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
/
How product designs and presentations influence consumers’ post-acquisition decisions
(USC Thesis Other)
How product designs and presentations influence consumers’ post-acquisition decisions
PDF
Download
Share
Open document
Flip pages
Contact Us
Contact Us
Copy asset link
Request this asset
Transcript (if available)
Content
i
How Product Designs and Presentations Influence Consumers’ Post-Acquisition Decisions
By
He (Michael) Jia
________________________________________________________________________
A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
(BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION)
May 2016
Copyright 2016 He (Michael) Jia
i
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to express my most sincere gratitude to my dissertation committee chair, Dr.
C. Whan Park, for his guidance, support, inspiration, encouragement, and patience during my
doctoral study at the USC Marshall School of Business. Dr. C. Whan Park is a great role model
for me, and I always wish I could be as intelligent, rigorous, diligent, and humorous as is he. I
feel very fortunate to be one of his students.
I would also like to thank my dissertation committee members, Dr. Michael Cody, Dr.
Valerie Folkes, Dr. Deborah MacInnis, and Dr. Joseph Priester, for their insightful comments and
suggestions on my dissertation as well as their instruction and guidance in various consumer
behavior, research method, and communication seminars, where I learned important theories and
methodologies I have applied to my dissertation studies.
I am very grateful to my coauthors, Dr. B. Kyu Kim, Dr. Gratiana Pol, and Dr. Echo Wen
Wan, for their invaluable advice on the two chapters of my dissertation. I also greatly appreciate
the financial support from the ACR-Sheth Foundation Dissertation Grant, the AMS-Mary Kay
Doctoral Dissertation Proposal Competition, and the USC Graduate School Dissertation
Completion Fellowship, which have facilitated the completion of my dissertation studies.
Last but not least, I would like to dedicate my dissertation to my parents, Dongming Jia
and Ping Wang, my wife, Lin Ge, and my daughter, Chunyue Jia, for their understanding, love,
and support during my doctoral study.
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .......................................................................................................... i
ABSTRACT ................................................................................................................................... v
LIST OF FIGURES .................................................................................................................... vii
OVERVIEW .................................................................................................................................. 1
CHAPTER ONE: EFFECTS OF VISUAL CUTENESS ON PRODUCT RETENTION ...... 3
1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 3
2. Conceptual Background .......................................................................................................... 5
2.1 Attractiveness, Elegance, and Cuteness ............................................................................. 5
2.2 Effects of Cuteness versus Elegance on Product Retention ............................................... 8
3. Overview of Studies .............................................................................................................. 13
4. Study 1 ................................................................................................................................... 14
4.1 Procedure ......................................................................................................................... 14
4.2 Measures .......................................................................................................................... 15
4.3 Results .............................................................................................................................. 16
4.4 Discussion ........................................................................................................................ 17
5. Study 2 ................................................................................................................................... 18
5.1 Procedure ......................................................................................................................... 18
5.2 Results .............................................................................................................................. 19
5.3 Discussion ........................................................................................................................ 20
6. Study 3 ................................................................................................................................... 21
6.1 Procedure ......................................................................................................................... 22
6.2 Measures .......................................................................................................................... 22
6.3 Results .............................................................................................................................. 24
6.4 Discussion ........................................................................................................................ 29
7. Study 4 ................................................................................................................................... 30
7.1 Procedure ......................................................................................................................... 30
7.2 Pretests ............................................................................................................................. 31
7.3 Results .............................................................................................................................. 33
7.4 Discussion ........................................................................................................................ 34
8. General Discussion ................................................................................................................ 35
iii
8.1 Theoretical Contributions ................................................................................................ 36
8.2 Managerial Implications .................................................................................................. 38
8.3 Directions for Future Research ........................................................................................ 40
CHAPTER TWO: EFFECTS OF ANTHROPOMORPHIC PRODUCT PRESENTATIONS
ON BRAND CHOICE OF COMPLEMENTARY ACCESSORIES ...................................... 43
1. Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 43
2. Conceptual Background ........................................................................................................ 45
2.1 Complementary Accessory .............................................................................................. 45
2.2 Product Anthropomorphism ............................................................................................. 47
2.3 Bodily Consideration and Brand Choice ......................................................................... 49
3. Overview of Studies .............................................................................................................. 54
4. Study 1 ................................................................................................................................... 54
4.1 Procedure ......................................................................................................................... 54
4.2 Results .............................................................................................................................. 56
4.3 Discussion ........................................................................................................................ 56
5. Study 2 ................................................................................................................................... 57
5.1 Procedure ......................................................................................................................... 57
5.2 Results .............................................................................................................................. 59
5.3 Discussion ........................................................................................................................ 59
6. Study 3 ................................................................................................................................... 60
6.1 Procedure ......................................................................................................................... 60
6.2 Results .............................................................................................................................. 61
6.3 Discussion ........................................................................................................................ 62
7. Study 4 ................................................................................................................................... 63
7.1 Procedure ......................................................................................................................... 63
7.2 Results .............................................................................................................................. 64
7.3 Discussion ........................................................................................................................ 66
8. General Discussion ................................................................................................................ 66
8.1 Theoretical Contributions ................................................................................................ 67
8.2 Managerial Implications .................................................................................................. 69
8.3 Directions for Future Research ........................................................................................ 71
iv
REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................ 73
APPENDIX 1: STIMULI USED IN STUDY 1, CHAPTER 1 ................................................ 89
APPENDIX 2: STIMULI USED IN STUDY 2, CHAPTER 1 ................................................ 90
APPENDIX 3: STIMULI USED IN STUDY 3, CHAPTER 1 ................................................ 91
APPENDIX 4: STIMULI USED IN STUDY 4, CHAPTER 1 ................................................ 92
APPENDIX 5: STIMULI USED IN STUDY 1, CHAPTER 2 ................................................ 92
APPENDIX 6: STIMULI USED IN STUDIES 2 AND 3, CHAPTER 2 ................................ 94
APPENDIX 7: STIMULI USED IN STUDY 4, CHAPTER 2 ................................................ 95
v
ABSTRACT
After consumers have acquired a product, they often need to make further post-
acquisition decisions, including (1) whether to retain or discard the already-owned product and
(2) what complementary goods to choose for the already-owned product. These post-acquisition
decisions are important to brand profitability, consumer welfare, and sustainable consumption,
yet systematic research on these decisions is scant. As marketing variables over which managers
have direct control, both product designs and product presentations in advertising can strongly
influence consumers’ perceptions of an already-owned product and, as a consequence, have a
potential impact on their decisions about the focal product. Drawing on both social and
evolutionary psychological theories, my dissertation examines how product designs and product
presentations shape consumers’ post-acquisition decisions.
In the first chapter, I focus on product retention decisions and investigate how cuteness
(vs. elegance) as a visual theme of product design impacts consumers’ decision about whether to
retain or discard an already-owned product. Drawing on an evolutionary perspective, I
demonstrate that, just as the cuteness of human and animal babies is conducive to bonding and
relationship maintenance, a cute-looking product design results in consumers’ higher willingness
to retain the product than an elegant-looking product design does due to the stronger desire for
nurturance triggered by cuteness versus elegance. Importantly, the advantage of cuteness over
elegance in strengthening product retention is different from a general favorable response toward
cuteness, given that the cuteness advantage over elegance does not necessarily extend to product
acquisition decisions. This research identifies when cuteness-elicited nurturance desire matters in
vi
a consumption context and contributes to the burgeoning literatures on product retention and
product aesthetics.
My second chapter examines consumers’ brand choice of complementary accessories for
an already-owned product, which represents another type of post-acquisition decision. The
famous “razor-and-blade model” has been employed across many industries, in which a firm
mainly generates its profit from the sales of accessories (e.g., blades) for a base product (e.g., the
razor). My second chapter shows that anthropomorphic presentations of a base product (e.g.,
making a Canon printer move its “lips” when “talking” in a video advertisement) increase
consumers’ choice share of complementary accessories provided by the same brand that offers
the focal base product (e.g., Canon ink cartridges) over accessories from a different brand (e.g.,
Staples ink cartridges). This is because anthropomorphic presentations of a base product trigger a
bodily consideration, in which consumers perceive accessories as “body substances” of the
anthropomorphized base product. Consumers are naturally averse to foreign body-related
substances, and they also project such an aversion onto complementary accessories from a
competing brand, which represent “foreign body substances” to the focal base product. This
research uncovers a novel mechanism through which product anthropomorphism affects
consumer decision-making and addresses a very important managerial question.
vii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Retention versus Purchase ............................................................................................. 26
Figure 2. Mediation Analyses ....................................................................................................... 28
Figure 3. The Role of Technical Sophistication ............................................................................ 35
Figure 4. Floodlight Analysis ........................................................................................................ 66
1
OVERVIEW
Whereas extant consumer research has primarily emphasized investigations into product
purchase (MacInnis & Folkes, 2010), consumer decisions in the post-acquisition stage have been
relatively less explored. After consumers have acquired a product, they need to make further
post-acquisition decisions, oftentimes including (1) whether to retain or discard the focal product
after having used it for some time and (2) what complementary goods to choose for the focal
product. Understanding the aforementioned post-acquisition decisions has profound implications
for various groups, including firms, consumers, and the environment: consumers’ desire to retain
an already-owned product has relevance to sustainable consumption, represents opportunities for
strengthening brand awareness and loyalty, and determines prices consumers charge for product
resale (Haws et al., 2012); consumers’ brand choice of complementary goods is crucial for the
survival of firms that offer low-price base products to attract consumers and gain profits mainly
from the sales of complementary goods for the base products (Teece, 2010).
Given that in the post-acquisition stage consumers have abundant opportunities to
interact with an already-owned product, and given that other marketing mix variables, such as
product price and retailing atmosphere, become less relevant at this stage, it is highly imperative
to understand how product-related characteristics could shape consumers’ various post-
acquisition decisions (Trudel & Argo, 2013). My dissertation focuses on how factors related to
product design and product presentation in advertising shape two important post-acquisition
decisions. The visual appearance of a product is probably the most salient and straightforward
2
cue to consumers in the post-acquisition stage. In the post-acquisition stage, consumers may also
be continuously exposed to print or video ads of a product they own. Thus, both product designs
and product presentations in ads can strongly influence consumers’ perception of an already-
owned product and, as a consequence, have a potential impact on their post-acquisition decisions
regarding the focal product. Specifically, I examine how anthropomorphic product design and
product presentation (i.e., presenting a product like a human being at the level of product design
or product ad) in general, and visual cuteness (e.g., childlike anthropomorphism) in product
design in particular, influence consumers’ post-acquisition decisions in two chapters.
My first chapter examines how cute-looking product designs (e.g., those with a childlike
anthropomorphic appearance) strengthen consumers’ willingness to retain an already-owned
product. My second chapter focuses on another important post-acquisition decision and discusses
how anthropomorphic product presentations influence consumers’ brand choice of
complementary goods for an already-owned product. My dissertation not only contributes to a
richer understanding of how consumers make various post-acquisition decisions, which are still
under-researched in the marketing literature, but also provides highly actionable managerial
implications for marketers, given that product design and presentation represent variables over
which marketers have direct control.
3
CHAPTER ONE: EFFECTS OF VISUAL CUTENESS ON PRODUCT RETENTION
1. Introduction
Whereas extant consumer research has primarily emphasized investigations into product
acquisition (MacInnis & Folkes, 2010), product retention is still an under-researched, yet very
important domain of consumer behavior, given that the desire to retain a product has relevance to
sustainable consumption, represents opportunities for strengthening brand awareness and loyalty,
and determines prices consumers charge for product resale (Haws et al., 2012). Since a product’s
visual design remains one of the most salient features to consumers in the post-acquisition stage,
in which some other marketing variables (e.g., salesperson interactions) become less relevant and
important, product design naturally serves as an important influencer of consumers’ decision on
product retention.
From an evolutionary perspective, cuteness is strongly associated with human caregiving
and motivates caregivers to nurture vulnerable infants (Glocker et al., 2009; Hildebrandt &
Fitzgerald, 1979). Such a perspective leads me to expect that cuteness in product design may
possess an advantage when it comes to strengthening consumers’ willingness to retain an
already-owned product (i.e., during the post-acquisition stage). In the present research, I examine
cute-looking products whose designs incorporate obvious baby schema and thus are explicitly
babyish-looking or child-like, and contrast them against equally attractive product designs that
are comparatively more elegant-looking. I focus on cuteness versus elegance because they
represent two clearly distinct and widely acknowledged types of visual attractiveness, which
4
have been juxtaposed in previous research on human attractiveness (see Solomon et al., 1992),
yet have never been directly compared in the context of product design. Conceptually, cuteness
and elegance fall at somewhat opposite ends of the visual attractiveness domain. Impressions of
cuteness emerge when an attractive stimulus (including persons and product designs) includes
certain visual features that are reminiscent of babies and children, and are therefore associated
with connotations of youthfulness, naiveté , and innocence (Hellé n & Sä ä ksjä rvi, 2013). On the
other hand, perceptions of elegance usually arise when a person’s or an object’s attractive visual
appearance contains visually pleasing cues that connote maturity, sophistication, and classiness
(Aaker, Benet-Martí nez, & Garolera, 2001; Frith, Cheng, & Shaw, 2004). These two constructs
closely follow the distinction between Cute and Classic Beauty as defined by Solomon et al.
