesis 1 of this
research, I predicted that, if either the instantaneous desire or the ownership pride experienced in
response to the high-aesthetics product decreases, consumers’ willingness to exert purchase
effort will also decrease. In contrast, consistent with the pattern of results obtained in Study 2, I
predicted that the decrease in instantaneous desire, ownership pride, and purchase effort
observed for the high-aesthetics product should be absent in the case of the humorous product.
66
Procedure. A total of 210 female participants, who had not previously seen the product
they would evaluate in this study, were recruited via a commercial web survey provider to take
part in the study in exchange for monetary compensation. The study employed a 2 (type of
hedonic attribute: high-aesthetics vs. humor) x 3 (type of elicited emotion: desire vs. pride vs.
control) between-subjects design, with instantaneous desire, ownership pride, and purchase effort
as dependent variables. To manipulate the type of hedonic attribute, I used a high-aesthetics and
a humorous lamp as stimuli. The choice of lamps was based on a pretest (n = 49) showing that
the high-aesthetics lamp was perceived as higher in aesthetic appeal (M = 4.64) than the
humorous lamp (M = 2.68), t(47) = 3.37, p < .05, while the latter was perceived as more
humorous (M = 4.25) than the former (M = 2.34), t(47) = 4.01, p < .001. In order to manipulate
elicited emotion, each lamp image was accompanied by a series of auxiliary images that were
presented under the guise of an advertising campaign. In the control condition, the auxiliary
images depicted various combinations of bricks. In the desire-eliciting condition, the auxiliary
images showed several good-looking male models with their gaze directed toward the viewer. In
the pride-eliciting condition, the auxiliary images—some of which were taken from Tracy,
Robins, and Schriber (2009)—showed various individuals (including both athletes and non-
athletes) in a pride- or triumph-expressing pose (see Figure 11).
67
FIGURE 11
Study 4: Stimuli and Manipulations Used in This Study
Aesthetically Appealing Product Humorous Product
Control
Condition
Desire-
Eliciting
Condition
Pride-
Eliciting
Condition
68
In light of the finding that seeing others accomplish an admirable feat triggers
experiences of pride in viewers (Algoe & Haidt, 2009), I expected exposure to images that
convey pride and triumph to have a pride-enhancing effect on participants. This was indeed
confirmed by a pretest (n = 98) showing that the images in the pride-inducing condition elicited
higher pride (M = 4.39) than the images in either the control condition (M = 2.00, p < .001) or the
desire-inducing condition (M = 2.37; p < .001), F(2, 95) = 20, 61, p < .001. The pretest also showed
that the images in the desire-inducing condition elicited higher desire (M = 4.37) than the images in
either the control condition (M = 2.00, p < .001) or the pride-inducing condition (M = 2.91, p < .001),
F(2, 95) = 16.38, p < .001.
Measures. In addition to using the measures from the previous studies, I collected
manipulation check measures that assessed the extent to which the auxiliary images induced
desire and pride in participants.
Results
Five outlier values (two on instantaneous desire, two on ownership pride, and one on
purchase effort) were identified and removed before conducting further analyses.
Manipulation checks. I first examined the extent to which the employed manipulations
impacted participants’ perceptions of the auxiliary images as inducing either desire or pride. The
images in the desire-inducing condition elicited higher desire (M = 4.40) than the images in
either the control (M = 2.07, p < .001) or the pride condition (M = 3.13, p < .001), F(1, 204) =
28.19, p < .001. Similarly, the images in the pride-inducing condition elicited higher pride (M =
3.87) than the images in either the control (M = 2.01, p < .001) or the desire-inducing condition
(M = 2.41, p < .001), F(1, 204) = 20.48, p < .001. Neither the type of hedonic attribute nor the
69
interaction between type of hedonic attribute and type of elicited emotion impacted the extent to
which the auxiliary images induced desire or pride (ps = n.s.).
Further manipulation checks indicated that the high-aesthetics product was perceived as
higher in aesthetic appeal (M = 4.88) than the humorous product (M = 2.22), F(1, 204) = 126.09,
p < .001, while the humorous product was perceived as more humorous (M = 4.19) than the
high-aesthetics product (M = 2.27), F(1, 204) = 65.25, p < .001. Neither the type of elicited
emotion nor the interaction between type of hedonic attribute and type of elicited emotion
impacted participants’ aesthetic appeal perceptions (ps = n.s.), although the interaction effect was
significant in the case of humor (p < .05). This interaction, however, was driven by humor
perceptions that varied in the high-aesthetics condition, F(2, 104) = 3.69, p < .05, but not in the
humor condition, F(2, 100) = .53, n.s.
Control checks. The high-aesthetics and humorous product differed in the extent to which
they were perceived as convenient to use (M
aesthetics
= 3.75, M
humor
= 3.16), t(208) = 2.63, p < .05,
expensive (M
aesthetics
= 5.63, M
humor
= 4.13), t(208) = 9.40, p < .001, and personally relevant to
participants (M
aesthetics
= 3.66, M
humor
= 2.70), t(208) = 4.42, p < .001, which suggests that these
variables should be controlled for when examining the impact of hedonic attribute on effort.
Effects of hedonic attribute and elicited emotion on instantaneous desire. When
instantaneous desire was used as a dependent variable, there was a significant main effect of type
of hedonic attribute, F(1, 201) = 66.85, p < .05, a significant main effect of elicited emotion type,
F(2, 201) = 6.22, p < .05, and a significant interaction of hedonic attribute and elicited emotion,
F(2, 201) = 6.60, p < .05 on instantaneous desire. Follow-up ANOVAs with planned contrasts
indicated a main effect of elicited emotion in the high-aesthetics condition, F(2, 104) = 7.42, p <
.05), showing that, compared to the control group (M = 3.87), instantaneous desire decreased in
70
the desire-inducing group (M = 2.24, p < .001), but not in the pride-inducing group (M = 3.16.
n.s.). Elicited emotion also had an effect on instantaneous desire in the humor condition, F(2, 97)
= 3.94, p < .05, which, however, occurred in the opposite direction, with instantaneous desire
increasing in the pride-inducing group (M = 1.77) compared to the control group (M = 1.23, p <
.05; see Figure 12).
FIGURE 12
Study 4: Effects of Aesthetic Appeal and Type of Induced Emotion on Instantaneous Desire
NOTE. * indicates significant group differences at p < .05; ** indicates significant group differences at p < .001
Effects of hedonic attribute and elicited emotion on ownership pride. When ownership
pride was used as a dependent variable, there was a significant main effect of type of hedonic
attribute, F(1, 202) = 42.48, p < .05, a significant main effect of elicited emotion type, F(2, 202)
= 6.61, p < .05, and a significant interaction effect of hedonic attribute and elicited emotion, F(2,
202) = 5.35, p < .05 on ownership pride. Follow-up ANOVAs with planned contrasts indicated a
main effect of elicited emotion in the high-aesthetics condition, F(2, 104) = 7.35, p < .05.
High-
aesthetics
Desire-
Inducing
Control
Pride-
Inducing
Humor
2.24
1.31
1.23
1.77
3.88
3.16
**
*
Instantaneous Desire
5
4
3
2
1
71
Specifically, compared to the control group (M = 3.42), ownership pride decreased in the pride-
inducing group (M = 2.48, p < .001), although it also decreased in the desire-inducing group (M
= 1.98, p < .001). Elicited emotion did not have a significant effect on ownership pride in the
humor condition, F(2, 98) = 2.07, n.s.; see Figure 13 below).
FIGURE 13
Study 4: Effects of Aesthetic Appeal and Type of Induced Emotion on Ownership Pride
NOTE. * indicates significant group differences at p < .05; ** indicates significant group differences at p < .001
Effects of hedonic attribute and elicited emotion on mood and performance quality.