(1992) in the context of person attractiveness. At the level of geometrical characteristics, a cute-
looking design typically includes round shapes and a large upper-to-lower portion ratio (Cho,
Gonzalez, & Yoon, 2011; Hildebrandt & Fitzgerald, 1979). On the other hand, slimness and a
more balanced upper-to-lower portion ratio represent typical features of an elegant-looking
design (Shi et al., 2011). Although other types of attractiveness may exist depending on the
specific context of investigation (Orth & Malkewitz, 2008; Solomon et al., 1992), the direct
contrast in the aforementioned connotations and geometrical features that define cuteness- versus
elegance-based attractiveness make these two types of attractiveness natural comparison targets
against each other.
Across four experiments, I show that consumers are more willing to keep an already-
owned cute-looking product than an already-owned elegant-looking product. I further
5
demonstrate that the advantage of cuteness over elegance is uniquely associated with product
retention, but not with product acquisition. Consistent with a nurturance-based account from an
evolutionary perspective, I demonstrate that the stronger desire for nurturance triggered by
cuteness explains the advantage of cuteness over elegance in product retention. Finally, I show
that this advantage is reduced for technically sophisticated products.
The present research contributes to the product aesthetics literature by empirically
demonstrating that the true advantage of cute-looking over elegant-looking product designs
emerges when the research focus is shifted from product acquisition to product retention. The
findings of this research also broaden our understanding of consumers’ responses toward cute-
looking product designs by identifying what drives the retention advantage of cuteness and when
such an advantage is mitigated. By showing that cuteness enjoys a retention advantage over
elegance even in the absence of an initial purchase advantage, my findings also extend the
emerging product retention literature and have implications for the endowment effect research.
2. Conceptual Background
2.1 Attractiveness, Elegance, and Cuteness
Extant research on product aesthetics has mainly focused on how a product design’s
attractiveness influences consumers’ judgments of the focal product (Hoegg, Alba, & Dahl, 2010;
Townsend & Shu, 2010). This stream of research mainly compares the effects of attractive versus
less attractive product designs, and has found that attractive designs can evoke favorable
cognitive, affective, and physiological responses (Reimann et al., 2010), serve as a self-
6
affirmation tool (Townsend & Sood, 2012), create positive halo effects on product evaluation
(Orth, Campana, & Malkewitz, 2010; Page & Herr, 2002; Townsend & Shu, 2010), offset the
effect of negative product information (Pol, Park, & Eisingerich, 2011), and drive effortful
purchase-related behaviors (Pol, Park, & Reimann, 2013).
When examining an attractive product design, extant studies usually focus on
aesthetically pleasing products whose appearance can be clearly categorized as “elegant-looking”
(Coates, 2003; Crilly et al., 2004). According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, elegance is
defined as “refined grace or dignified propriety” or “tasteful richness of design or
ornamentation” (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/elegance). Further, as a contributor
to visual attractiveness, elegance carries connotations of maturity, sophistication, and classiness
(Aaker et al., 2001; Frith et al., 2004; Solomon et al., 1992). As noted earlier, elegance is not the
sole source of visual attractiveness, since viewers can distinguish between different types of
“good looks” (Solomon et al., 1992). In particular, a product’s visual attractiveness can also
derive from perceptions of cuteness, which emerge from conformance to a baby schema (Hellé n
& Sä ä ksjä rvi, 2013). Prior research has clearly linked cute infant appearance to impressions of
high attractiveness (Glocker et al., 2009; Hildebrandt & Fitzgerald, 1978). The term “cute” is
also sometimes used colloquially to refer to objects or beings that are moderately aesthetically
appealing or “pretty” in a non-sophisticated way (Hellé n & Sä ä ksjä rvi, 2013; Moreall, 1991;
Nenkov & Scott, 2014).
Despite being colloquially used as prettiness in some occasions, cuteness is most
frequently used for referring to something or someone whose physical appearance incorporates a
7
set of pleasurable babyish features (Hildebrandt & Fitzgerald, 1978; Lorenz, 1971; Morreall,
1991; Sprengelmeyer et al., 2009), such as small stature, short, stubby limbs, a wide, plump
torso, a large head, large eyes, light color, and smooth, round features (Hildebrandt & Fitzgerald,
1979). Since the notion of cuteness is derived from babies, cuteness is intrinsically linked to
perceptions of living entities (Hellé n & Sä ä ksjä rvi, 2013; Nenkov & Scott, 2014; Sherman &
Haidt, 2011). Yet, cuteness in product design cannot be simply explained by the presence of
anthropomorphic features, given that the former concept is further marked by a set of more
specific dimensions like smallness and sweetness (Hellé n & Sä ä ksjä rvi, 2013), which are clearly
not characteristic of all animate beings. Consistent with previous research (Hellé n & Sä ä ksjä rvi,
2013), I examine cute-looking products which, although explicitly babyish-looking or child-like
in visual design, are primarily targeted at adults rather than children. Importantly, a cute-looking
product design does not necessarily have to conform to visual features of human babies or
children (Luo, Lee, & Li, 2012). In order to create the perception of cuteness, a product design
can also borrow infantile features from other species (Borgi et al., 2014; Little, 2012), because
the human neural system tends to respond to babies of humans and animals, such as mammals, in
a similar way (Golle et al., 2013).
Although extant studies provide some initial insights into the effects of visual product
cuteness, we still know very little about the impact of a cute-looking product design on
consumers’ behavioral intentions toward the product and the specific mechanism through which
the cute-looking product design drives such responses. The present research aims to investigate
these issues. To examine the effects of cuteness conservatively, I compare cute-looking products
8
with elegant-looking products that serve as a very strong comparison target for cuteness, while
matching cute- and elegant-looking product designs on the same intensity of perceived visual
attractiveness.
2.2 Effects of Cuteness versus Elegance on Product Retention
While product acquisition represents the behavior most frequently investigated in
consumer research (MacInnis & Folkes, 2010), recent research has started to investigate
alternative types of behaviors, including product retention (Haws et al., 2012). I define product
retention as a consumer’s willingness to maintain the relationship with a product that she or he
owns, as manifested in low willingness to sell, dispose of, or replace the product, high
willingness to keep the product for one’s own use, and/or in great grief associated with losing the
product (Chandler & Schwarz, 2010; Ferraro, Escalas, & Bettman, 2011).
As recent research has shown that consumers’ responses toward the cuteness of animate
beings are mirrored in physiological responses toward the cuteness of products (Miesler, Leder,
& Herrmann, 2011), I draw on the findings of psychology research on cute animate beings to
examine the effects of cuteness versus elegance on product acquisition versus product retention.
First, I turn my attention to product acquisition intentions, which I expect to be positively
related to both cuteness and elegance, yet for different reasons. Cuteness should enhance product
purchase intentions due to the nurturance desire it intrinsically awakens. Researchers generally
agree that, since human infants are vulnerable and thus cannot survive independently for a long
time after birth, cuteness serves a basic, nurturance-eliciting function that is essential to ensuring
a species’ survival—an argument supported by studies showing that cuteness draws and
9
maintains attention (Brosch, Sander, & Scherer, 2007; Glocker et al., 2009), invites protective
behaviors (Glocker et al., 2009), and increases behavioral carefulness (Sherman, Haidt, & Coan,
2009). From an evolutionary perspective, because mammalian—especially human—infants are
incapable of taking care of themselves after birth, the first crucial task for them is to attract the
attention and elicit the closeness of adult caregivers (Hildebrandt & Fitzgerald, 1979), which
ensures subsequent caretaking and protective behaviors (Glocker et al., 2009; Morreall, 1991).
Given that people’s responses toward cuteness can be generalized from babies and children to
inanimate products (Miesler et al., 2011), a cute-looking product design may have a somewhat
similar effect on consumers—that is, triggering a desire for closeness and caregiving toward the
product, which will ultimately result in willingness to acquire the product.
A large body of literature has suggested that, similarly to cute-looking products, those
with an elegant-looking design also lead to strong purchase intentions (Bloch, Brunel, & Arnold,
2003; Townsend & Shu, 2010). Yet, elegance as a design theme does not naturally and
spontaneously awaken the strong nurturant dispositions that cuteness does. Instead, elegance is
most likely to promote product acquisition because it signals design superiority (Orth et al.,
2010) and status (Laran, Janiszewski, & Chunha, 2008; Meyers-Levy & Sternthal, 1993) and can
ultimately convey that the owner has refined and sophisticated taste, which is generally valued
and even admired by adult consumers (Spiecker & Steutel, 2001). On the other hand, due to the
inherent association between cuteness and child-like naiveté , cuteness does not benefit from the
same taste-signaling function as elegance does. In fact, possessing a cute-looking product may
10
go as far making its owner look somewhat naï ve and childish, which is typically not a favorable
association for adults in general (Zebrowitz et al., 1998).
In summary, a cute-looking product design may promote willingness to acquire the
product because of cuteness’ nurturance-eliciting effect on consumers, while an elegant-looking
product design may promote product acquisition due to elegance’s taste-signaling value. Given
that cuteness can induce a stronger nurturance desire but provide a lower taste-signaling value,
compared to elegance, I expect that a cute-looking product design may not necessarily
outperform an equally attractive but elegant-looking product design in terms of stimulating
product acquisition, due to the two aforementioned opposite forces.
However, if the focus of investigation is shifted from product acquisition to product
retention, I expect cute- versus elegant-looking products to clearly differ in the level of retention
intent they trigger. The evolutionary perspective dictates that cuteness is particularly conducive
to a bonding process between newborns and their parents (Hildebrandt & Fitzgerald, 1983), the
latter of whom can be considered the “owners” of the newborns to some extent. In such a
process, infants’ cuteness facilitates the development of strong, long-lasting relationships with
parents (Glocker et al., 2009; Morreall, 1991) and prevents parents from abandoning their
children (Weiss, 1994). Nurturant responses induced by cuteness play a pivotal role in promoting
this bonding process and sustaining the aforementioned strong relationships. I expect a
somewhat similar effect to operate in the case in which one already owns a cute-looking product.
Specifically, because it activates consumers’ nurturant responses, cuteness in product design
should help build an increasingly close and intimate relationship between the product and its
11
owner over time. Visual elegance, on the other hand, does not trigger the same nurturant
responses as cuteness does. While elegance does benefit from being associated with a higher
taste-signaling value than cuteness, there is no evidence suggesting that taste-signaling value
would have the same level of the strengthening effect on bonding and relationship maintenance
as cuteness-induced nurturant responses do. Hence, I do not expect product ownership to prompt
a similarly high retention tendency for elegant-looking products as for cute-looking products.
In sum, I propose the following two hypotheses regarding the advantage of cuteness over
elegance and the processing mechanisms underlying the proposed effects:
H1. Compared to an equally attractive but elegant-looking product design, a cute-looking
product design induces in consumers a higher willingness to retain the product, though
not a higher willingness to acquire the product.
H2. The stronger desire for nurturance and the lower taste-signaling value associated with
cuteness (vs. elegance) both influence willingness to acquire a product in the acquisition
stage and explain why cuteness has no advantage over elegance in stimulating product
acquisition. On the other hand, desire for nurturance has a stronger influence than taste-
signaling value on willingness to retain an already-owned product in the post-acquisition
stage and explains the advantage of cuteness over elegance in strengthening product
retention.
While cute-looking product designs are expected to elicit nurturant responses, prior
research suggests that, for certain types of products, due to its association with lack of
12
sophistication (Gorn, Jiang, & Johar, 2008), cuteness in product design may also trigger negative
performance perception (Cho et al., 2011). In contrast, elegance—as a sophisticated type of
visual attractiveness—is often associated with perception of superior product performance
(Coates, 2003; Orth et al., 2010). Extending these studies, I propose that whether a cute- (vs.
elegant-) looking product design will decrease (vs. increase) perceptions of the product’s
functional performance depends on whether the product is inherently characterized by technical
sophistication. More specifically, I expect that for products for which technical sophistication
directly determines functional performance (e.g., consumer electronics), cuteness in product
design will naturally lower the performance judgement of a product due to its association with
lack of sophistication, compared to visual elegance. In contrast, the performance judgment of
less technically sophisticated products (e.g., kitchen accessories) should be exempt from the
negative association between cuteness and sophistication, because a high level of technical
sophistication is no longer critical for informing performance judgements of such products.
Furthermore, since consumers often naturally assign greater weight to functional
performance than to visual appearance when they evaluate technically sophisticated products, I
expect that, for such products, the negative performance inferences associated with a cute-
looking design would also be naturally salient to consumers and thus interfere with the positive
influence of cuteness-induced nurturant responses, ultimately eliminating the retention advantage
of cuteness over elegance. I therefore formally propose that:
13
H3. For technically sophisticated products, the retention advantage of a cute-looking
product design over an equally attractive but elegant-looking product design no longer
holds.
3. Overview of Studies
I tested my hypotheses in four studies. Consistent with the product aesthetics literature
(Hoegg et al., 2010; Townsend & Shu, 2010) and research on cuteness and baby schema in the
marketing context (Gorn et al., 2008; Nenkov & Scott, 2014), I selected my stimuli based on
pretests in which holistic perceptions of cuteness and elegance were validated. To test the effects
of cuteness versus elegance beyond the influence of general attractiveness, I used cute- and
elegant-looking stimuli whose perceived visual attractiveness was equivalent.
Study 1 demonstrated that a cute-looking product design elicits a higher willingness to
retain the product than an equally attractive but elegant-looking product design does, and this
cuteness advantage is uniquely associated with product retention, but not with product
acquisition (hypothesis 1). Study 2 extended these findings by endowing participants with real
products and examining their actual choice. Study 3 conceptually replicated Studies 1 and 2, and,
more importantly, provided process evidence for desire for nurturance toward the product as
explaining the retention advantage of cuteness over elegance (hypothesis 2). Finally, Study 4
demonstrated that for technically sophisticated products, cuteness no longer enjoys an advantage
over elegance in product retention (hypothesis 3).
14
4. Study 1
Study 1 aimed to demonstrate the unique relationship between cuteness and product
retention by showing that a cute-looking (compared to an equally attractive yet elegant-looking)
product design results in a higher willingness to retain, but not necessarily to acquire, the product
(hypothesis 1). Given that product ownership is a prerequisite condition for product retention
decisions, in this experiment I induced participants to experience psychological product
ownership so that I could examine their willingness to retain a cute- versus an elegant-looking
product. I also examined their willingness to acquire the product.
Additionally, I aimed to verify whether participants’ gender and gender-related traits have
any moderating impact on the effects observed in this study. Although most research conducted
so far has shown that both women and men are responsive to cuteness (Brosch et al., 2007;
Miesler et al., 2011; Parsons et al., 2011), a few studies revealed a gender difference in such
responses (Lobmaier et al., 2010; Sprengelmeyer et al., 2009; for a recent review of the mixed
findings, see Nittono et al., 2012). A possible account for such mixed findings is that biological
sex might not be a perfect indicator for people’s innate feminine and masculine characteristics.
Thus, in addition to biological gender, I also examined the impact of participants’ individual-
level gender-related traits in this study.
4.1 Procedure
One hundred and forty-four undergraduates (74 females; Mage = 20.15, SD = 1.49) from
University of Southern California participated in Study 1 for partial course credit. This study
adopted a single-factor (Mindset: ownership vs. acquisition) between-subjects design. On the
15
computer screen, participants saw a cute-looking throw pillow (which displayed a child-like
football player image) side-by-side with an elegant-looking throw pillow (which displayed a
mature-looking football player image), as shown in Appendix 1.
In the ownership mindset condition, participants imagined that they won a sweepstakes
organized by the university book store. The book store delivered two throw pillows to them. I
adapted a mental simulation procedure from Peck and Shu (2009) to subsequently induce a sense
of psychological ownership in participants. They were asked to imagine being the owner of the
throw pillows, and instructed to think about how they would feel when they touched the pillows,
where they would keep the pillows, and what it would feel like when they used the pillows in
their daily life. These instructions were designed to make the psychological ownership of the
throw pillows salient to respondents. After the ownership simulation task, participants further
imagined that they received an email from the book store and learned that they had been sent an
extra throw pillow by accident. To measure the dependent variable, I told participants that they
could keep only one throw pillow and needed to indicate which pillow they would like to return
to the book store. In the acquisition mindset condition, participants assumed that they saw the
two throw pillows when they visited the book store and then indicated which pillow they would
like to buy.
4.2 Measures
After indicating their product choice, participants rated which throw pillow looked cuter
(“cute” and “adorable;” α = .80), more elegant (“elegant” and “graceful;” α = .82), and more
attractive (“attractive”) on a set of 7-point bipolar scales. The scales’ mid-point (i.e., the value 4)
16
indicated that the two stimuli were perceived as equally cute, elegant, or attractive, respectively.
In order to examine gender-related traits, I used the Personal Attributes Questionnaire (Spence &
Helmreich, 1978), which includes eight items for measuring femininity (e.g., 1 = “very cold in
relations with others,” 5 = “very warm in relations with others”) and another eight items for
measuring masculinity (e.g., 1 = “not at all independent,” 5 = “very independent”). Following
previous research in the marketing literature that used the same scale (Dommer & Swaminathan,
2012; Kurt, Inman, & Argo, 2011), I created an index by subtracting the average masculinity
score ( α = .71) from the average femininity score ( α = .71). A higher (lower) score of the index
represented a predominantly feminine (masculine) trait.
4.3 Results
Manipulation and Control Checks. I coded participants’ ratings of cuteness, elegance,
and attractiveness in such a way that a higher value on a particular construct indicated that the
cute-looking stimulus scored higher than the elegant-looking stimulus on this construct. The
cute-looking throw pillow was indeed perceived as cuter (M = 6.35, SD = 1.01; against the mid-
point, t(143) = 27.96, p < .001) and less elegant (M = 2.75, SD = 1.47; against the mid-point,
t(143) = -10.26, p < .001) than the elegant-looking throw pillow. Furthermore, the cute- and the
elegant-looking throw pillow were perceived as equally attractive (M = 3.83, SD = 2.06; against
the mid-point, t(143) = -.97, p = .33). In addition, the mindset manipulation did not influence
these ratings (F’s < .93, p’s > .34).
Retention versus Acquisition. In order to ensure that the dependent variable in the
acquisition mindset condition (which was coded “0” for buying the elegant-looking throw pillow,
17
and “1” for buying the cute-looking throw pillow) was directly comparable to the dependent
variable in the ownership mindset condition, I first reverse-coded the choice of returning the
throw pillow to transform it into a choice of keeping the throw pillow (whereby “0” now meant
keeping the elegant-looking throw pillow, and “1” meant keeping the cute-looking throw pillow).
As expected, mindset influenced participants’ product choice ( χ
2
(1) = 4.15, p = .04). More
specifically, whereas participants were equally likely to buy the cute- (47.9%) and the elegant-
looking throw pillow (52.1%; χ
2
(1) = 0.12, p = .73), they were more likely to keep the cute-
(64.8%) than the elegant-looking pillow (35.2%; χ
2
(1) = 6.21, p = .01) when they assumed the
ownership of the pillows. Interestingly, neither gender, individual-level feminine versus
masculine traits, nor the interaction between gender and individual-level gender-related traits
moderated the effect of mindset on product choice (z’s < 1.04, p’s > .30).
4.4 Discussion
Confirming hypothesis 1, Study 1 provided initial evidence for the retention advantage of
cuteness over elegance. More importantly, I found that this retention advantage holds even in the
absence of an initial acquisition advantage of cuteness over elegance. The observed dissociation
between retention and purchase demonstrated that the retention advantage of cuteness over
elegance is different from a general positive reaction toward cuteness. Further, these effects held
for both females and males and were not influenced by individual-level gender-related traits,
either. Since gender did not influence the results in Study 1 and also failed to impact the results
of the remaining studies in a systematic and consistent manner, I will no longer report the effects
of gender in the remaining studies. Instead, I will revisit the gender issue in the General
18
Discussion section and offer speculations about what may drive the mixed findings on the gender
effect in the previous and present research and under what conditions the gender effect may
become more evident.
5. Study 2
Study 2 aimed to generalize the results of Study 1 in three ways. First, I examined
participants’ choice by providing them with real products. Second, whereas in Study 1 I
manipulated cuteness and elegance using stimuli that looked like child-like versus mature
humans, in Study 2 I employed animal stimuli that looked either cute or elegant while being
equally visually attractive. Third, my hypothesis 1 regarding the effects of cuteness (vs.
elegance) on product retention versus product acquisition implies that cuteness should result in a
stronger endowment effect than elegance. I addressed this issue in Study 2.
5.1 Procedure
One hundred and fifty-nine undergraduates (87 females; Mage = 20.53, SD = 2.44) from
University of Southern California participated in the study for partial course credit. I placed
either a cute- or an elegant-looking dog image on a fridge magnet template (see Appendix 2) and
ordered fridge magnets from a product customization website.
Study 2 adopted a single-factor (Mindset: baseline/acquisition, cuteness/ownership, vs.
elegance/ownership) between-subjects design. In the baseline/acquisition condition, participants
were told that we were pretesting souvenirs for marketing subject pool participants. They saw
both a cute- and an elegant-looking fridge magnet and indicated which magnet they would like to
19
receive. In the cuteness/ownership condition, participants first received the cute-looking fridge
magnet as a token of appreciation for their research participation, and then they examined their
magnet for a while. Next, they were presented the elegant-looking fridge magnet and indicated
whether they would like to keep their own cute-looking magnet or exchange it for the elegant-
looking magnet. In the elegance/ownership condition that mirrored the aforementioned
cuteness/ownership condition, participants first received the elegant-looking fridge magnet and
then indicated whether they would like keep it or exchange it for the cute-looking magnet. After
indicating their choice, participants completed the same 7-point bipolar scales on cuteness,
elegance, and attractiveness that were used in Study 1.
5.2 Results
Manipulation and Control Checks. Participants’ ratings of cuteness, elegance, and
attractiveness were coded in such a way that a higher value indicated that the cute-looking
stimulus received a higher score relative to the elegant-looking stimulus. As expected,
participants perceived the cute-looking fridge magnet to be cuter (M = 6.34, SD = 1.09; against
the mid-point, t(158) = 27.16, p < .001) and less elegant (M = 2.24, SD = 1.41; against the mid-
point, t(158) = -15.69, p < .001) than the elegant-looking fridge magnet, with the two magnets
being perceived as equally attractive (M = 4.03, SD = 1.98; against the mid-point, t(158) = .20, p
= .84). The elegance and attractiveness ratings did not vary across three conditions (F’s < 2.26,
p’s > .11). Although the cuteness rating of the cute-looking fridge magnet was higher in the
cuteness/ownership condition (M = 6.71, SD = .55) than in the other two conditions (M ’s = 6.09
20
and 6.24, SD’s = 1.51 and .92, respectively; F(2, 156) = 4.84, p = .009), the results reported
below still held when I used perceived cuteness as a covariate in the analyses.
Choice Share. To test my predictions, I did several comparisons as specified below. First,
in the baseline/acquisition condition, participants were equally likely to choose to receive the
cute- (55.4%) versus the elegant-looking fridge magnet (44.6%; χ
2
(1) = 0.64, p = .42). In
contrast, when participants were endowed with one of the two fridge magnets before making
their final choice, they were more likely to keep the cute- (78.8%) than the elegant-looking
magnet (58.8%; χ
2
(1) = 4.82, p = .03). Further comparisons showed that cuteness resulted in a
clear endowment effect, such that participants were significantly more likely to keep an already-
owned cute-looking fridge magnet (78.8%) than to choose the same magnet after first seeing it
(55.4%; χ
2
(1) = 6.69, p = .01). In contrast, such an endowment effect was weaker for elegance,
given that participants were only directionally more willing to keep an already-owned elegant-
looking fridge magnet (58.8%) than to choose the same one (44.6%; χ
2
(1) = 2.15, p = .14).
5.3 Discussion
By endowing participants with a real product and examining their real product choice,
Study 2 provided further support for hypothesis 1, namely that cuteness results in a higher
willingness to retain an already-owned product, but not a higher willingness to acquire the same
product. This study further demonstrated that cuteness derived from animal-based (as opposed to
human-based) images enjoys a similar retention advantage over elegance, and directly showed
that cuteness creates a stronger endowment effect than elegance does.
21
6. Study 3
Study 3 aimed to conceptually replicate the findings of Studies 1 and 2 by manipulating
cuteness versus elegance between subjects and, more importantly, to provide process evidence
related to hypothesis 2. Specifically, I examined the hypothesized role of nurturance desire and
taste-signaling value in explaining the differential effects of cuteness- versus elegance-based
visual attractiveness on product acquisition and product retention.
I further aimed to rule out a series of alternative explanations for the processing
mechanisms underlying the proposed effects. Since cuteness is derived from baby schema, it is
possible that a cute-looking product design may induce nostalgic feelings toward one’s
childhood, which further propel consumers to keep the product as a means of connecting with
their meaningful past. Moreover, recent research has shown that seeing images of human or
animal babies (Nenkov & Scott, 2014; Sherman et al., 2009) and even simply reading a short
story about a cute child (Griskevicius, Shoita, & Neufeld, 2010) can automatically induce a
feeling of amusement. Such a natural link between cuteness and amusement can also be
understood from an evolutionary perspective—the amusement created by cuteness is rewarding
to caregivers and thus conducive to relationship maintenance. In line with these arguments, in
Study 3 I directly compared the explanatory performance of nostalgia and amusement against
that of nurturance desire—the processing mechanism that I hypothesized as underlying the
retention advantage of cuteness over elegance.
22
6.1 Procedure
Three hundred and twenty-five participants (149 females; Mage = 34.91, SD = 11.83) in
the United States were recruited via a commercial web survey provider and took part in the study
for monetary compensation. This study adopted a 2 (Attractiveness type: cute-looking vs.
elegant-looking) X 2 (Mindset: ownership vs. acquisition) between-subjects design. The stimuli
used in this study were two key chains. The cute-looking key chain had a bunny image printed
on it, while the elegant-looking one showed a flower image (see Appendix 3).
In the ownership mindset condition, participants engaged in the same procedure used in
Study 1 to simulate the experience of owning either a cute- or an elegant-looking key chain.
Afterwards they were asked to imagine that they had been using the key chain for one year and
answered questions on their willingness to keep the key chain. In the acquisition mindset
condition, participants saw either a cute- or an elegant-looking key chain image and indicated
their willingness to purchase the key chain. In both conditions, participants subsequently
responded to process measures, control measures, manipulation checks, and trait-level measures.
6.2 Measures
All variables reported below, except for the product retention tendency scale, were
measured on 7-point scales (1 = “not at all,” 4 = “moderately,” and 7 = “extremely”). Since in
this study I adopted a between-subjects design for the attractiveness type (cute-looking vs.
elegant-looking) factor, all dependent, process, and control measures and manipulation checks
referred strictly to the particular product image that participants saw (rather than being expressed
as relative ratings between two stimuli as employed in previous studies).
23
Dependent Measures. I measured willingness to retain the key chain using the items
“replace this key chain with a new one (reverse coded)” and “keep this key chain” ( α = .65),
whereas willingness to purchase the key chain was measured using the items “buy this key
chain” and “choose this key chain if I need a replacement for the one I have been using” ( α
= .93).