When mood was used as a dependent variable, there was a significant main effect of type of
hedonic attribute on mood ratings, F(1, 203) = 57.06, p < .05. However, neither the main effect
of elicited emotion type, F(2, 203) = 1.46, n.s., nor the interaction effect of hedonic attribute and
elicited emotion, F(2, 103) = .82, n.s., was significant on mood. When performance quality
expectations were used as a dependent variable, there was a significant main effect of type of
hedonic attribute, F(1, 204) = 29.52, p < .05, as well as a significant main effect of elicited
5
4
3
2
1
Ownership Pride
High-
aesthetics
Desire-
Inducing
Control
Pride-
Inducing
Humor
1.99
1.26
1.40
1.66
2.48
3.43
** **
72
emotion type, F(2, 204) = 3.99, p < .05, but no interaction effect of hedonic attribute and elicited
emotion F(2, 104) = 1.90, n.s. on performance quality expectations. This set of findings suggests
that, consistent with the planned experimental design, the interaction of the two factors
manipulated in the present study (i.e., hedonic attribute and elicited emotion) was fairly targeted
in nature, in that it affected only participants’ instantaneous desire or ownership pride,
respectively, and did not carry over to other responses such as mood or performance quality
expectations. Nevertheless, given the presence of some main effects on mood and performance
quality expectations, the latter two variables should be controlled for when assessing the impact
of hedonic attribute and elicited emotion on purchase effort.
Effects of hedonic attribute and elicited emotion on purchase effort. I performed an
ANCOVA with purchase effort as dependent variable and with mood, performance quality
expectations, ease of use, expensiveness, and product relevance as control variables. Product
relevance, F(1, 200) = 16.12, p < .05, and mood, F(1, 200) = 61.52, p < .05 were significant
covariates. There was a significant main effect of hedonic attribute on purchase effort, F(2, 200) =
7.02, p < .05, as well as a significant interaction effect between hedonic attribute and elicited emotion
on purchase effort, F(2, 200) = 3.65, p < .05. Follow-up ANOVAs with planned contrasts indicated a
main effect of elicited emotion in the high-aesthetics condition, F(2, 104) = 3.97, p < .05.
Specifically, compared to the control group (M = 3.36), purchase effort decreased both in the desire-
inducing group (M = 2.57, p < .05) and in the pride-inducing group (M = 2.51, p < .05). Elicited
emotion had only a marginally significant effect on ownership pride in the humor condition, F(2, 99)
= 3.03, p = .05, which however, occurred again in the opposite direction, i.e., was driven by
instantaneous desire increasing in the pride-inducing group (M = 1.93) compared to the control
group (M = 1.38, p < .05; see Figure 14 below).
73
FIGURE 14
Study 4: Effects of Aesthetic Appeal and Type of Induced Emotion on Purchase Effort
NOTE. * indicates significant group differences at p < .05; ** indicates significant group differences at p < .001
Since in the high-aesthetics condition, the emotion manipulation decreased both
instantaneous desire and ownership pride in the desire-inducing group (compared to the control
group), it was unclear whether it was the change in instantaneous desire or the change in
ownership pride that ultimately triggered the decrease in purchase effort observed between the
two groups. In order to address this issue, I conducted a bootstrap-based mediation analysis, with
condition (control vs. desire-enhancing) as independent variable, purchase effort as dependent
variable, and instantaneous desire and ownership pride as mediators. The results suggested that
both instantaneous desire (PE .68, 95% CI [.29, 1.26] and ownership pride (PE .43, 95% CI [.12,
.94]) were significant mediators, meaning that both factors contributed to the difference in
purchase effort observed between the control group and the desire-inducing group.
5
4
3
2
1
Purchase Effort
High-
aesthetics
Desire-
Inducing
Control
Pride-
Inducing
Humor
1.57
1.39
1.94
2.52
2.58
3.37
*
*
74
Discussion
Study 4 provides causal evidence that the difference in purchase effort observed between
a high-aesthetics and a humorous product can indeed be explained by instantaneous desire and
ownership pride. Specifically, the study shows that, when (1) the ownership pride advantage, or
(2) both the instantaneous desire and the ownership pride advantage of the high-aesthetics
product over the humorous product is reduced, and any other potential confounding factors
(including, but not restricted to, mood and performance quality expectations) are controlled for,
the purchase effort advantage of aesthetic appeal over humor also decreases. These findings
complement the results obtained in Study 3 and provide additional convergent evidence for
hypothesis 3 by illustrating that instantaneous desire and ownership pride are instrumental in
explaining why the use of different product attributes that are hedonic in nature (i.e., aesthetics
versus humor) results in different levels of purchase effort in consumers.
While the effects of the employed manipulations were largely consistent with the
expected pattern of results, one noteworthy difference was the finding that the desire-inducing
manipulation reduced not only the instantaneous desire but also the ownership pride associated
with the high-aesthetics product. This finding may be due to the desire manipulation having been
so powerful as to potentially fully impair participants’ goal-directed processing of the product—
an intriguing explanation possibly worthy of further investigation on its own. Regardless of the
precise mechanism through which this particular manipulation affected consumers’
instantaneous desire and ownership pride, the results nonetheless show that it was a decrease in
both instantaneous desire and ownership pride that ultimately accounted for the observed
decrease in purchase effort in the desire-inducing group over the control group—a finding that is
consistent with the conceptual model proposed in this research.
75
GENERAL DISCUSSION
The present research heeds calls for marketing and consumer researchers to engage in a
deeper investigation into the psychological responses elicited by aesthetically appealing products and
to develop a more comprehensive theory of aesthetics in consumption (e.g., Kumar & Garg, 2010;
Orth & Malkewitz, 2008; Patrick & Peracchio, 2010). Across six studies and using a variety of
product categories and experimental manipulations, as well as different methodological approaches,
this research sheds light on why a product design’s aesthetic appeal has such a powerful influence on
consumers. In the Pilot Study, I set the stage by showing that consumers experience the two
psychological responses central to this research—instantaneous desire and ownership pride—when
being exposed to aesthetically appealing products. In Study 1a and 1b, I use structural equation
modeling and a bootstrap-based mediation analysis, respectively, to provide initial evidence that
consumers’ willingness to invest effort toward acquiring aesthetically appealing products can be
traced back to the strong instantaneous desire and ownership pride elicited by such products, while
also ruling out positive mood and the beautiful-is-good stereotype as alternative processing
mechanisms. Study 2 employs an experimental design to show that instantaneous desire and
ownership pride represent distinct responses that can be independently manipulated, and that each
independently contributes toward explaining purchase effort in products that are high (but not low) in
aesthetic appeal. Study 3 illustrates that aesthetically appealing product designs enjoy a clear
motivational advantage over humorous ones, which is consistent with the pattern of results obtained
for instantaneous desire and ownership pride, yet cannot be accounted for by alternative mechanisms
such as positive mood or the beautiful-is-good effect. Finally, Study 4 provides causal evidence that
76
the purchase effort advantage of high-aesthetics over humorous products can indeed be explained by
instantaneous desire and ownership pride.
Theoretical Contributions
Mediational role of instantaneous desire and ownership pride. The strong motivational
power of beauty has long been acknowledged in both lay and academic theories of aesthetics. In this
context, recent research in consumer behavior has shown that a product’s aesthetic appeal is
extremely effective at mobilizing consumers’ energy toward acquiring and maintaining possession of
such a product (Patrick & Hagtvedt, 2011; Sood, 2011). However, the exact mechanism through
which aesthetic appeal exerts such powerful influence on consumers has remained largely
unexplored. The present research shows that not just one, but two different factors contribute to
explaining why aesthetically appealing products are so effective at triggering purchase effort in
consumers. The present findings complement previous literature on consumer aesthetics, which, for
the most part, has dealt with the unconscious effects of aesthetics by examining how aesthetic appeal
can bias consumers’ product judgments and evaluations (e.g., Hoegg, Alba, & Dahl, 2010; Raghubir
& Greenleaf, 2006; Townsend & Shu, 2010). In contrast, the present research focuses on
psychological responses to aesthetics that are largely accessible to consumers’ awareness—as
indicated by the Pilot Study, which revealed that consumers can vocalize their instantaneous desire
and expectations of ownership pride when faced with aesthetically appealing products—and which
can best account for the overt displays of purchase effort that have been observed in association with
aesthetically appealing products.