Process Measures. Prior research has shown that nurturant responses toward babies can
take on a variety of behavioral forms, including approach (Hildebrandt & Fitzgerald, 1979) and
caretaking (Glocker et al., 2009; Morreall, 1991). To capture these tendencies, I measured desire
for nurturance by assessing the extent to which the sight of the key chain triggered in
participants “a desire to get closer to it,” “a desire to be near to it,” “a desire to take care of it,”
and “a desire to protect it” ( α = .93). To measure taste-signaling value, I asked participants the
extent to which the key chain conveyed that they, as its owner, “have refined taste” and “are
sophisticated” ( α = .95).
To examine alternative processing mechanisms possibly behind the retention advantage
of cuteness (i.e., nostalgia and amusement), I further asked participants to rate the extent to
which the sight of the key chain “elicits nostalgic feelings toward your own childhood,” “evokes
strong memories of your own childhood,” and “makes you strongly wish you could go back to
your childhood,” which together formed a nostalgia index ( α = .94). They also rated the extent to
which the key chain looked “playful,” “fun,” and “whimsical,” which were borrowed from
Nenkov and Scott (2014) and formed an amusement index ( α = .91).
24
Control Measures and Manipulation Checks. Since only one of the two stimuli used in
this study (i.e., the cute-looking bunny key chain) contained a picture of a living entity, I
included a control measure for anthropomorphism (“it seems as if this key chain has free will”
and “it seems as if this key chain has intentions;” α = .93), adapted from Kim and McGill (2011).
I also measured the extent to which the key chain looked “novel” and “unusual,” which formed a
novelty index ( α = .70) and served as another control variable. As the manipulation check for the
mindset manipulation, perceived ownership was measured with three items, “I feel like this is my
key chain,” “I feel like I own this key chain,” and “I feel a very high degree of personal
ownership of this key chain” ( α =.98), borrowed from Shu and Peck (2011). Finally, participants
rated the cuteness (“cute” and “adorable;” α = .94), elegance (“elegant” and “graceful;” α = .94),
and attractiveness of the key chain (“attractive”).
Trait-Level Measure. At the end of the study, I also included a 4-item scale for measuring
respondents’ chronic product retention tendency (e.g., “I tend to hold onto my possessions;” α
= .90; Haws et al., 2012) on a 7-point scale (1 = “totally disagree,” 7 = “totally agree”) to test
whether such a tendency moderated my focal effects on the dependent measures.
6.3 Results
Manipulation and Control Checks. As expected, participants who were assigned an
ownership mindset experienced stronger psychological ownership than those assigned an
acquisition mindset (Mownership mindset = 3.72, SD = 2.13 vs. Macquisition mindset = 2.20, SD = 1.65; F(1,
321) = 51.63, p < .001). Additionally, the cute-looking key chain (Mcute-looking = 5.49, SD = 1.59)
was perceived as cuter than the elegant-looking key chain (Melegant-looking = 3.67, SD = 1.68; F(1,
25
321) = 100.75, p < .001), while the latter (Melegant-looking = 3.87, SD = 1.89) was perceived as more
elegant than the former (Mcute-looking = 2.52, SD = 1.50; F(1, 321) = 51.37, p < .001). The two key
chains did not differ in anthropomorphism or perceived novelty (F’s < 1.11, p’s > .29). There
were no attractiveness type X mindset interactions on these manipulation checks or control
measures as well (F’s < .48, p’s > .49). There was, however, an unexpected attractiveness type X
mindset interaction on perceived attractiveness (F(1, 321) = 3.47, p = .06). The attractiveness did
not differ between the cute- and the elegant-looking key chain in the ownership mindset
condition (Melegant-looking = 3.85, SD = 1.88 vs. Mcute-looking = 3.94, SD = 1.75; F(1, 321) = .10, p
= .76), yet the elegant-looking key chain looked more attractive than the cute-looking key chain
in the acquisition mindset condition (Melegant-looking = 4.27, SD = 1.86 vs. Mcute-looking = 3.62, SD =
1.67; F(1, 321) = 5.38, p = .02). Nevertheless, adding attractiveness as a covariate did not change
the pattern of the effect of attractiveness type (cute-looking vs. elegant-looking) on willingness
to purchase the key chain and its related mediation effects reported in the subsequent sections.
Interestingly, I also found that the cute-looking product design marginally increased the
perceived ownership of the key chain than the elegant-looking product design (F(1, 321) = 3.22,
p = .07). Such a result was, in fact, consistent with my argument that the cuteness of a product
facilitates the “bonding” process between the product and a consumer.
Willingness to Retain versus Purchase. A two-way ANOVA generated a marginally
significant attractiveness type X mindset interaction on participants’ behavioral intention toward
the key chain (F(1, 321) = 2.91, p = .09). Consistent with the results obtained in Studies 1 and 2,
whereas in the ownership mindset condition participants were more willing to retain the cute-
26
than the elegant-looking key chain (Mcute-looking = 4.48, SD = 1.65 vs. Melegant-looking = 3.97, SD =
1.64; F(1, 321) = 3.65, p = .06), their purchase intentions were similar across the two key chains
in the acquisition mindset condition (Mcute-looking = 2.68, SD = 1.80 vs. Melegant-looking = 2.82, SD =
1.75; F(1, 321) = .25, p = .61; see Figure 1). These results again demonstrated that, compared to
an equally attractive but elegant-looking product design, a cute-looking one induces a higher
willingness to retain the product, but not necessarily a higher willingness to purchase the
product, further supporting hypothesis 1.
Figure 1. Retention versus Purchase
FIGURE 1
RETENTION VERSUS PURCHASE (STUDY 3)
27
Mediation Analyses. As expected, though compared to the elegant-looking key chain, the
cute-looking one was perceived to have a lower taste-signaling value (Mcute-looking = 2.02, SD =
1.27 vs. Melegant-looking = 2.90, SD = 1.58; F(1, 321) = 31.27, p < .001), it induced a stronger desire
for nurturance (Mcute-looking = 3.49, SD = 1.75 vs. Melegant-looking = 2.74, SD = 1.56; F(1, 321) =
16.63, p < .001) and a higher level of nostalgia (Mcute-looking = 2.72, SD = 1.70 vs. Melegant-looking =
2.00, SD = 1.46; F(1, 321) = 16.70, p < .001) and amusement (Mcute-looking = 4.58, SD = 1.54 vs.
Melegant-looking = 2.98, SD = 1.57; F(1, 321) = 85.56, p < .001). No attractiveness type X mindset
interactions on these process measures were significant (F’s < 1.17, p’s > .28).
To test which process variables best account for the observed effects, for both the
ownership and the acquisition mindset condition I ran a bootstrap-based mediation analysis (with
1000 resamples) using Hayes’ (2013) PROCESS Macro (Model 4). Desire for nurturance, taste-
signaling value, nostalgia, and amusement were all included as potential mediating variables
simultaneously. In the acquisition mindset condition, both desire for nurturance (95%
CI: .04, .42) and taste-signaling value (95% CI: -.89, -.26) mediated the effect of attractiveness
type (0 = “elegant-looking,” 1 = “cute-looking”) on willingness to purchase the key chain. The
direction of the mediation effects was consistent with my expectations. Specifically, desire for
nurturance explained why cuteness (vs. elegance) drove willingness to purchase the key chain,
while taste-signaling value explained why elegance (vs. cuteness) drove willingness to purchase
the key chain. Nostalgia (95% CI: .10, .55) also served as an additional mediator, explaining why
cuteness (vs. elegance) drove product acquisition, though amusement did not (95% CI: -.25, .19;
see Figure 2, Panel A). In contrast, in the ownership mindset condition, desire for nurturance
28
(95% CI: .05, .55) was a significant mediator in the relationship between attractiveness type (0 =
“elegant-looking,” 1 = “cute-looking”) and willingness to retain the key chain, whereas taste-
signaling value (95% CI: -.26, .17), nostalgia (95% CI: -.21, .08), and amusement (95% CI:
-.07, .60) were not (see Figure 2, Panel B). These results supported hypothesis 2.
Figure 2. Mediation Analyses
FIGURE 2
MEDIATION ANALYSES (STUDY 3)
Panel A Panel B
Note: 1. Solid lines represent significant paths; dash lines represent non-significant paths.
2. Values in the parentheses indicate the effects from the regressions with attractiveness
type (0 = “elegant-looking,” 1 = “cute-looking”) as the only predictor.
3. Unstandardized regression coefficients are reported.
* p < .05, *** p < .001 (two-tailed).
29
Product Retention Tendency. As a trait-level variable, product retention tendency indeed
influenced willingness to retain (B = .24, t(161) = 3.14, p = .002), but not willingness to
purchase, the key chain (B = -.07, t(160) = -.75, p = .46). However, this variable did not
moderate the effects of attractiveness type (cute-looking vs. elegant-looking) on either
willingness to retain or willingness to purchase the key chain (t’s < .87, p’s > .38). These results
suggested that cuteness enjoys a retention advantage over elegance even among consumers who
are chronically less inclined to hold onto an already-owned product.
6.4 Discussion
By manipulating cuteness and elegance between subjects, Study 3 again confirmed that
the cuteness advantage is uniquely related to product retention and different from a general
positive response toward cuteness. More importantly, this study provided support for the
proposed mechanisms. More specifically, in the acquisition mindset condition, both desire for
nurturance (stronger for cuteness) and taste-signaling value (higher for elegance) drive product
purchase, yet they operate in opposite directions so that cuteness and elegance ultimately create
the same level of willingness to purchase a visually attractive product. In contrast, in the
ownership mindset condition, only desire for nurturance (and not taste-signaling value) plays a
significant role in explaining why cuteness ultimately induces a higher willingness to retain an
already-owned product than elegance.
Moreover, this study demonstrated that nostalgia positively influenced product purchase,
though not product retention, which further enriches our understanding of how cuteness differs
from elegance in the product acquisition stage. Amusement, on the other hand, did not emerge as
30
an important driver for either product acquisition or product retention, compared to the other
types of cuteness-elicited responses.
After demonstrating that the cuteness advantage over elegance is uniquely associated
with product retention but not necessarily with product acquisition, as well as uncovering the
processing mechanisms underlying this effect, in the final study I focused on the post-acquisition
stage and further examined a boundary condition for the retention advantage of cuteness over
elegance.
7. Study 4
In Study 4, I aimed to demonstrate that for technically sophisticated products, the
retention advantage of cuteness over elegance would disappear (hypothesis 3). To verify this
hypothesis, I used a different set of stimuli and compared a more technically sophisticated
product (i.e., computer speaker) with a less technically sophisticated one (i.e., fridge magnet).
7.1 Procedure
Two hundred and one participants (89 females; Age: from 18 to 55 and up) in the United
States were recruited via a commercial web survey provider and took part in the study in
exchange for monetary compensation. The study adopted a 2 (Attractiveness type: cute-looking
vs. elegant-looking) X 2 (Product type: more technically sophisticated vs. less technically
sophisticated) between-subjects design. To manipulate attractiveness type, I used a computer
speaker that was shaped like a panda in the cute-looking condition and another one that was
shaped like a potted plant in the elegant-looking condition (see Appendix 4). In the more
31
technically sophisticated product condition, the speaker image was shown as is, whereas in the
less technically sophisticated product condition the same speaker image was printed on a fridge
magnet. This manipulation allowed me to keep the image of the target product constant across
the different conditions, hence facilitating a clean test of the moderating role of product type.
At the beginning of Study 4, I used the same mental simulation procedure as the one used
in Studies 1 and 3 to induce an ownership mindset. After further assuming that they had been the
owner of the target product stimulus for two years and were planning to move out of their current
residence, all participants indicated their willingness to retain the product. Afterwards,
participants across all conditions responded to a series of additional measures about the target
stimulus. All measures were adapted from Study 3.
7.2 Pretests
In order to ensure that the stimuli were properly selected, I conducted a series of pretests
to verify the assumptions that consumers indeed assign greater weight to product functionality
over appearance when evaluating technically sophisticated products (vs. less technically
sophisticated products), and that cuteness lowers performance perception for products that are
high (but not low) in technical sophistication.
Pretest 1. The first pretest (N = 30) aimed to confirm that the stimuli indeed differed in
technical sophistication, and that participants paid greater attention to functionality than to
appearance when evaluating technically sophisticated products. This pretest employed product
type as a within-subjects factor. First, on a 7-point scale (1 = “not at all,” 7 = “extremely”),
participants perceived computer speakers to be more technically sophisticated (Mcomputer speaker =
32
4.50, SD = 1.25) than fridge magnets from this study and Study 2 (Mfridge magnet = 1.93, SD =
1.84), throw pillows from Study 1 (Mthrow pillow = 2.13, SD = 1.68), and key chains from Study 3
(Mkey chain = 2.20, SD = 1.67; F(4, 26) = 16.37, p < .001). Then, on another 7-point scale (1 =
“visual appeal,” 7 = “functional benefits”), participants indicated that they paid greater attention
to functionality when evaluating computer speakers (Mcomputer speaker = 5.10, SD = 1.81; against the
mid-point, t(29) = 3.33, p = .002), but paid greater attention to visual appearance when
evaluating fridge magnets (Mfridge magnet = 2.70, SD = 1.77; against the mid-point, t(29) = -4.03, p
< .001) and key chains (Mkey chain = 3.07, SD = 1.93; against the mid-point, t(29) = -2.65, p = .01),
while paying equal attention to both visual appearance and functionality when evaluating throw
pillows (Mthrow pillow = 3.40, SD = 1.99; against the mid-point, t(29) = -1.65, p = .11).
Pretest 2. The second pretest (N = 52) verified the role of cuteness versus elegance in
shaping performance inferences about products that differ in technical sophistication. This pretest
employed attractiveness type (cute-looking vs. elegant-looking) as a between-subjects factor and
product type (more technically sophisticated vs. less technically sophisticated) as a within-
subjects factor. First, participants evaluated the performance of one of the two computer speaker
stimuli (i.e., a more technically sophisticated product) used in the main study in terms of its
sound quality (“this computer speaker can deliver good sound/extended bass/good noise
cancellation performance;” α = .89; 1 = “not at all,” 7 = “extremely”). Next, they were told that
the manufacturer printed images of its computer speakers on fridge magnets that were given to
customers as gifts, and were shown a magnet with an image of the previously evaluated
computer speaker printed on it. Respondents were then asked to evaluate the performance of the
33
fridge magnet (i.e., a less technically sophisticated product) in terms of its adhesive quality (“this
fridge magnet can stick well to a fridge/stay attached to a fridge for a long time/easily fall off
a fridge (reversed coded);” α = .94; 1 = “not at all,” 7 = “extremely”). There was an
attractiveness type X product type interaction on perceived performance (F(1, 50) = 4.91, p
= .03), such that the cute-looking product was judged to be inferior in performance to the
elegant-looking product only when the product was more technically sophisticated (i.e.,
computer speaker; Mcute-looking = 3.04, SD = 1.14 vs. Melegant-looking = 4.01, SD = 1.26; F(1, 50) =
8.55, p = .005), but not when the product was less technically sophisticated (i.e., fridge magnet;
Mcute-looking = 5.14, SD = 1.33 vs. Melegant-looking = 5.09, SD = 1.42; F(1, 50) = .02, p = .89).
These two pretests supported my assumption that not only do consumers assign greater
weight to functionality than to appearance when evaluating technically sophisticated products
(vs. less technically sophisticated products), but also cuteness is detrimental to a product’s
performance judgment only when the product is high (but not low) in technical sophistication.
7.3 Results
Manipulation and Control Checks. For both types of products, the cute-looking product
(Mcute-looking = 5.64, SD = 1.65) was perceived as cuter than the elegant-looking one (Melegant-looking
= 3.65, SD = 1.86; F(1, 197) = 64.94, p < .001), with the latter (Melegant-looking = 3.78, SD = 1.95)
being perceived as more elegant than the former (Mcute-looking = 3.03, SD = 1.74; F(1, 197) = 8.37,
p = .004). The cute- and the elegant-looking product scored similarly on perceived attractiveness
and novelty (F’s <.48, p’s > .49). There were no attractiveness type X product type interactions
on the manipulation checks or on any of these control measures (F’s <.10, p’s > .76). Yet, there
34
was an unexpected attractiveness type X product type interaction on anthropomorphism (F(1,
197) = 3.75, p = .06), such that the cute- and the elegant-looking product did not differ in
anthropomorphism when the products were less technically sophisticated (Mcute-looking = 2.07, SD
= 1.49 vs. Melegant-looking = 1.84, SD = 1.43; F(1, 197) = .59, p = .44), whereas the cute-looking
product was more anthropomorphized than the elegant-looking one when the products were more
technically sophisticated (Mcute-looking = 2.64, SD = 1.81 vs. Melegant-looking = 1.60, SD = 1.16; F(1,
197) = 12.21, p < .001). Nevertheless, inclusion of anthropomorphism as a covariate did not
change the result of the effect of attractiveness type (cute-looking vs. elegant-looking) on
willingness to retain technically sophisticated products reported in the next section.
Willingness to Retain. There was a significant attractiveness type X product type
interaction effect on willingness to retain the product (F(1, 197) = 5.16, p = .03). For less
technically sophisticated products (i.e., fridge magnets), I obtained the same pattern of results
observed in the previous studies—specifically, consumers were more willing to retain the cute-
than the elegant-looking product (Mcute-looking = 5.41, SD = 1.56 vs. Melegant-looking = 4.73, SD =
1.50; F(1, 197) = 4.79, p = .03). In contrast, there was no difference in willingness to retain the
cute- versus the elegant-looking product when participants saw a more technically sophisticated
product (i.e., computer speakers; Mcute-looking = 5.12, SD = 1.72 vs. Melegant-looking = 5.44, SD =
1.47; F(1, 197) = 1.05, p = .31; see Figure 3). These results supported hypothesis 3.
7.4 Discussion
Study 4 identified a boundary condition for the retention advantage of cuteness over
elegance and, together with Studies 1 to 3, showed that the retention advantage of cuteness
35
mainly applies to products that are less characterized by technical sophistication. In contrast,
such an advantage does not hold for more technically sophisticated products.
Figure 3. The Role of Technical Sophistication
8. General Discussion
Four studies show that cute-looking product designs hold an advantage over equally
attractive but elegant-looking product designs when it comes to strengthening consumers’
willingness to retain a product. The findings were robust across different stimuli (throw pillows
in Study 1, fridge magnets in Studies 2 and 4, and key chains in Study 3) and no matter when
product ownership was real (Study 2) or mentally simulated (Studies 1, 3, and 4). I further
demonstrate that the cuteness advantage over elegance is uniquely associated with product
FIGURE 3
THE ROLE OF TECHNICAL SOPHISTICATION (STUDY 4)
36
retention, but not with product acquisition (Studies 1, 2, and 3). Supporting a nurturance-based
account, I show that the retention advantage of cuteness over elegance is driven by a stronger
desire for nurturance elicited by cute-looking versus elegant-looking products (Study 3).
Whereas the retention advantage of cuteness over elegance still holds even for products for
which functionality is as equally important as visual appearance in product evaluations, this
advantage disappears only for technically sophisticated products for which functionality is
weighted more than visual appearance (Study 4).
8.1 Theoretical Contributions
The dominant paradigm of research on product aesthetics has focused on the comparison
between high- versus low-aesthetics product designs that differ in perceived attractiveness
(Hoegg et al., 2010; Page & Herr, 2002; Townsend & Shu, 2010). The present research adds to
the product aesthetics literature by examining, from a somewhat unique angle, the relative effects
of cuteness versus elegance as two holistic design themes. The distinction between cuteness and
elegance taps into distinct dimensions of visual attractiveness (see Solomon et al., 1992) and is
orthogonal to the valence of attractiveness since visual attractiveness levels were kept constant
across the target stimuli in my studies.
Moreover, the present research contributes to the cuteness literature in three ways. First, I
directly contrast cuteness against elegance, another frequently employed type of visual
attractiveness. I show that the unique advantage of cute-looking product designs lies in
strengthening product retention in the post-acquisition stage. Interestingly, this effect does not
37
require real product ownership, given that psychological ownership alone is enough to make
consumers reluctant to part with a cute-looking product.
Second, while the effects of fundament motives, such as sexual or mating desire (Monga
& Gü rhan-Canli, 2012) or desire for status (Griskevicius, Tybur, & Van den Bergh, 2010), have
been widely examined in a consumption context, investigations into the effects of nurturance—
which represents another fundamental human motive—on consumer behavior are scant
(Griskevicius & Kenrick, 2013). By uncovering the important role that desire for nurturance
plays in product retention, this research provides preliminary evidence that the human tendency
to nurture not just beings, but also objects that conform to a baby schema, can lead to
surprisingly strong consumer-product relationships. Relatedly, product aesthetics has been
identified as part of the enticing-the-self benefits that drive brand attachment (Park, Eisingerich,
& Park, 2013; Park et al., 2010). My findings imply that among different types of product
aesthetics, visual cuteness can be particularly effective for fostering strong brand attachment, due
to its ability to strengthen consumer-product connections.
Third, in addition to identifying positive responses toward cuteness, the present research
also systematically investigates the implications of the negative associations of cuteness.
Compared to elegance, a highly valued aesthetic theme, cuteness can suffer from associations
with low sophistication, which manifest themselves in cute-looking products providing
diminished taste-signaling value and creating decreased product performance perception.
Extending extant research on similar issues (Cho et al., 2011; Gorn et al., 2008), I further
demonstrate that cuteness triggers these different negative connotations in different ways. The
38
lower performance perceptions associated with cuteness versus elegance are clearly more
product-specific, since cuteness reduces product performance judgments only when a product is
technically sophisticated (e.g., computer speakers in Study 4), but not when it is less technically
sophisticated (e.g., fridge magnets in Study 4). Nevertheless, even when a product is less
technically sophisticated (e.g., key chains in Study 3), cuteness still does not appear as tasteful as
elegance, as long as the product is for adult consumers’ use.
My research also contributes to the product retention literature, which is still in its
infancy (Haws et al., 2012). Prior studies have suggested that some product-related factors, such
as symbolic features (Ferraro et al., 2011) and anthropomorphic traits (Chandler & Schwarz,
2010), contribute to product retention. However, this particular stream of research has not
investigated whether the aforementioned factors are uniquely associated with product retention
or have a similar impact on both product acquisition and product retention. My research directly
compares the effects of cuteness versus elegance on these two decisions and demonstrates the
dissociation between acquisition and retention. Relatedly, my findings suggest that since
cuteness enjoys an advantage over elegance in strengthening product retention but not
necessarily product purchase, the endowment effect should be stronger for cute- than for elegant-
looking products.
8.2 Managerial Implications
In the marketplace, many brand managers are interested in consumers keeping and using
their products for a long period, in the hopes that these consumers will ultimately buy
complementary products from the same brand in the future. Additionally, companies in various
39
industries give away gifts with corporate logos as a means to increase brand awareness. These
companies usually hope that receivers will retain the gifts for a long time and hence be
continuously reminded of the brand. In all these contexts, using cuteness as a product design
theme is a promising option.
Nevertheless, product designers should not opt for the cute-looking designs irrespective
of product type. My findings demonstrate that the advantage of cuteness over elegance
disappears when cuteness is incorporated into technically sophisticated products. Given that
cuteness is also likely to represent a purchase liability for such products due to its association
with lower performance perception, marketers are better advised to opt for an elegant-looking
design for products that are characterized by technical sophistication.
My research also sheds some lights on how to enhance purchase intention for cute-
looking products. Specifically, encouraging consumers to experience some degree of
psychological ownership of a cute-looking product appears to be particularly effective at
persuading potential buyers not to part with the product. Psychological ownership can be
increased through several routes, such as touch, product imagery, and self-design (Shu & Peck,
2011), by offering a free product trial (Haws et al., 2012), or by including the product as a default
option in a bundle (Park, Jun, & MacInnis, 2000). By employing one or more of these
approaches, marketers can subtly transform product acquisition decisions into product retention
decisions, so that such cute-looking products can be more effectively promoted.
40
8.3 Directions for Future Research
In this research, I found that gender did not moderate the cuteness effects across my
studies in a reliable and consistent manner. In Studies 1 and 4, neither gender nor gender-related
traits (femininity vs. masculinity; measured in Study 1 only) influenced product preference; in
Study 2, female participants were more likely to both choose and retain the cute-looking fridge
magnet than male participants; in Study 3, female participants were more willing to buy and keep
the cute-looking key chain than male participants, yet at the same time females were also more
responsive to the elegant-looking key chain than their male counterparts in terms of both product
acquisition and product retention. Although such mixed findings are consistent with those from
prior research (for a recent review, see Nittono et al., 2012), one may still wonder (1) what may
account for the unsystematic findings on gender differences across different research settings,
and (2) under which conditions gender differences in cuteness-elicited nurturant responses can be
more reliably revealed.
As for the first question, in order to generalize my results, I made it a point to adopt
different types of stimuli across different studies. While I tried my best to calibrate the stimuli on
a variety of dimensions (most importantly, visual attractiveness perception), these stimuli may
have differed in their perceived level of femininity and masculinity, which resulted in gender-
congruent responses. For instance, in Study 1, both the cute- and the elegant-looking football
player images are likely to look masculine; in Study 2, whereas the cute-looking fridge magnet
may look more feminine, the elegant-looking fridge magnet may look more masculine; in
Studies 3 and 4, both the cute- and the elegant-looking stimuli may look feminine. These
41
differences can likely help explain the mixed findings on gender differences in cuteness-induced
responses. Further research can explore this issue more systematically by examining how the
type of visual attractiveness and the type of gender-related connotations interact to shape the
acquisition and retention of visually attractive products.
As for the second question, I suspect that, since in the process of evolution females have
taken a more active role in nurturing offspring (Dahl, Sengupta, & Vohs, 2009) and should thus
be biologically more attuned to cute-looking stimuli, it is possible that nurturant responses from
females are more altruistic, whereas those from males are relatively more self-centric.
Considering that in the present research, as well as in prior studies on attentional focus and
behavioral carefulness toward cute-looking stimuli, participants were not required to sacrifice
their own resources in their interaction with the stimuli, I suspect that when nurturing behaviors
toward cute-looking stimuli involve a great extent of sacrifice in terms of either time, money, or
physical effort, we may detect a more evident gender difference in nurturing and retention
behaviors. In such cases, amusement may also potentially emerge as a more crucial driver for
responsiveness toward cuteness because the salience of self-sacrifice should heighten a
caregiver’s need for experiential rewards offered by cute-looking stimuli, which can be fulfilled
by the amusement associated with cute features. This interesting direction awaits further
investigations.
Finally, future research can also compare cuteness with other aesthetic themes and
explore other moderators for the retention advantage of cuteness so that we could gain a better
42
understanding of how stable the retention advantage of cuteness is and whether there are any
other circumstances that make its retention advantage even stronger.