77
Distinction from alternative processing mechanisms. Across five different studies, the present
research consistently shows that instantaneous desire and ownership pride explain the link between
aesthetic appeal and effort better than alternative constructs such as mood or performance quality
expectations can. Yet, does that mean that positive mood or the beautiful-is-good stereotype—two
phenomena frequently discussed in the context of aesthetics—do not account for any consequences
of a product’s aesthetic appeal on consumers’ judgments or behaviors? Study 1b suggests that this is
not the case by showing that, while purchase effort can indeed be explained by instantaneous desire
and ownership pride, consumers’ favorable attitudes toward a high-aesthetics product are best
accounted for by the positive mood or the high quality expectations triggered by such a product.
Study 3— which also included a product attitude measure—provides further evidence for this
argument. Specifically, an additional analysis indicated that, despite triggering different levels of
purchase effort, the high-aesthetics and humorous product induced equally high attitudes (M
aesthetics
=
5.70, M
humor
= 5.85), F(1,73) = .03, n.s. (while mood and performance quality expectations also did
not differ between the two groups). Based on these findings, I suggest that the explanatory
superiority of instantaneous desire and ownership pride holds only when examining purchase effort,
which is inherently linked to motivation. In contrast, favorable attitudes, which can be dissociated
from motivation (e.g., Aharon, 2001; Berridge, 1996; 2003)—as also demonstrated by Studies 1b
and 3, in which attitudes and purchase effort showed different patterns of results—can be just as
effectively traced back to non-motivational constructs such as mood or quality expectations. This
argument illustrates how the present research can be integrated with the previous aesthetics literature
dealing with the mood effect of visual attractiveness (e.g., Norman, 2002) or the beautiful-is-good
stereotype (Page & Herr, 2002) into a larger theory of aesthetics and consumer responses. To the
author’s knowledge, this research represents the first attempt at identifying how the different
78
psychological responses triggered by a product’s aesthetic appeal contribute toward explaining
motivation- versus attitude-based value in consumer products. Additionally, the present work
contributes to the literature on consumer motivation by demonstrating that the attitude-based value of
a product (as indicated by how much one likes the product) and its motivational value (as indicated
by one’s willingness to exert effort toward product acquisition) do not necessarily go hand-in-hand,
and by identifying possible mechanisms that could account for each of the two types of value.
Aesthetics as a uniquely powerful (visually) hedonic product design attribute. The research
additionally finds that the motivational power of aesthetic appeal cannot be simply explained by
high-aesthetics products triggering positive affect in consumers. Specifically, Study 3 shows that
even when products with different hedonic attributes—high-aesthetics vs. humor—elicit the same
level of positive affect (assessed in terms of mood and visual pleasure), the more aesthetically
appealing one enjoys a clear motivational advantage. By employing a series of tight experimental
controls, Study 3 allows one to conclude that this advantage cannot be traced back to the humorous
products being simply perceived as functionally superior to the high-aesthetics ones, and instead is
best accounted for by the desire and pride benefit of aesthetic appeal over humor. This finding
suggests that aesthetic appeal might be different from other hedonic attributes that are visually
expressed, and points toward differences in both instantaneous desire and ownership pride as
possibly accounting for the unique nature of aesthetic appeal among hedonic product characteristics.
As such, the present research addresses an issue that is central to consumer aesthetics research
(Charters, 2006; Patrick & Peracchio, 2010; Wagner, 1999), while underscoring the need for
researchers to better differentiate aesthetic pleasure from the more general concept of visually-based
pleasure (cf. Armstrong & Detweiler-Bedell, 2008; Silvia, 2005).
79
The findings of Studies 3 and 4 complement recent research comparing the effects of
aesthetic appeal to those of other hedonic product attributes, which showed that the choice of an
attractive-looking product provides a self-affirmation benefit to consumers, whereas choosing a
product rated superior on taste or comfort does not (Townsend & Sood, 2012). Yet, while the
aforementioned research contrasts a visually-depicted attribute (i.e., aesthetics, as communicated
through product pictures) against verbally-depicted attributes (i.e., taste and comfort level, as
communicated through consumer ratings), thereby introducing a possible vividness confound, the
present research circumvents that issue by comparing a product’s aesthetic appeal to another visually
hedonic attribute (i.e., a humorous design) that is highly novel and attention drawing.
The present findings also add to the rich tradition of consumer research investigating the
impact of humor in marketing. Yet, while such research has mainly focused on humorous advertising
(cf., Weinberger & Gulas, 1992), the effects of humor in the context of product design have remained
largely ignored. This dissertation represents one of the few attempts to investigate humor as a design
element rather than a stylistic cue (cf., Chang & Wu, 2007; Ludden, Schifferstein, & Hekkert,
2008), and, to the author’s knowledge, the first research to specifically compare humor to aesthetics
in product design.
Aesthetics and consumer desire. Desire, a powerful consumption motivator, has so far
received little empirical attention in consumer research, despite its importance to the field (cf.
Belk, Ger, & Askegaard, 2003). The present research answers the call for a deeper investigation
into the antecedents of consumer desire by showing aesthetic appeal to be one of the factors that
can instantaneously induce feelings of desire in consumers.
Aesthetics and ownership pride. The present research further complements recent findings on
the relationship between aesthetically appealing products and consumers’ sense of self (e.g.,
80
Townsend & Shu, 2010; Townsend & Sood, 2012) by highlighting the strong motivational
consequences that aesthetics-induced ownership pride has on consumers. Recent studies,
nevertheless, have shown that pride does not represent a unitary construct, and instead includes two
different facets—hubristic and authentic pride (Tracy & Robins, 2007; Tracy, Shariff, & Cheng,
2010). Hubristic pride emerges when individuals attribute their success to possessing outstanding
abilities or talents (such as being extremely gifted or capable in a particular domain), and is
accompanied by arrogance and egotism. Authentic pride results when individuals attribute their
success to having effectively engaged in specific tasks, particularly resource-taxing ones (which
require working hard or being persistent), and is associated with feeling accomplished yet humble
(Lewis, 2000; Tracy, Shariff, & Cheng, 2010). So far, the nature of the aesthetics-induced ownership
pride has not been clearly elucidated in the previous literature. Specifically, while several studies
have shown that high-aesthetics products can serve as tools for fulfilling self-presentation goals (e.g.
DeBono, Leavitt, & Backus, 2003; Venkatesh & Meamber, 2008)—which suggests an
association between aesthetics and hubristic pride—the extent to which owning an aesthetically
appealing products may, in fact, induce authentic pride has not been examined.
In order to shed light on this particular issue, I conducted an additional study in which I asked
42 female participants (who had chosen an aesthetically preferred handbag from among several
handbag designs) to imagine that a friend compliments them on the choice they made, and then to
indicate how the compliment would make them feel using the seven-item Authentic and Hubristic
Pride scales by Tracy and Robins (2007). A Hotelling’s t-test indicated that the ownership pride
measure used in the present research correlated more strongly with ratings of authentic pride (r = .68,
p < .001) than with ratings of hubristic pride (r = 34, p < .05), t(69) = 2.63, p < .05. Additionally,
authentic pride was significantly correlated with ratings of both aesthetic appeal (r = .33, p < .05) and
81
purchase effort (r = .34, p < .05), whereas hubristic pride was not correlated with either measure (r’s
= -.03 and .12, respectively, n.s.). Together, these findings suggests that the pride that comes from
owning an aesthetically appealing product is not necessarily fully hubristic in nature, that the
measure of ownership pride used in the present research is more consistent with authentic than with
hubristic pride, and that it is the authentic, not the hubristic dimension of pride that appears more
effective at predicting purchase effort in the case of high-aesthetics products.