43
CHAPTER TWO: EFFECTS OF ANTHROPOMORPHIC PRODUCT
PRESENTATIONS ON BRAND CHOICE OF COMPLEMENTARY ACCESSORIES
1. Introduction
Many firms across various industries, such as the shaving industry and the printing
industry, adopt a “razor-and-blade” business model, in which these firms attract consumers by
offering a base product (e.g., a razor) at a low price and then earn their real profit from
consumers’ repeated purchases of high-margin complementary accessories (e.g., replaceable
blades) for the base product (Nobel & Gruca, 1999; Teece, 2010). Oftentimes, this business
model faces threats from competing generic brands that offer low-cost alternative
complementary accessories for a branded base product (Tellis, 1986). For example, in the printer
accessory (e.g., ink or toner) industry alone, the market share of generic brands has exceed 25%
in 2015 (United Laser, 2015). As advances in internet and mobile technologies make it
increasingly convenient for consumers to search for low-cost alternatives (Dukes & Liu, 2015), it
becomes highly imperative for brands that rely on the “razor-and-blade” model to develop
effective strategies to protect their market shares in the accessory market. To address this
important issue, firms could set mechanical constraints to their base products so that only their
own accessories can fit the base products (Dubé , Hitsch, & Rossi, 2009; Wang, Chen, & Xie,
2010). Nevertheless, such a solution involves changing physical product configurations
substantively and hence can be costly to implement and difficult to modify when subsequent
adjustments need to be made.
44
In the present research, I examine whether marketers can subtly vary the way they present
a base product to change consumers’ subjective perception of the product, as a less drastic
solution for protecting their market share in the accessory market. More specifically, I focus on
anthropomorphic product presentations, that is, making a base product look, move, or talk as a
human being in ads or at the level of product appearance (e.g., Aggarwal & McGill, 2007; Kim
& McGill, 2011; Landwehr, McGill, & Herrmann, 2011; Puzakova, Kwak, & Rocereto, 2013). I
propose that anthropomorphic presentations of a base product will increase consumers’ choice
share of complementary accessories provided by the same brand that offers the focal base
product over accessories from a different brand. This is because product anthropomorphism
triggers a bodily consideration—consumers view an anthropomorphized base product and its
accessories as a human body and its body substances, and they project their own biological
aversion to foreign body-related substances onto accessories from a different brand, which
represent “foreign body substances” to the anthropomorphized base product. In line with this
bodily consideration account, I demonstrate that the effect of anthropomorphic presentation of a
base product on brand choice (1) is driven by a decrease in the perceived compatibility between a
base product and accessories from a different brand, (2) does not extend to consumers’ choice of
other products that can work independently of a base product, and (3) becomes stronger for
consumers who are highly averse to foreign body-related substances.
By demonstrating anthropomorphic presentations of a base product as an effective means
of protecting a brand’s market share in the accessory market, the present research makes two
important contributions. First, whereas product complementarity has been extensively studied in
45
the marketing literature (e.g., Berry et al., 2014; Manchanda, Ansari, & Gupta, 1999), research
on consumers’ brand choice of complementary goods for a given product is still limited (Rahinel
& Redden, 2013; Simonin & Ruth, 1995; Sinitsyn, 2012). My findings add to this literature by
examining how consumers make their brand decision about accessories, which represent a
specific type of complementary goods. Second, the extant literature has mainly shown that
anthropomorphism can trigger consumers’ consideration of their “social” relationship with a non-
human entity (e.g., Aggarwal & McGill, 2012; Chandler & Schwarz, 2010; Kim & McGill,
2011), affect their attribution of responsibility for product-related incidents (Hur, Koo, &
Hofmann, 2015; Puzakova, Kwak, & Rocereto, 2013), and influence their judgment of the
competence of a product in solving complex problems (Waytz, Heafner, & Epley, 2014). The
present research complements this literature by identifying bodily consideration as a novel
mechanism underlying the effects of product anthropomorphism, in the specific context of
accessory decision. Importantly, because perceptions of anthropomorphic qualities can be easily
triggered by visual cues in advertising and product appearance as well as by interactive product
features, over which marketers have direct control, the present research provides highly
actionable managerial implications.
2. Conceptual Background
2.1 Complementary Accessory
Product complementarity plays a critical role in understanding consumers’ cross-category
purchases. Classic economic theories define complementary goods according to the cross-price
46
elasticity, such that two products are considered complementary goods if a change in the price of
one product results in a change in the demand for the other one in the opposite direction
(Bucklin, Russell, & Srinivasan, 1998; Lattin & McAlister, 1985; Schocker, Bayus, & Kim,
2004). From a consumer perspective, two products are regarded as complementary if the
presence of one product enhances the consumption utility of the other one (Basu, Mazumdar, &
Raj, 2003; Chernev, 2005; Frels, Shervani, & Srivastava, 2003; Srinivasan, Lilien, &
Rangaswamy, 2006).
In the present research, I focus on a base product and its complementary accessories. In
this specific case of product complementarity, accessories are often indispensable for the proper
functioning of a base product (e.g., a printer needs ink or toner in order to print; Ma, Gill, &
Jiang, 2015; Yalcin et al., 2013). Unlike a general complementary relationship in which both
products are perceived as separate entities (e.g., food and wine are regarded as separate products
even when consumed jointly), an accessory has a more interdependent relationship with its base
product because in most cases an accessory (1) is physically connected to its base product when
being used and (2) becomes useless without the presence of its base product. Such an
interdependent relationship between a base product and its accessory in fulfilling consumer
needs usually makes consumers perceive an accessory as part of the base product when they are
used together (e.g., an ink cartridge can be perceived as part of a printer; Frels, Shervani, &
Srivastava, 2003). In other words, consumers may perceive a “whole-part” relationship between
a base product and its accessory.
Across various industries, firms adopt a complementary pricing strategy, in which they
47
offer a base product cheaply to increase the customer base, opening up opportunities to sell more
profitable complementary accessories that consumers need to buy repeatedly for the base
product. Nevertheless, the high mark-up of accessories also motivates certain generic brands to
enter the market and provide similar alternatives for these branded accessories, usually at a lower
price to attract consumers to switch from the branded options (Tellis, 1986). For instance, when
consumers’ Canon inkjet printer runs out of ink, they can buy either an ink cartridge directly
from Canon or a low-cost alternative from another generic brand. In the present research, I
propose that the “whole-part” relationship between a base product and its accessories makes
consumers’ brand choice of accessories subject to anthropomorphic presentations of the base
product.
2.2 Product Anthropomorphism
Product anthropomorphism refers to a phenomenon that people perceive inanimate
products as having humanlike intentions, feelings, and motivations (Aggarwal & McGill, 2007).
People may anthropomorphize a non-human entity due to their intrinsic motives, such as a desire
to understand and control the focal entity (Waytz et al., 2010) or to fulfill an unsatisfied need for
social connection that lacks in their interaction with other humans (Eply et al., 2008).
Anthropomorphism can also be induced by the way a non-human entity is presented to viewers.
When a product possesses humanlike visual features in its appearance, resembles humans in its
movements, or is described from a first-person perspective in an ad, consumers are more likely
to perceive the product as a humanlike entity (Aggarwal & McGill, 2007; Hur, Koo, & Hofmann,
2015; Kim & McGill, 2011; Landwehr, McGill, & Herrmann, 2011; Morewedge, Preston, &
48
Wegner, 2007; Puzakova, Kwak, & Rocereto, 2013).
Extant research has demonstrated that anthropomorphism can influence people’s decision
making mainly through three mechanisms, depending on the nature of a specific decision target
or context. Earlier research has shown that anthropomorphism can trigger moral concerns, and
consumers tend to apply principles governing interpersonal relationships to their relationship
with an anthropomorphized entity (Aggarwal & McGill, 2012; Ahn, Kim, & Aggarwal, 2013;
Butterfield, Hill, & Lord, 2012; Chandler & Schwarz, 2010; Kim & Kramer, 2015; Kim &
McGill, 2011; Kwak, Puzakova, & Rocereto, 2015; May & Monga, 2014; Nass & Moon, 2000;
Tam, Lee, & Chao, 2013; Touré -Tillery & McGill, 2015). For instance, when a slot machine
looks like a human being in its appearance, high-power consumers who believe that they have
control over other people also perceive the slot machine to be similarly controllable and thus less
risky (Kim & McGill, 2011). More recently, researchers have started to examine
anthropomorphism effects from an attribution perspective. This stream of research has
demonstrated that consumers tend to attribute a greater responsibility for product-related
incidents to an anthropomorphized entity. In the case of brand wrongdoings, consumers would
think less of the focal brand when they anthropomorphize this brand because they tend to believe
that such wrongdoings are more intentional (Puzakova, Kwak, & Rocereto, 2013). Similarly,
consumers become more indulgent in the presence of an anthropomorphized “vice” product
because they attribute the responsibility for their indulgent consumption activity to the
anthropomorphized temptation rather than to their own lack of self-control (Hur, Koo, &
Hofmann, 2015). Moreover, compared to inanimate objects, humans are characterized by being
49
intelligent and resourceful. Thus, adding humanlike qualities to a non-human entity that conducts
a complex task (e.g., an autonomous vehicle driving itself) can make the entity look more
competent and increase people’s trust in its performance (Waytz, Heafner, & Epley, 2014).
In the present research, I propose that in addition to the aforementioned social
relationship consideration, responsibility consideration, and intelligence consideration, product
anthropomorphism can also trigger a bodily consideration, which further influences consumer
decision making in the context of accessory decision.
2.3 Bodily Consideration and Brand Choice
Because a base product and its accessories are often physically connected, and because
the former serves as a base for the latter, I propose that the “whole-part” relationship between a
base product and its accessories will activate a bodily consideration when consumers
anthropomorphize the base product. More specifically, consumers may perceive that an
anthropomorphized base product resembles the main body of a human being, and consequently
its accessories may be regarded as body substances (e.g., blood, organs, or appendages) to the
anthropomorphized base product. With such a bodily consideration activated by product
anthropomorphism in mind, consumers may further perceive accessories from the same brand
that offers the base product as the product’s “own” body substances, and regard those accessories
from a different brand as “foreign” body substances to the focal base product, given that brands
serve as a natural basis for categorization in consumer judgment and perception (Barone,
Miniard, & Romeo, 2000; Park, Milberg, & Lawson, 1991).
As a self-protective mechanism developed from the evolutionary process, people are
50
biologically averse to the receipt of foreign body substances from other creatures including
humans and animals, in order to reduce the risk of being infected by potentially harmful
materials (Rozin et al., 1995; Tybur, Lieberman, & Griskevicius, 2009). Due to such a concern
about biological contamination, human beings not only are resistant to penetrations of foreign
body-related substances (Burris & Rempel, 2004; Öst, 1992), but also find objects that carry
bodily residues from other people or animals to be aversive (Argo, Dahl, & Morales, 2006;
Rozin, Millman, & Nemeroff, 1989). Just as consumers tend to believe that other unidentifiable
people’s behaviors and beliefs in general mirror their own (Gershoff, Mukherjee, &
Mukhopadhyay, 2008; Krueger & Clement, 1997; Naylor, Lamberton, & Norton, 2011), I
propose that they will also project their own aversion to foreign body-related substances onto a
humanlike base product and its accessories. That is, consumers may think that a humanlike base
product would also strongly reject accessories from a different brand, which invade the
anthropomorphized base product as foreign body substances. Due to such a projected aversion to
foreign body-related substances triggered by product anthropomorphism, consumers should be
more likely to choose accessories from the same brand that provides the base product over
accessories offered by a different brand when the base product is presented as a human being
than when it is presented in a non-anthropomorphic manner. Following this logic, I propose,
H1. Compared to a non-anthropomorphic presentation, an anthropomorphic presentation
of a base product will increase consumers’ choice share of same-brand accessories over
different-brand accessories.
51
People’s aversion to foreign body-related substances has been shaped by their
biologically repulsive responses to these substances (Tybur, Lieberman, & Griskevicius, 2009).
According to the bodily consideration account, consumers believe that an anthropomorphized
base product would also find accessories from a different brand to be aversive and reject the
receipt of these accessories just as the human immune system tends to repel foreign organisms.
Given that people have the general knowledge that bodily rejections are an immediate
consequence of biological incompatibility between a recipient and foreign body substances
(Inoue and Tsuru, 1999), I propose that such a rejection belief should ultimately be reflected in a
decrease in consumers’ perceived compatibility between a base product and its different-brand
accessories.
Compatibility is an important criterion when consumers make decisions about what
complementary goods to use together with a focal product (Harris & Blair, 2006). In fact,
consumers in general hold a lay belief that a product works less smoothly with complementary
goods from a different brand than with complements from the same brand that manufactures the
focal product, because they believe that products from the same brand are designed to better
coordinate with each other (Rahinel & Redden, 2013). As a result, other things being equal,
consumers are more likely to buy same-brand complements for a focal product (Ma,
Seetharaman, & Narasimhan, 2012; Rahinel & Redden, 2013; Sinitsyn, 2012) and more willing
to pay a price premium for bundles that group products from the same brand together (Simonin
& Ruth, 1995). I propose that, due to a projected aversion to foreign body-related substances,
52
anthropomorphic presentations of a base product would further strengthen consumers’ lay belief
about the relatively lower compatibility between a base product and accessories from a different
brand, which consequently increases the choice share of same-brand accessories over different-
brand accessories. Formally, I propose,
H2. Compared to a non-anthropomorphic presentation, an anthropomorphic presentation
of a base product will decrease consumers’ perception of the compatibility between the
base product and its different-brand accessories.