The extent to which the pride from owning aesthetically appealing products is ultimately
more hubristic or more authentic in nature may depend on the type of self-related inference (i.e.,
appearing unique or affluent versus having made a tasteful choice) that consumers associate with
owning such products. The present research, nevertheless, offers some preliminary insights into why
such ownership pride would be authentic in nature. Specifically, in the Pilot Study I also asked
participants to indicate in an open-ended format what the ownership of the high-aesthetics product
would convey about themselves, and found that 24% of participants explicitly referenced having
good taste, while 27% of participants referenced being unique. In Study 3 I found that, even when
controlling for how unique or expensive a product appears, high-aesthetics products still trigger more
ownership pride than low-aesthetics ones, which suggests that at least some of this ownership pride
must be due to high-aesthetics products expressing their owner’s good taste. Since conveying good
taste through product selection and ownership can serve as a validation that one has succeeded in
making a sensible consumption choice (Langer, 1997), the association between aesthetically
appealing products and good taste would explain why owning such products is likely to elicit
authentic pride. Good taste as choice validator may also explain, for example, why previous research
(e.g., Townsend and Sood, 2012) has found that being associated with an aesthetically appealing
product provides a self-affirmation benefit, even if the product itself (i.e., toothbrush holder) offers
82
no social value. Future research, however, needs to directly further examine the extent to which
conveying good taste—a concept closely related to the appreciation of hedonic (and, in particular,
aesthetic) products, and which has received relatively little attention in consumer research (cf., Hoyer
& Stokburger-Sauer, 2012)—plays a critical role in triggering authentic pride through the ownership
of high-aesthetics products.
Managerial Implications
By elucidating why product beauty holds such a powerful influence on consumers, the
present research offers insights into how marketing managers can best harness the motivational
power of product aesthetics. Previous research has shown that, while deeply valued, a functional
product’s aesthetic appeal tends to be discounted in decision-making if it is made too salient to
consumers (Diefenbach & Hassenzahl, 2009; Townsend & Shu, 2010), presumably because
consumers find it somewhat difficult to rationally justify making efforts for the sake of an arguably
peripheral cue such as aesthetics. As a result, calling attention to a product’s aesthetic appeal may not
represent the most effective strategy for marketers to fully tap consumers’ willingness to pursue such
a product. The alternative approach suggested by this dissertation is to enhance the two motivational
responses associated with high-aesthetics products—namely, instantaneous desire and ownership
pride—since altering either of these responses will have a direct effect on consumers’ purchase
effort. While the manipulations used in the present research were aimed at decreasing instantaneous
desire and ownership pride, an increase in these responses can be achieved, for example, by allowing
consumers to sample—or at least be introduced to—a “teaser” reward (such as a small quantity of
dessert) prior to exposure to an aesthetically appealing product, since that should increase consumers’
83
desire toward the target product (cf., Wadhwa, Shiv, & Nowlis, 2008), and enhance purchase effort.
Additionally, since anticipating ownership pride requires at least some amount of mental simulation
on the part of consumers (cf., Pham, 1998), and yet such mental simulations are sometimes
performed very superficially or missed altogether (Lee & Cheng, 2009), marketers can encourage
consumers to engage in mental simulations of product ownership, which should make the pride
associated with owning high-aesthetics items more salient, and in turn enhance purchase effort.
A further takeaway from the comparison of aesthetically appealing to humorous designs is
that a focus on humor in product design needs to be approached with caution. While product
designers often strive to come up with designs that trigger positive emotional reactions in
consumers (Desmet, 2003)—with humor being an increasingly popular tool for eliciting such
reactions (Ludden, Schifferstein, & Hekkert, 2008)—they need to be aware that, compared to
aesthetic appeal, humor has only a limited potential to motivate consumers to engage in managerially
desirable behaviors. Specifically, the present research suggests that even if consumers perceive no
functional difference between a humorous and an aesthetically appealing product, and ultimately
indicate that they like both products equally (Study 3), they will still be more motivated to pursue the
high-aesthetics product over the humorous one, which makes humor a managerially less appealing
option.
In closing, I would like to urge marketers to keep in mind that product beauty represents a
powerful tool, which can cause short-term “myopia” (Patrick & Hagtvedt, 2011), and can prompt
consumers to invest a substantial amount of resources toward product acquisition, all in the name of
satisfying one’s immediate desire for such a product and achieving a sense of pride through
ownership. It is hence imperative for marketers to deploy product aesthetics in a careful and socially
responsible manner.
84
Limitations and Directions for Future Research
The present research has some limitations, which in turn provide avenues for future research.
First, the model proposed in this research works best when assessing consumers’ reactions to a
product of which they have no prior knowledge of. Responses to products one is already familiar
with can be significantly altered by factors such as knowledge about the product’s brand or quality,
which may limit the generalizability of the present model. For this reason, all the stimuli used in
Studies 1-4 were products that participants had not seen before, making the present findings most
applicable to newly developed (rather than already established) consumer products. Future research
can investigate how the interaction of product aesthetics with brand information may moderate the
processing mechanism proposed in this paper.
Second, although this research shows that aesthetically appealing products generally elicit
instantaneous desire and ownership pride, which can operate relatively independently of each other,
it did not address the issue of whether aesthetic appeal always elicits both types of responses. Are
there particular situations or types of products that cause only one of the two responses to emerge?
For example one may argue that products consumed in a fully private setting may offer a very low
ownership pride benefit. While Studies 3 and 4 touched upon this issue by examining household
products—which arguably have lower social value than publicly consumed items such as
electronics—I did not, however, test the conceptual model in the context of products that are
designed exclusively for private consumption (such as personal hygiene items). Although I expect
the framework proposed in this research to still hold in such a context—with ownership pride playing
a limited, but nevertheless instrumental role—this argument still needs to be empirically examined.
Third, the present research has compared aesthetic appeal to an alternative visually hedonic
attribute, namely, humor in product design. However, in order to further assess the extent to which
85
the motivational power of aesthetics is unique among hedonic attributes that are visually expressed,
one must also compare aesthetic appeal to other attributes such as luxury or particular brands (since
both brands and luxury can be conveyed through visual cues). Given that Studies 2 and 3 showed
that the motivational effects of aesthetic appeal go beyond the notion that high-aesthetics products
are perceived as expensive, I expect the motivational power of an aesthetic appealing product to
exceed that of a comparable luxury product, especially in light of the perceived guilt (Dahl et al.,
2003) and the large financial effort that are typically associated with the acquisition of luxury
products. Motivationally, an aesthetically appealing product design is probably most similar to a
branded product that a consumer is attached to, since brands that trigger high attachment can prompt
consumers to expend a great deal of effort towards acquisition (Park et al., 2010). This comparison
nevertheless, is qualified by the notion that, while brand attachment requires the existence of a strong
emotional and cognitive bond between the consumer and the brand (Park et al., 2010), beauty holds
an innate and universal appeal, such that consumers can derive value from high-aesthetics products in
the absence of any learned associations (Townsend & Sood, 2012) or prior experience (Norman,
2004) with the product. Future research should further investigate the extent to which the
motivational power of aesthetic appeal compares to that of other visually hedonic attributes such as
luxury or particular product brands. Moreover, a comparison of aesthetic appeal to hedonic product
attributes that are not necessarily visual in nature (such as a pleasant smell or product texture;
Krishna, Elder, & Caldara, 2010) would provide a highly valuable extension to the present research.
Fourth, it is possible that in addition to the processing mechanism proposed and verified in
the present research (i.e., instantaneous desire and ownership pride), there are additional factors at
play in explaining the effect of aesthetic appeal on consumers’ purchase effort. For example
consumers may anticipate the usage of an aesthetically appealing product to be a fun and enjoyable
86
experience, which would in turn increase their motivation to purchase and use such a product
(Norman, 2002). Study 3 indirectly tested this argument by collecting ratings of mood and visual
enjoyment for the high-aesthetics and the humorous product and showing that neither of the two
measures can explain the purchase effort advantage of aesthetics over humor. It remains unclear,
however, whether momentary measures of enjoyment are consistent with consumers’ anticipation of
enjoying the product in the future. Future research can investigate the extent to which anticipated
product enjoyment can potentially explain the aesthetics-induced purchase effort above and beyond
the explanatory effect of instantaneous desire and ownership pride. It is possible that, similarly to
positive mood, anticipated enjoyment plays a role in differentiating the motivational power of
aesthetically appealing products from that of products devoid of any hedonic attribute, but may not
differentiate aesthetic appeal from other product attributes that also hedonic in nature. Empirically
investigating this particular question would provide additional insights into which psychological
responses do or do not separate aesthetic appeal from other hedonic product attributes.
Fifth, Study 4 manipulated consumers’ emotions through exposure to emotionally-laden
stimuli, which were expected to affect instantaneous desire and ownership pride through a goal
processing route. Yet it is possible that the emotion manipulation ultimately impacted
instantaneous desire and ownership pride not through changes in goal processing, but through
changes in participants’ visual attention, with the amount of attention paid to the target product
decreasing in both the desire- and the pride-inducing condition compared to the control
condition. While the obtained pattern of results does not fully support an attention-based
explanation (since such an explanation would entail the emotion manipulation impacting both
instantaneous desire and ownership pride across conditions, which was not the case), one cannot
reliably rule out such an explanation in the absence of collecting and controlling for attention
87
measures. Since the main goal of Study 4 was to ultimately show that decreasing either the desire
or the pride benefit of aesthetics over humor decreases aesthetics’ purchase effort benefit—a
goal that was achieved—verifying the exact processing mechanism responsible for the observed
changes in instantaneous desire and ownership pride did not represent a critical component of
this study. It is, nevertheless, an issue that requires further investigation, and which can yield
potentially interesting and useful insights about how aesthetically appealing stimuli are
processed when presented in the context of other information that competes for consumers’
visual and mental resources.
Sixth, this research has focused exclusively on instances of purchase effort that are highly
desirable from a marketing point of view. Yet, consistent with the notion that aesthetic appeal can
sometimes have a boomerang effect on consumers (e.g., Hoegg, Dahl, & Alba, 2010), are there
situations in which a product’s aesthetic appeal prompts consumers to expend effort in a manner that
is managerially undesirable? Anecdotal evidence suggests that consumers often take particularly
good care of functional products with an attractive design (Bloch, 1995), to the point where such
products may even trigger a “too-pretty-to-use effect” (Decker-Smith, 2004; Sinha, 1979), whereby
one purposely avoids using such products so as not to damage their appearance. If consumers refuse
to utilize a beautiful-looking product, this should in turn reduce their repurchase frequency—an
argument which implies that ownership pride, while key to driving purchase effort, may also prevent
future product purchases. In light of this argument there appears to be a clear need for the field to
develop a deeper understanding of how the advantages and disadvantages associated with developing
and marketing aesthetically appealing products interact with each other.
Seventh, consistent with the tradition of aesthetics research being carried out mainly in
the field of visual perception (Leder et al., 2004), this research has focused exclusively on
88
visually-based aesthetic pleasure, as opposed to that derived from other senses such as touch or
smell. However, in light of the notion that the human brain may process visual and auditory
pleasure in similar ways (Biederman & Vessel, 2006), it would be worthwhile exploring the
extent to which the operation of instantaneous desire and ownership pride as drivers of effort can
also be extended to non-physical objects such as music-based products.
Finally, it is possible that, in addition to visual objects, instantaneous desire and
ownership pride may also operate in the domain of interpersonal relationships. Specifically, since
physically attractive, opposite-gender individuals have been shown to (1) elicit feelings of “love
at first sight” (Sangrador & Yela, 2000)—and hence a desire to symbolically integrate the other
person into one’s sense of self (Hazan & Shaver, 1987)—and to (2) cause their partners to feel
proud and self-confident (Sigall & Landy, 1973), future research in social psychology can
investigate the effectiveness of desire and pride at explaining why individuals are often willing to
go to great lengths to secure the affection of an attractive potential mate.
89
REFERENCES
Adaval, R. (2001). Sometimes it just feels right: The differential weighting of affect-consistent
and affect-inconsistent product information. Journal of Consumer Research, 28(1), 1–17.
Aharon, I., Etcoff, N., Ariely, D., Chabris, CF., O’Connor, E., & Breiter, H.C. (2001). Beautiful
faces have variable reward value: fMRI and behavioral evidence. Neuron, 32, 537–551.
Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions.
Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications.
Alba, J. W., & Williams, E. F. (2012). Pleasure principles: A review of research on hedonic
consumption. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 23(1), 2-18.
Algoe, S. B., & Haidt, J. (2009). Witnessing excellence in action: The 'other-praising' emotions
of elevation, gratitude, and admiration. Journal of Positive Psychology, 4(2), 105–127.
Armstrong, T., & Detweiler-Bedell, B. (2008). Beauty as an emotion: The exhilarating prospect
of mastering a challenging world. Review of General Psychology, 12, 305-329.
Bagozzi, R.P., Dholakia, U.M., & Basuroy, S. (2003). How effortful decisions get enacted: The
motivating role of decision processes, desires, and anticipated emotions. Journal of
Behavioral Decision Making, 16, 273-295.
Banai, E., Mikulincer, M., & Shaver, P. R. (2005). Self-object needs in Kohut’s self psychology:
Links with attachment, self-cohesion, affect regulation, and adjustment. Psychoanalytic
Psychology, 29, 224-260.
Bayley, G., & Nancarrow, C. (1998). Impulse purchasing: A qualitative exploration of the
phenomenon. Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal, 1(2), 99-114.
Belk, R., Ger, G., & Askegaard, S. (2003). The fire of desire: A multi-sited inquiry into
consumer passion. Journal of Consumer Research, 30, 326-351.
Berlyne, D. E. (1971). Aesthetics and Psychobiology, New York: Appleton ‐Century ‐Crofts.
Berridge, K. C. (1996). Food reward: Brain substrates of wanting and liking. Neuroscience and
Biobehavioral Reviews, 20, 1-25.
______ (2003). Pleasures of the brain. Brain and Cognition, 52(10), 106-128.
Biederman, I. & Vessel, E. A. (2006). Perceptual pleasure and the brain. American Scientist.
94(3), 247-253.
90
Bloch, P. (1995). Seeking the ideal form: Product design and consumer response. Journal of
Marketing, 59(3), 16-29.
______., Brunel, F., & Arnold, T. (2003). Individual differences in the centrality of visual
product aesthetics: Concept and measurement. Journal of Consumer Research, 29(1),
551-565.
Bodner, R. & Prelec, D. (2001). Self-signaling and diagnostic utility in everyday decision
making. In I. Brocas and J. Carrillo (Eds.), Collected essays in psychology and
economics (pp.1-22). Oxford, U.K.: Oxford University Press.
Bressler, E. R., & Balshine, S. (2006). The influence of humor on desirability. Evolution and
Human Behavior, 27, 29–39.
Buchanan, R. (1989). Declaration by design: Rhetoric, argument, and demonstration in design
practice. In V. Margolin (Ed.), Design Discourse (pp. 91-109). Chicago: John Wiley &
Sons Ltd.
Chang, W., & Wu, T. Y. (2007). Exploring types and characteristics of product forms.
International Journal of Design, 1(1), 3–14.
Charters, S. (2006). Aesthetic products and aesthetic consumption: A review. Consumption,
Markets and Culture, 9(3), 235–255.
Chaudhuri, A., & Holbrook, M.B. (2001). The chain of effects from brand trust and brand affect
to brand performance: the role of brand loyalty. Journal of Marketing, 65(April), 81-93.
Clark, M., & Isen, A. (1982). Toward understanding the relationship between feeling states and
social behavior. In A. H. Hastorf & A. M. Isen (Eds.), Cognitive Social Psychology
(pp.73-108). New York: Elsevier.
Clay, F. (1908). The Origin of the aesthetic emotion. Sammelbände der Internationalen
Musikgesellschaft, January-March, 282-290.
Coates, D. (2003). Watches tell more than time: Product design, information, and the quest for
elegance. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Cox, D. S., & Cox, A. D. (1988). What does familiarity breed? Complexity as a moderator of
repetition effects in advertisement evaluation. Journal of Consumer Research, 15(1),
111-16.
Csikszentmihalyi, M., & Robinson R. E. (1990). The art of seeing: An interpretation of the
aesthetic encounter. Malibu, CA: The J. Paul Getty Museum and The Getty Education
Institute for the Arts.
91
Dahl, D. W., Honea, H., & Manchanda, R. V. (2003). The nature of self-reported guilt in
consumption contexts. Marketing Letters, 14(October), 159-171.
Dai, X., Brendl, M., & Ariely, D. (2010). Wanting, liking, and preference construction. Emotion,
10 (3), 324-334.
Damasio, A. R. (1994). Descartes’ error: emotion, reason, and the human brain. New York,
New York: Putnam.