H3. Perceived compatibility between a base product and its different-brand accessories
will mediate the effect of anthropomorphic presentation of the base product on brand
choice of accessories.
The bodily consideration account further suggests two theoretically relevant moderators
for the effect of anthropomorphic presentation on brand choice. First, my prediction builds on the
assumption that a base product and its accessories constitute a “whole-part” relationship, and
therefore consumers perceive accessories as body substances when they anthropomorphize a
base product. This assumption implies that the effect of anthropomorphic presentation of a base
product on brand choice should not extend to consumers’ decision about another product (e.g., a
tablet computer) that can work independently of the focal base product (e.g., a laptop computer).
This is because the “whole-part” relationship does not apply to two independent objects (Tversky
& Hemenway, 1984), and thus consumers should no longer perceive a separate, independent
product as a body substance of an anthropomorphized base product. In this case, there is no basis
53
for consumers to project their own aversion to foreign body-related substances onto the two focal
independent products, and thus anthropomorphic presentations of one product should not
influence consumers’ brand choice of the other one. Thus, I propose,
H4. The effect of anthropomorphic presentation of a base product on brand choice will
not hold when consumers make decisions about another product that can work
independently of the base product.
Second, people may differ in their reactions to the invasion of foreign bodily materials
(Burris & Rempel, 2004; Olatunji et al., 2007). According to the bodily consideration account, if
consumers indeed project their own aversion to foreign body-related substances onto an
anthropomorphized base product and its different-brand accessories, their trait-level bodily
aversion should determine the strength of the proposed anthropomorphic presentation effect on
their accessory decision. In other words, this effect should increase with consumers’ own
aversion to foreign body-related substances, whereas it should be eliminated for consumers who
are chronically less averse to foreign body-related substances. Formally, I propose,
H5. The effect of anthropomorphic presentation of a base product on brand choice of
accessories will be stronger for consumers who are chronically more averse to foreign
body-related substances.
54
3. Overview of Studies
I tested my hypotheses in four studies. In Study 1, I tested my main proposition that
anthropomorphic presentations of a base product will increase consumers’ choice share of
complementary accessories from the same brand that provides the base product over accessories
from a different brand (hypothesis 1). Study 2 further showed that anthropomorphic
presentations of a base product decrease the perceived compatibility between the base product
and its different-brand accessories (hypothesis 2), and this compatibility perception mediates the
effect of anthropomorphic product presentation on brand choice of accessories (hypothesis 3). In
Study 3, I demonstrated that anthropomorphic product presentations influence brand choice of
accessories for the focal base product, but not brand choice of other products that can work
independently of the focal product (hypothesis 4). Providing further evidence for the bodily
consideration account, Study 4 showed that consumers’ trait-level aversion to foreign body-
related substances determines the strength of the effect of anthropomorphic presentation on
brand choice of accessories (hypothesis 5).
4. Study 1
In Study 1, I aimed to provide initial evidence for the prediction that anthropomorphic
presentations of a base product will increase choice share of same-brand accessories over
different-brand accessories (hypothesis 1).
4.1 Procedure
I randomly assigned 156 undergraduate students from University of Southern California
55
(90 females; Mage = 20.07, SD = 1.43) to either an anthropomorphic condition or a non-
anthropomorphic condition. Following the paradigm of prior research (e.g., Hur, Koo, &
Hofmann, 2015; Puzakova, Kwak, & Rocereto, 2013), I manipulated product anthropomorphism
by describing a stimulus in the first person and by adding humanlike visual features to the
stimulus. More specifically, I created a pair of video stimuli, which had the same duration (36
seconds) and setup, about a Canon compact photo printer named Selphy. I muted the videos to
direct participants’ attention to the visual content of the videos. In the non-anthropomorphic
video, the Canon printer was presented as an object and introduced from a third-person
perspective (e.g., “It’s a compact photo printer”). In the anthropomorphic video, the Canon
printer appeared to introduce itself using first-person language (e.g., “I’m a compact photo
printer”) with its “lips” moving when talking. Screenshots of the video stimuli are provided in
Appendix 5, Panel A.
After watching the videos, participants further imagined that they had just bought the
Canon printer and needed to further choose ink cartridges for their printer. Then, they made a
binary choice between a Canon ink cartridge pack and a low-cost alternative ink cartridge pack
provided by Staples (see Appendix 5, Panel B for the choice stimuli). In this and following
studies, participants were explicitly told that both accessories can be used for the focal base
product.
After participants made their brand choice, they rated the anthropomorphic qualities of
the base product as a manipulation check (“it seems as if this Canon printer has a mind of its
own,” “it seems as if this Canon printer has intentions,” and “it seems as if this Canon printer
56
experiences emotions”) on a 7-point scale (1 = “not at all,” 7 = “very much;” α = .90), adapted
from Waytz, Cacioppo, and Epley (2010). To exclude the possibility that the anthropomorphic
product presentation influenced brand choice simply due to a halo effect created by product
anthropomorphism, I also measured participants’ attitude toward the Canon printer shown in the
videos (1 = “bad/negative/unfavorable/dislike,” 7 = “good/positive/favorable/like;” α = .97).
4.2 Results
Manipulation and Control Checks. As expected, participants perceived the Canon
printer as having more humanlike qualities in the anthropomorphic condition than in the non-
anthropomorphic condition (Manthropomorphic = 3.74 vs. Mnon-anthropomorphic = 2.10; F(1,154) = 49.00,
p < .001). Moreover, the anthropomorphism manipulation did not influence participants’ attitude
toward the Canon printer shown in the videos (F(1,154) = .87, p > .35).
Brand Choice. A logistic regression showed that the anthropomorphic presentation of the
Canon printer increased participants’ choice share of its same-brand ink cartridges (i.e., Canon)
over its different-brand ink cartridges (i.e., Staples), such that participants were more likely to
choose the Canon ink cartridge pack for their Canon printer in the anthropomorphic condition
(50.0%) than in the non-anthropomorphic condition (34.2%; b = .65, Wald χ
2
(1) = 3.94, p < .05),
confirming hypothesis 1.
4.3 Discussion
Study 1 provided initial evidence that anthropomorphic presentations of a base product
will increase consumers’ choice share of accessories from the same brand that provides the base
product over accessories from a different brand. Additional analyses further suggested that such
57
an effect is different from a halo effect associated with product anthropomorphism, given that the
anthropomorphic product presentation did not influence participants’ liking for the base product
(i.e., Canon printer).
5. Study 2
Study 2 aimed to extend Study 1 in two ways. First, according to the bodily consideration
account, anthropomorphic presentations of a base product should decrease the perceived
compatibility between the base product and its different-brand accessories (hypothesis 2), which
will mediate the effect of anthropomorphic product presentation on brand choice of accessories
(hypothesis 3). To test these hypotheses, I included a compatibility measure in Study 2. Second,
in Study 1, participants made a binary choice between a same-brand accessory and a low-cost
alternative offered by a different brand. Although this setup reflected the reality in the market,
one may argue that the observed effect of anthropomorphic product presentation on brand choice
may have resulted from a strengthened preference for a high-price accessory rather than from an
amplified preference for a same-brand option. To rule out this possibility and generalize the
results of Study 1, in Study 2 I set the retail price of a different-brand accessory to be higher than
that of a same-brand accessory and used a different stimulus for the base product.
5.1 Procedure
I randomly assigned 201 participants (90 females; Mage = 32.73, SD = 10.11) from the
United States recruited via a national online panel to either an anthropomorphic condition or a
non-anthropomorphic condition. I relied on a manipulation approach similar to the one used in
58
Study 1 and created a pair of video stimuli about a Samsung laptop computer, named ATIV. The
two videos had the same duration (62 seconds) and setup and were muted so that participants
could focus solely on the visual content of the videos. In the non-anthropomorphic video, I
described the Samsung laptop computer from a third-person perspective (e.g., “It has a hyper real
display”). In the anthropomorphic video, the Samsung laptop computer introduced itself in the
first person (e.g., “I have a hyper real display”) and displayed on its screen an interactive
interface which looked like Cortana, an intelligent personal assistant in the Microsoft Windows
operating system (see screenshots of the video stimuli in Appendix 6, Panel A).
After participants watched the videos, they were instructed to imagine that they had just
purchased the Samsung laptop computer at an online retailer. Participants were further told that
to celebrate its anniversary, the online retailer offered to upgrade the hard drive of their Samsung
laptop computer from 128GB to 256GB at only $10, and they could choose between a Samsung
solid state hard drive (the retail price is $99.99) and a Toshiba solid state hard drive (the retail
price is $145.99; see Appendix 6, Panel B for the choice stimuli). After making their brand
choice, participants further rated the perceived compatibility between the Samsung ATIV laptop
computer and the Toshiba hard drive on two 7-point items (“this Samsung ATIV laptop computer
would be compatible with the Toshiba hard drive,” and “this Samsung ATIV laptop computer
would work well with the Toshiba hard drive;” 1 = “not at all,” 7 = “very much;” α = .97). At the
end of the experiment, the same items used in Study 1 were adapted to measure perceived
anthropomorphic qualities of and attitude toward the Samsung laptop computer.
59
5.2 Results
Manipulation and Control Checks. As expected, participants perceived the Samsung
laptop computer to possess more humanlike qualities in the anthropomorphic condition than in
the non-anthropomorphic condition (Manthropomorphic = 2.54 vs. Mnon-anthropomorphic = 1.63; F(1,199)
= 19.72, p < .001), but their attitude toward the Samsung laptop computer did not differ across
the two conditions (F(1,199) = 1.39, p > .24).
Brand Choice. Replicating the results of Study 1, the anthropomorphic presentation of
the Samsung laptop computer increased participants’ choice share of the Samsung hard drive
over the Toshiba hard drive, compared to the non-anthropomorphic presentation. Specifically,
participants were more likely to choose the Samsung hard drive for their Samsung laptop
computer in the anthropomorphic condition than in the non-anthropomorphic condition (79.0%
vs. 62.4%; b = .82, Wald χ
2
(1) = 6.55, p < .01), further supporting hypothesis 1.
Perceived Compatibility. Consistent with my expectation, the anthropomorphic
presentation of the Samsung laptop computer also decreased the perceived compatibility between
the Samsung laptop computer and the Toshiba hard drive, compared to the non-anthropomorphic
product presentation (Manthropomorphic = 5.01 vs. Mnon-anthropomorphic = 5.62; F(1, 199) = 7.29, p
< .01). More importantly, the perceived compatibility between the Samsung laptop computer and
the Toshiba hard drive mediated the effect of anthropomorphic product presentation on brand
choice of accessories (95%CI: .15, .89). These results supported hypotheses 2 and 3.
5.3 Discussion
Taken together, Studies 1 and 2 showed that anthropomorphic presentations of a base
60
product increase consumers’ choice share of same-brand accessories over different-brand
accessories, regardless of whether same-brand accessories are more (Study 1) or less (Study 2)
expensive in terms of retail price than different-brand accessories. More importantly, in line with
the bodily consideration account, Study 2 demonstrated that anthropomorphic presentations of a
base product decrease the perceived compatibility between the base product and its different-
brand accessories, which drives the effect of anthropomorphic product presentation on brand
choice of accessories. In the following studies, I will provide further evidence for the bodily
consideration explanation.
6. Study 3
The purpose of Study 3 was to demonstrate that anthropomorphic product presentations
only influence consumers’ brand choice of accessories for the focal base product, but not their
brand choice of other products that can work independently of the focal product (hypothesis 4).
This is because a “whole-part” relationship between two products does not exist in the latter
context, and thus a bodily consideration should not be activated, consequently inhibiting
consumers’ projection of their own aversion to foreign body-related substances onto this context.
6.1 Procedure
Two hundred and one participants (98 females; Mage = 32.52, SD = 10.52) from the
United States recruited via a national online panel were randomly assigned to four conditions in
a 2 (Presentation of the base product: anthropomorphic vs. non-anthropomorphic) × 2 (Type of
the decision target: accessory vs. independent product) between-subjects design. I adopted the
61
same stimulus (i.e., Samsung laptop computer) and videos (see screenshots of the video stimuli
in Appendix 6, Panel A) used in Study 2 for the manipulation of anthropomorphic versus non-
anthropomorphic product presentations.
To manipulate decision target, I asked participants to make decisions about either what
hard drive to choose for their Samsung laptop computer in the accessory condition or what tablet
computer to buy in addition to their Samsung laptop computer in the independent product
condition. Specifically, a half of participants learned that the online retailer offered to upgrade
the hard drive of their Samsung laptop computer from 128GB to 256GB at only $10, and then
they chose between a Samsung solid state hard drive (the retail price is $99.99) and a Toshiba
solid state hard drive (the retail price is $145.99; see Appendix 6, Panel B for the choice stimuli).
The other half of participants were told that the online retailer offered an additional tablet
computer for those who bought a Samsung laptop computer at only $10, and then they made a
binary choice between a Samsung tablet computer (the retail price is $99.99) and a Toshiba tablet
computer (the retail price is $145.99; see Appendix 6, Panel C for the choice stimuli). After
making their brand choice, participants answered the same questions that were used in Studies 1
and 2 regarding their perceived anthropomorphic qualities of and attitude toward the Samsung
laptop computer shown in the videos.