DeBono, K. G., Leavitt, A., & Backus, J. (2003). Product packaging and product evaluation: An
individual difference approach. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 33, 513-521.
Decker-Smith, J. L. (2004). A blending of purpose: The juxtaposition of functional and aesthetic
qualities in pots of use. (Unpublished Master’s thesis). East Tennessee State University.
Deng, X., Hui, S. K., & Hutchinson, J. W. (2010). Consumer preferences for color combinations:
An empirical analysis of similarity-based color relationships. Journal of Consumer
Psychology, 20(4), 476−484.
Derbaix, C., & Pham, M.T. (1998). For the development of measures of emotion in marketing:
Summary and prerequisites,” In: Lambkin, M. (Ed.), European Perspectives on
Consumer Behaviour, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Desmet, P. M.A. (2003). A multilayered model of product emotions. The Design Journal, 6(2), 4-13.
Dhar, R., & and Wertenbroch, K. (2000). Consumer choice between hedonic and utilitarian goods.
Journal of Marketing Research, 37(1), 60-71.
Diefenbach, S., & Hassenzahl, M. (2009). Proceedings of the 27th international conference on
Human factors in computing systems: The "beauty dilemma”: Beauty is valued but
discounted in product choice. New York, NY.
Diessner, R., Rust, T., Solom, R. C., Frost, N., & Parsons, L. (2006). Beauty and hoPE A moral
beauty intervention, Journal of Moral Education, 35(3), 301-331.
Dion, K., Berscheid, E., & Walster, E. (1972). What is beautiful is good. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 24, 285-90.
Dubois, B., and Czellar, S. (2002). Prestige brands or luxury brands? An exploratory inquiry on
consumer perceptions. Marketing in a Changing World: Scope, Opportunities and
Challenges: Proceedings of the 31st EMAC Conference. University of Minho, Portugal.
Dumaine, B. (1991). Design that sells and sells and . . .. Fortune (March 11), 86-94.
92
Eagly, A.H., Ashmore, R.D., Makhijani, M.G., & Longo, L.C. (1991). What is beautiful is good,
but …: A metaanalytic review of research on the physical attractiveness stereotype.
Psychological Bulletin 110(1), 109-128.
Eisend, M. (2009). A meta-analysis of humor in advertising. Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science, 37, 191-203.
Eysenck, H. J. (1993). A new measure of 'Good Taste' in visual art. Leonardo, 16(3), 229-231.
Forgas, J. P. (1995). Mood and judgment: The Affect Infusion Model (AIM),” Psychological Bulletin,
117(1), 39–66.
Gardner, M. P. (1985). Mood states and consumer behavior: A critical review. Journal of
Consumer Research, 12, 281-300.
Gilbert, D. T., Gill, M. J., & Wilson, T. D. (2002). The future is now: Temporal correction in
affective forecasting. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 88(1),
430–444.
Goodman, N. (1968). Languages of art. New York: Bobbs-Merrill.
Goldman, A., 2001. The aesthetic. In: Gaut, B., Lopes, D.M. (Eds.), The Routeledge Companion
to Aesthetics (pp. 181–19). Routledge, London.
Greenwald, A.G., & Banaji, M. R. (1995). Implicit social cognition: Attitudes, self-esteem, and
stereotypes. Psychological Review, 102(1), 4-27.
Gronow, J. (1993). What is good taste? Social Science Information, 32, 279-301.
Hagman, G. (2002). The sense of beauty. The International Journal of Psychoanalysis, 83, 661–
674.
Haidt, J. & Keltner, D. (2004). Appreciation of beauty and excellence. In C. Peterson and M. E.
P. Seligman (Eds.) Character strengths and virtues (pp. 537-551). Washington DC:
American Psychological Association Press.
Hassenzahl, M. (2004). The interplay of beauty, goodness and usability in interactive products.
Human Computer Interaction, 19, 319-349.
Hazan, C. & Shaver, P. (1987). Romantic love conceptualized as an attachment process. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 52(3), 511-24.
Hirschman, E. C. (1986). The effect of verbal and pictorial advertising stimuli in aesthetic,
utilitarian and familiarity perceptions. Journal of Advertising, 15(2), 27–34.
93
______, & Holbrook, M. B. (1982). Hedonic consumption: emerging concepts, methods and
propositions. Journal of Marketing, 46, 92–101.
Hoch, S., & Loewenstein, G. (1991). Time-inconsistent preferences and consumer self-control,
Journal of Consumer Research, 17(1991), 492-450.
Hoegg, J., & Alba, J. W. (2008). A role for aesthetics in consumer psychology. In F. Kardes, C.
Haugtvedt, and P. Herr (Eds.), Handbook of consumer psychology (pp. 733−754). New
York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
______, Alba, J., & Dahl, D. (2010). The good, the bad, and the ugly: Aesthetic influence on
information processing. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 20 (October), 419-430.
______, Alba, J., & Dahl, D. (2009). The good, the bad, and the ugly: Aesthetic influence on
information processing. Product Design Conference, Williamsburg, VA.
Holbrook, M. B. & Hirschman, E.C. (1982). The experiential aspects of consumption: Consumer
fantasy, feelings and fun. Journal of Consumer Research, 9(2), 132-140.
______, & Zirlin, R. B. (1985). Artistic creation, artworks, and aesthetic appreciation: Some
philosophical contributions to nonprofit marketing. Advances in Nonprofit Marketing, 1,
1-54.
Hoyer, Wayne D., & Stokburger-Sauer, N. (2012). The role of aesthetic taste in consumer
behavior. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 40(January), 167-180.
Hutchinson, W., Kamakura, W., & Lynch, J. (2000), Unobserved heterogeneity as an alternative
explanation for "reversal" effects in behavioral research, Journal of Consumer Research,
27 (December), 324-344.
IBM Electronics Podcast (2005). Stand out from the consumer electronics crowd with first-class
product design. (accessed June 15, 2012), [available at
http://ibm.com/bcs/electronics/podcast].
Immordino-Yang, M.H., McColl, A., Damasio, H., & Damasio, A. (2009). Neural correlates of
admiration and compassion. PNAS, 106(19) 8021-8026.
Jacobsen, T., Buchta, K., Köhler, M., & Schröger, E. (1994). The primacy of beauty in judging
the aesthetics of objects. Psychological Reports, 94(3), 1253–60.
______, Schubotz, R.I., Höfel, L., & Von., Cramon, D.Y. (2006_. Brain correlates of aesthetic
judgment of beauty. NeuroImage, 29, 276–285.
94
Joy, A., & Sherry, J. F., Jr. (2003). Speaking of art as embodied imagination: A multisensory
approach to understanding aesthetic experience. Journal of Consumer Research, 30, 259–
282.
Kampe, K.K., Frith, C.D., Dolan, R.J., & Frith, U. (2001). Reward value of attractiveness and
gaze. Nature, 413(6856), 589.
Karvonen, K. (2000). The beauty of simplicity. Proceedings of the Conference on Universal
Usability, Arlington, VI.
Kawabata, H., & Zeki, S. (2004). Neural correlates of beauty. Journal of Neurophysiology,
91(4), 1699
Kohut, H. (1971). The analysis of the self. New York: International Universities Press.
Konečni, V.J. (2005). The aesthetic trinity: awe, being moved, thrills. Bulletin of Psychology and
the Arts 5(2), 27-44.
Krishna, A. (2006). Interaction of senses: The effect of vision versus touch on the elongation
bias. Journal of Consumer Research, 32(4), 557-566.
______, Elder, R. S., & Caldara, C. (2010). Feminine to smell but masculine to touch?:
Multisensory congruence and its effect on the aesthetic experience. Journal of Consumer
Psychology, 20(4), 410−418.
Kumar Batra. R., Brunel, F., & Chandran, S. (2009). When good looks kill: An examination of
consumer responses to visually attractive product design. In A. L. McGill and S. Shavitt
(Eds.), Advances in Consumer Research, (Vol. 36, pp. 698-698), Duluth, MN:
Association for Consumer Research.
Kumar, M., & Garg, N. (2010). Aesthetic principles and cognitive emotion appraisals: How
much of the beauty lies in the eye of the beholder? Journal of Consumer Psychology,
20(4), 485-494.
Landon, E. L. (1974). Self-concept, ideal self-concept, and consumer purchase intentions.
Journal of Consumer Research 1(2), 44–51.
Langer, J. (1997). What consumers wish brand managers knew. Journal of Advertising Research,
37(6), 60-5.
Langlois, J. H., Kalakanis, L., Rubenstein, A. J., Larson, A., Hallam, M., & Smoot, M. (2000).
Maxims or myths of beauty?: A meta-analytic and theoretical review. Psychological
Bulletin, 126, 390–423.
95
Leder, H., Belke, B., Oeberst, A., & Augustin, D. (2004). A model of aesthetic appreciation and
aesthetic judgements. British Journal of Psychology, 95, 489-508.
Lee, Y. H., & Cheng, Q. (2009). When uncertainty brings pleasure: The role of prospect imageability and
mental imagery. Journal of Consumer Research, 36(4), 624–34.
Lewis, M. (1993). Self-conscious emotions: Embarrassment, pride, shame, and guilt. In M.
Lewis and J. M. Haviland (Eds.), Handbook of emotions (pp. 353–364). New York:
Guilford Press.
Lihua, L. (2000). Initial discussion of women college students’ dress mentality. Chinese
Education and Society, 33(3), 29-32.
Loewenstein, G. (1996). Out of control: Visceral influences on behavior. Organizational
behavior and human decision processes, 65, 272–292.
Lorand, R. (1994). Beauty and its opposites. Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism. 52(4), 399-
406.
Luce, M. F., Payne, J. W., & and Bettman, J. R. (1999). Emotional trade-off difficulty and
choice. Journal of Marketing Research, 36(2), 143–59.
Martin, C. L. (1998). Relationship marketing: A high-involvement product attribute approach.
Journal of Product and Brand Management, 7(1), 6−26.
Martin, L. L., & Tesser, A. (2009). Five markers of motivated behavior. In G. B. Moskovitz, and
H. Grant (Eds.), The psychology of goals (pp. 257–276). New York: Guilford.
Maslow, A. (1967). A Theory of metamotivation: The biological rooting of the value-life.
Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 7(93), 93-127.
______, (1970). Motivation and personality (3rd ed.). New York: Harper and Row.
______, (1971). The farther reaches of human nature. New York: The Viking Press.
Meyer, R., & Zhao, S. (2012). The Psychology of Intuitive Forecasts of New Product Utility,
Working paper.
Meyers-Levy, J., & Tybout, A. (1989). Schema congruity as a basis for product evaluation.
Journal of Consumer Research, 16(1), 39-54.
______, & Zhu, R. (2010).Gender differences in the meanings consumers infer from music and
other aesthetic stimuli. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 20(4), 495−507.
96
Miller, A. G. (1970). Role of physical attractiveness in impression formation. Psychonomic
Science, 19, 241- 243.
Miller, M., & Adler, J. (2003). Design 2004: Isaac hits his target. Newsweek, October 27, 2003,
74–77.
Murphy, S. T., & Zajonc, R. B. (1993). Affect, cognition, and awareness: Affective priming with
optimal and suboptimal stimulus exposures. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 64(5), 723-739.
Norman, D. A. (2002). Emotion and design: Attractive things work better. Interactions
Magazine, 4, 36-42.
______ (2004). Emotional design: Why we love (or hate) everyday things. New York: Basic
Books.
Orth, U. R., & Malkewitz, K. (2008). Holistic package design and consumer brand impressions.
Journal of Marketing, 72, 64−81.
Osborne, H. (1986). Aesthetic experience and cultural value. The Journal of Aesthetics and Art
Criticism, 44, 331-337.
Page, C., & 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.
Patrick, V. M., & Peracchio, L. (2010). ’Curating’ the JCP special issue on aesthetics in
consumer psychology: An introduction to the aesthetics issue. Journal of Consumer
Psychology, 20, 393–397.
______, & Hagtvedt, H. (2011). Aesthetic incongruity resolution. Journal of Marketing
Research, 48(2), 393–402.
Pol, G., Park, C. W., & Eisingerich, A. (2010). Blinding beauty: When and how product
attractiveness overpowers negative information. Society for Consumer Psychology Winter
Conference, February 24-26, Atlanta, GA.
Pandelaere, M., Millet, K., & Bergh, B. V. (2010). Madonna or Don McLean? The effect of
order of exposure on relative liking. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 20(4), 442−451.
Park, C. W., MacInnis, D. J., Priester, J. Eisingerich, A. B., & Iacobucci, D. (2010). Brand
attachment and brand attitude strength: conceptual and empirical differentiation of two
critical brand equity drivers. Journal of Marketing, 74(6), 1-17.
97
Pham, M. T. (1998). Representativeness, relevance, and the use of feelings in decision-making.
Journal of Consumer Research, 25, 144–159.
Phillips, D., Olson, J., & Baumgartner, H. (1995). Consumption visions in consumer decision
making. In F. R. Kardes & M. Sujan, (Eds.), Advances in Consumer Research (Vol. 22,
pp. 280-284). Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research.
Postrel, V. (2003). The substance of style: How the rise of aesthetic value is remaking
commerce, culture and consciousness. New York: Harper Collins.
Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and
comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40(3),
879–91.
Raghubir, P. & Greenleaf, E. A. (2006). Ratios in proportion: What should the shape of the
package be?. Journal of Marketing, 70(April), 95–107.
Ramachandran, V.S. & Hirstein, W. (1999). The science of art: A neurological theory of
aesthetic experience. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 6(6-7), 15 – 51.
Rank, O. (1932). Art and artist New York: Agathon Press.
Reber, R., Schwarz, N. & Winkielman, P. (2004). Processing fluency and aesthetic pleasure: Is
beauty in the perceiver's processing experience? Personality and Social Psychology
Review, 8, 364-382.
Reimann, M., Zaichkowsky, J., Neuhaus, C., Bender, T., & Weber. B. (2010). Aesthetic package
design: A behavioral, neural, and psychological investigation. Journal of Consumer
Psychology, 20, 431–441.
Richardson, P., Jain, A. K., & Dick, A. (1996). The influence of store aesthetics on evaluation of
private label brands, Journal of Product and Brand Management, 5(1), 19-28.
Richins, M.L. (1994). Valuing things: The public and private meanings of possessions. Journal
of Consumer Research, 21(December), 504-521.
Ritterfeld, U. (2002). Social heuristics in interior design preferences. Journal of Environmental
Psychology, 22(4), 369–86.
Rokeach, M. (1973). The nature of human values. New York: Free Press.
Rook, D. W. (1987). The buying impulse. Journal of Consumer Research, 14(2), 189–99.
98
Rozin, P., & Hormes, J. M. (2009). Psychology and sensory marketing, with a focus on food. In
A. Krishna (Ed.), Sensory marketing: Research on the sensuality of products (pp.
303−321): Routledge Academic.
Sangrador, J. L., & Yela, C. (2000). ‘What is beautiful is loved’: physical attractiveness in love
relationships in a representative sample. Social Behavior and Personality, 28, 207–221.
Santayana, G. (1955). The sense of beauty. New York: Dover Publications, Inc.
Sigall, H., & Landy (1973). Radiating beauty: Effects of having a physically attractive partner on
person perception. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 28(2), 218-224.
Silvia, P. J. (2005). Emotional responses to art: From collation and arousal to cognition and
emotion. Review of General Psychology, 9(4), 342-357.
Sinha, A. (1979). Control in craft work. Qualitative Sociology, 2(2), 3–25.
Sirgy, M. J. (1982). Self-concept in consumer behavior: A critical review. Journal of Consumer
Research 9(3), 287–300.
Sood, S. (2011). Reply declaration in support of Apple’s motion for preliminary injunction. Case
No. 11-CV-01846-LHK, United States District Court, (accessed April 3, 2012),
[available at
http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/districtcourts/california/candce//5:2011cv01846/239768/426/].
Strick, M., Holland, R. W., & van Knippenberg, A. (2008). Seductive eyes: Attractiveness and
direct gaze increase desire for associated objects. Cognition, 106, 1486-1496.
Tatarkiewicz, W. (1970). History of aesthetics. The Hague, The Netherlands: Mouton.
Townsend, D. (1997). An introduction to aesthetics. Oxford: Blackwell.
Townsend, C., & Shu, S. (2010). When and how aesthetics influences financial decisions.
Journal of Consumer Psychology, 20(4), 452-458.
______, & Sood, S. (2009). Self-affirmation through the choice of high design. In S. Samu, R.
Vaidyanathan, and D. Chakravarti (Eds.), Asia-Pacific Advances in Consumer Research
(Vol. 8, pp. 250-251). Duluth, MN: Association for Consumer Research.
______, & Sood, S. (2010). On the impact of product design on choice: a dual-processing
perspective. In D. W. Dahl, G. V. Johar, and S. M. J. van Osselaer (Eds.), Advances in
Consumer Research (Vol. 38). Duluth, MN: Association for Consumer Research.
Tractinsky, N., & Hassenzahl, M. (2005). Arguing for aesthetics in human-computer interaction.
i-com, 66-68.
99
______, Katz, A.S., & Ikar, D. (2000). What is beautiful is usable. Interacting With Computers,
13, 127-45.
Tracy, J. L., & Robins, R. W. (2007). The psychological structure of pride: A tale of two facets.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92, 506–525.
______, Robins, R. W., & Schriber, R. A. (2009). Development of a FACS-verified set of basic
and self-conscious emotion expressions. Emotion, 9, 554-559
______, Shariff, A. F., & Cheng, J. T. (2010). A naturalist’s view of pride. Emotion Review,
2(2), 163–177.
Venkatesh, A., Joy, A., Sherry, J. F., Jr., & Deschenes, J. (2010). The aesthetics of luxury
fashion, body and identify formation. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 20(4), 459−470.
______, & Meamber, L. A. (2008). The aesthetics of consumption and the consumer as an
aesthetic subject. Consumption, Markets and Culture, 11(1), 45-70.
Veryzer, R. W., &. Hutchinson, J. W. (1998) The influence of unity and prototypicality on
aesthetic responses to new product designs. Journal of ConsumerResearch, 24(4), 374-
94.
Vessel, E. A., & Rubin, N. (2010). Beauty and the beholder: highly individual taste for abstract,
but not real-world images. Journal of Vision, 10(2), 18.
Wadhwa, M., Shiv, B., & and. Nowlis, S. M. (2008). A bite to whet the reward appetite: Influence of
sampling on reward-seeking behaviors. Journal of Marketing Research, 45(4), 403–13.
Walker, S. (1995). The environment, product aesthetics and surface. Design Issues, 11(3), 15-27.
Walton, K. L. (1993). How marvelous! Toward a theory of aesthetic value. Journal of Aesthetics
and Art Criticism, 51(3), 499-510.
Wagner, J. (1999). Aesthetic value. In M. B. Holbrook (Ed.), Consumer value: A framework for
research and practice (pp. 126-146). London: Routledge.
Wee, C.H, Tan, S. J., & Cheok, K. H. (1995).Non-price determinants of intention to purchase
counterfeit goods. International Marketing Review, 12(6), 19-46.
Weinberger, M. G. & Gulas, C. S. (1992). The impact of humor in advertising: A review. Journal of
Advertising, 21(4), 35–59.
Williams, L. A., & DeSteno, D. (2008). Pride and perseverance: The motivational role of pride.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94(6), 1007–1101.
100
Wilk, R. (1997). A critique of desire: Distaste and dislike in consumer behavior. Consumption,
Markets & Culture, 1(2), 175 ‐196.
Winkielman, P., & Berridge, K. C. (2003). Irrational wanting and subrational liking: How
Rudimentary motivational and affective processes shape preferences and choices.
Political Psychology, 24 (December), 657–80.
Woodward, I. (2003). Divergent narratives in the imagining of the home amongst middle-class
consumers: Aesthetics, comfort and the symbolic boundaries of self and home. Journal of
Sociology, 39(4), 391-412.
______, (2004). Sociology, consumption and the study of material culture. In L. M. (Ed.),
Advances in Sociology Research (V ol. 2, pp. 81-102.). New York: Nova Science
Publishers.
Yalch. R., & Brunel, F. (1996). Need hierarchies in consumer judgements of product designs: Is
it time to reconsider Maslow’s theory?. In K. P. Corfman and J. G. Lynch, Jr. (Eds.),
Advances In Consumer Research (Vol. 23). Provo, UT: Association for Consumer
Research.
Abstract (if available)
Abstract
Why does aesthetic appeal have such a powerful influence on consumers, who become willing to go to great lengths in order to acquire products with a good-looking design? Despite the substantial progress that has been made in recent years in the area of consumer aesthetics research, this important question still remains unanswered. My dissertation proposes and empirically shows that high-aesthetics product designs elicit two distinct responses— instantaneous desire (i.e., a sudden urge to possess an aesthetically appealing product) and ownership pride (i.e., the buyer’s expected pride of being associated with a good-looking product)—which in turn motivate consumers to expend a substantial amount of effort towards purchasing high-aesthetics products (Studies 1-4). I further show that the alternative accounts of positive mood or the beautiful-is-good stereotype—which have been previously acknowledged in the literature as consequences of a product’s high aesthetic appeal—are comparatively less effective at explaining the aesthetic appeal—purchase effort relationship (Studies 1-4). I finally illustrate how another product attribute that is also visually hedonic in nature—namely, humor in product design—represents a poorer motivator of purchase effort when compared to a product’s aesthetic appeal, and show that the motivational advantage of aesthetic appeal over humor can be traced back to differences in instantaneous desire and ownership pride (Studies 3 and 4). This research contributes toward a much needed theory development in the field of product aesthetics, while also shedding light on the possibly unique nature of product aesthetics among visual product attributes that are hedonic in nature.
Linked assets
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
Conceptually similar
PDF
How product designs and presentations influence consumers’ post-acquisition decisions
PDF
Consumers' subjective knowledge influences evaluative extremity and product differentiation
PDF
Powerful brand influentials: conceptualization, measurement, and distinctiveness of a brand’s influential consumers
PDF
Creation and influence of visual verbal communication: antecedents and consequences of photo-text similarity in consumer-generated communication
PDF
Forgiveness: elucidating the underlying psychological processes that foster brand forgiveness and interpersonal forgiveness
PDF
Essays on the role of entry strategy and quality strategy in market and consumer response
PDF
Marketing strategies with superior information on consumer preferences
PDF
The effects of a customer's comparative processing with positive and negative information on product choice
Asset Metadata
Creator
Pol, Gratiana Denisa
(author)
Core Title
The motivational power of beauty: how aesthetically appealing products drive purchase effort in consumers
School
Marshall School of Business
Degree
Doctor of Philosophy
Degree Program
Business Administration
Publication Date
05/08/2013
Defense Date
03/08/2013
Publisher
University of Southern California
(original),
University of Southern California. Libraries
(digital)
Tag
aesthetics,attractive,beautiful is good,beauty,consumer,Design,effort,halo effect,mood,Motivation,OAI-PMH Harvest,product,product aesthetics
Format
application/pdf
(imt)
Language
English
Contributor
Electronically uploaded by the author
(provenance)
Advisor
Park, C. Whan (
committee chair
), Biederman, Irving (
committee member
), Folkes, Valerie S. (
committee member
), MacInnis, Deborah J. (
committee member
)
Creator Email
gpol@usc.edu,gratiana_pol@yahoo.de
Permanent Link (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c3-252478
Unique identifier
UC11293905
Identifier
etd-PolGratian-1664.pdf (filename),usctheses-c3-252478 (legacy record id)
Legacy Identifier
etd-PolGratian-1664.pdf
Dmrecord
252478
Document Type
Dissertation
Format
application/pdf (imt)
Rights
Pol, Gratiana Denisa
Type
texts
Source
University of Southern California
(contributing entity),
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
(collection)
Access Conditions
The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...
Repository Name
University of Southern California Digital Library
Repository Location
USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA
Tags
aesthetics
attractive
beautiful is good
beauty
consumer
effort
halo effect
product
product aesthetics