6.2 Results
Manipulation and Control Checks. A two-way ANOV A indicated that the Samsung
laptop computer was perceived to possess more humanlike qualities in the anthropomorphic
condition than in the non-anthropomorphic condition (Manthropomorphic = 2.52 vs. Mnon-anthropomorphic
62
= 1.67; F(1,197) = 16.06, p < .001), and type of the decision target and its interaction with
presentation of the base product did not influence the perceived anthropomorphic qualities of the
base product (F’s < .09, p’s > .76). In addition, neither presentation of the base product, type of
the decision target, nor their interaction influenced participants’ attitude toward the Samsung
laptop computer shown in the videos (F’s < 1.28, p’s > .25).
Brand Choice. Using the macro developed by Hayes and Matthes (2009), I ran a
moderated logistic regression to test the two-way interaction between presentation of the base
product (-1 = non-anthropomorphic, 1 = anthropomorphic) and type of the decision target (-1 =
accessory, 1 = independent product) on participants’ brand choice (0 = different-brand option, 1
= same-brand option). Presentation of the base product and type of the decision target had an
interaction effect on brand choice (b = -1.12, z = -1.88, p = .06). Further simple contrasts showed
that the anthropomorphic presentation of the Samsung laptop computer increased participants’
choice share of the Samsung hard drive, compared to the non-anthropomorphic presentation
(74.5% vs. 54.7%; b = .83, z = 1.95, p = .05). In contrast, the choice share of the Samsung tablet
computer was similar across the anthropomorphic condition and the non-anthropomorphic
condition (61.2% vs. 68.0%; b = -.29, z = -.70, p > .48). These results supported hypothesis 4.
6.3 Discussion
Study 3 demonstrated that the effect of anthropomorphic product presentation on brand
choice does not apply to consumers’ decision about other options that can work independently of
the focal base product. Together with the findings of Studies 1 and 2, the results of Study 3
further confirmed that the effect of anthropomorphic product presentation on accessory decision
63
is different from a product-level halo effect because anthropomorphic presentations did not
influence attitude toward the base products in Studies 1 –3. This effect cannot be explained by a
brand-level halo effect, either. If this effect occurred because anthropomorphic product
presentations increased consumers’ liking for the focal brand, in Study 3 I should have observed
that the anthropomorphic presentation of the Samsung laptop computer also increased
participants’ choice share of the Samsung tablet computer, which was not the case.
7. Study 4
To further support the bodily consideration account, Study 4 aimed to demonstrate that
consumers’ trait-level aversion to foreign body-related substances will determine the strength of
the effect of anthropomorphic product presentation on brand choice of accessories, such that this
effect will become more evident with an increase in aversion to foreign body-related substances
(hypothesis 5). To test this hypothesis, I measured participants’ trait-level aversion to foreign
body-related substances in Study 4.
7.1 Procedure
I randomly assigned 102 undergraduate students from University of Southern California
(59 females; Mage = 20.39, SD = 1.93) to either an anthropomorphic condition or a non-
anthropomorphic condition. Different from Studies 1 –3 that manipulated anthropomorphic
product presentations by combining humanlike visual features and first-person descriptions,
Study 4 relied on a first-person perspective only without modifying any visual features in the
anthropomorphic condition to generalize the results of the first three studies. The stimulus for the
64
base product was Sonicare, the Philips electric toothbrush (see Appendix 7, Panel A for the
product stimuli). After imagining having bought the Philips electric toothbrush, participants were
asked to choose between a pack of Philips replacement brush heads and a pack of low-cost
alternative replacement brush heads provided by Up & Up (a store brand owned by Target) for
their Philips electric toothbrush (see Appendix 7, Panel B for the choice stimuli). Then, they
completed the same measures on product anthropomorphism and attitude toward the base
product (i.e., Philips electric toothbrush) used in the previous studies.
At the end of survey, I measured participants’ aversion to foreign body-related
substances. Since disgust represents a typical emotional response of such a biological aversion
(Burris & Rempel, 2004), I asked participants how disgusting they found each of the following
experiences that are common in daily life, including “receiving a hypodermic (i.e., beneath the
skin) injection in the arm,” “receiving an anesthetic injection in the mouth,” “having a dental
implant,” and “having a blood transfusion,” on a 7-point scale (1 = “not at all,” 7 = “very much;”
α = .81). These items were adapted from Burris and Rempel (2004) and Olatunji et al. (2007). I
expected that aversion to foreign body-related substances as a trait-level variable would
strengthen the effect of anthropomorphic product presentation on participants’ brand choice of
replacement brush heads.
7.2 Results
Manipulation and Control Checks. The anthropomorphic presentation indeed induced a
greater perception of humanlike qualities than the non-anthropomorphic product presentation did
(Manthropomorphic = 2.74 vs. Mnon-anthropomorphic = 2.09; F(1, 100) = 4.26, p < .04). Although in this
65
study, the anthropomorphic product presentation marginally decreased participants’ attitude
toward the Philips electric toothbrush (Manthropomorphic = 5.05 vs. Mnon-anthropomorphic = 5.46; F(1,
100) = 2.90, p = .09), such a result only made this study more conservative. Further, adding
product attitude as a covariate did not change the effect of anthropomorphic product presentation
on brand choice reported in the following sections.
Brand Choice. Replicating the results of Studies 1 –3, I found that product presentation
influenced participants’ choice share of the Philips replacement brush heads over the Up & Up
replacement brush heads. Specifically, they were more likely to choose the Philips replacement
brush head pack for their Philips electric toothbrush in the anthropomorphic condition (52.8%)
than in the non-anthropomorphic condition (30.6%; b = .93, Wald χ
2
(1) = 5.05, p < .03), again
supporting hypothesis 1.
Aversion to Foreign Body-Related Substances. I ran a moderated regression analysis
using the Macro developed by Hayes and Matthes (2009). I found that participants’ trait-level
aversion to foreign body-related substances (mean-centered) moderated the effect of product
presentation (-1 = non-anthropomorphic, 1 = anthropomorphic) on their brand choice (0 =
different-brand accessory, 1 = same-brand accessory; b = .55, z = 2.05, p < .04; J-N point = 3.72,
which was below 3.98, the sample mean of aversion to foreign body-related substances), such
that this effect was getting stronger with an increase in participants’ trait-level aversion to foreign
body-related substances. A floodlight analysis suggested by Spiller et al. (2012) is provided in
Figure 4. This result supported hypothesis 5.
66
Figure 4. Floodlight Analysis
7.3 Discussion
Study 4 provided further support for the bodily consideration account by showing that the
effect of anthropomorphic product presentation on brand choice of accessories is stronger for
consumers who chronically have a greater aversion to foreign body-related substances.
8. General Discussion
In four studies, I show that anthropomorphic presentations of a base product can increase
consumers’ choice share of accessories from the same brand that provides the base product over
accessories provided by a different brand. I demonstrate this effect across different product
categories (i.e., printer and ink cartridge in Study 1, laptop computer and hard drive in Studies 2
and 3, and electric toothbrush and replacement brush head in Study 4), and show that this effect
holds regardless of whether the retail price of a same-brand accessory is higher (Studies 1 and 4)
67
or lower (Studies 2 and 3) than that of a different-brand accessory. Furthermore, this effect is not
simply due to a product-level (Studies 1 –4) or brand-level (Study 3) halo effect created by
product anthropomorphism.
In line with the bodily consideration account, I further demonstrate that the effect of
anthropomorphic presentation of a base product on brand choice of its accessories is (1) driven
by a decrease in the perceived compatibility between a base product and its different-brand
accessories (Study 2), (2) not applicable to consumers’ decision about other products that can
work independently of a base product (Study 3), and (3) stronger for consumers who are highly
averse to foreign body-related substances at their trait level (Study 4).
8.1 Theoretical Contributions
Due to their importance in various domains from brand profitability, innovation diffusion,
to retail management, complementary goods have been extensively examined in the marketing
literature. Extant research on complementary goods has mainly investigated how to model
complementary relationships among products across different categories (Berry et al., 2014;
Derdenger & Kumarn, 2013; Duvvuri, Ansari, & Gupta, 2007; Jedidi, Jagpal, & Manchanda,
2003; Lattin & McAlister, 1985; Manchanda, Ansari, & Gupta, 1999) and how consumers’
choice of or firms’ pricing decision about a product is influenced by complementary goods for
the focal product (Aribarg & Foutz, 2009; Bhaskaran & Gilbert, 2005; Mulhern & Leone, 1991;
Sinitsyn, 2012; Yalcin et al., 2013). In addition, a few studies have explored how consumers
choose among different types of complementary goods, which may fulfill vastly different
purposes, for a focal product (Chandon & Wansink, 2007; Dhar & Simonson, 1999; Erat &
68
Bhaskaran, 2012). In the literature on complementary goods, a relatively under-researched area is
about what influences consumers’ brand decision when they can choose between a
complementary good from the same brand that provides the focal product and another similar
complement from a different brand. On this important issue, prior research has established that
all else being equal, consumers have an innate preference for same-brand complementary goods
over different-brand complements because they believe that products from the same brand better
coordinate with each other (Ma, Seetharaman, & Narasimhan, 2012; Mulhern & Leone, 1991;
Rahinel & Redden, 2013; Simonin & Ruth, 1995; Sinitsyn, 2012). Nevertheless, in the context of
complementary accessories which the present research focuses on, this equivalence assumption
usually does not hold because it is more common that generic brands provide accessories with a
greater value (e.g., a lower price) to compete against accessories from a major brand that
manufactures the base product, making it imperative to understand what factors can further
strengthen consumers’ innate preference for same-brand accessories. My studies add to this
stream of research by showing that subtle anthropomorphic cues related to a base product can
alter consumers’ subjective perception of the compatibility between the base product and its
different-brand accessories, and as a consequence further upwardly shift their brand choice of
same-brand accessories.
The present research also contributes to the product anthropomorphism literature by
providing further insights into the processes through which anthropomorphism can influence
consumer decision making. Extant research has broadly identified three mechanisms underlying
the anthropomorphism effects, which can be activated by different specific decision targets or
69
contexts, respectively. In the literature, most research has focused on how consumers treat
anthropomorphized entities as social agents and how moral concerns and principles related to
interpersonal relationships influence consumers’ decisions about anthropomorphized products
(Aggarwal & McGill, 2012; Ahn, Kim, & Aggarwal, 2013; Butterfield, Hill, & Lord, 2012;
Chandler & Schwarz, 2010; Kim & Kramer, 2015; Kim & McGill, 2011; Kwak, Puzakova, &
Rocereto, 2015; May & Monga, 2014; Nass & Moon, 2000; Tam, Lee, & Chao, 2013; Touré -
Tillery & McGill, 2015). Another stream of research has instead examined how consumers
regard anthropomorphized products as intentional agents and how product anthropomorphism
influences consumers’ attribution of responsibility for product-related incidents between the
focal product and themselves (Hur, Koo, & Hofmann, 2015) or situational causes (Puzakova,
Kwak, & Rocereto, 2013). In addition, consumers may also perceive anthropomorphized
products as intelligent agents, and consequently believe that these products are more capable of
accomplishing complex tasks (Waytz, Heafner, & Epley, 2014). Complementing these three
perspectives, the present research uncovers a novel mechanism by demonstrating that product
anthropomorphism can also trigger a bodily consideration, in which consumers perceive an
anthropomorphized base product as a flesh-and-blood agent and consequently regard its
innocuous different-brand accessories as infectious foreign body substances that are going to
invade the humanlike base product. This bodily consideration perspective further enriches our
understanding of the anthropomorphism effects.
8.2 Managerial Implications
Despite the widespread application of the “razor-and-blade” model in marketing practice
70
over more than one hundred years since its first introduction by Gillet (Picker, 2011),
experimental research on how to influence consumers’ choice of same-brand accessories over
different-brand accessories for a base product is still limited. The present research provides
proactive suggestions for major brands about how to strengthen consumers’ preference for same-
brand accessories. I suggest that marketers who work for major brands may consider presenting
their base products as human beings in print or video ads as a means of protecting their market
shares from the threat of low-cost alternatives provided by generic brands in the accessory
market. Exposures to product ads in daily life will shape consumers’ product perception and
ultimately influence their accessory decision. In addition, humanlike features can be directly
incorporated into the visual appearance of a product (e.g., marketers can make the front of a car
or that of a printer look like a human face), and anthropomorphic qualities can be perceived from
interactive functional features of a product as well (e.g., people are more likely to perceive a
smartphone as a human being when they talk to the phone using Siri or Cortana; Wan &
Aggarwal, 2015). These product-level visual and functional features also serve as effective
solutions for stimulating choice of same-brand accessories. Moreover, my bodily consideration
account suggests that the purpose for protecting a brand’s market share in the accessory market
can be similarly fulfilled when marketers present their base products as animals, given that a
bodily consideration can be more or less triggered by all creatures made of flesh and blood.
My findings also shed light on how to make anthropomorphic product presentation an
even more effective tool to increase consumers’ choice share of same-brand accessories. Given
that consumers’ aversion to foreign body-related substances determines the effectiveness of
71
anthropomorphic product presentation in influencing accessory decision, any cultural or
situational antecedent of such an aversion should a play a similar role. For instance, in influenza
seasons, people may have a greater concern for contagion (Lee et al., 2010), and thus their
aversion to infectious foreign body-related substances may also be stronger. In such periods,
investments in advertising using anthropomorphic product presentations may enjoy a more
profitable return in terms of stimulating consumers’ choice share of same-brand accessories over
different-brand accessories. In order to strengthen the effectiveness of anthropomorphic product
presentations, marketers from major brands can also further explicitly frame their accessories as
body substances to a base product. In contrast, generic brands that only manufacture accessories
for mainstream base products may consider framing their accessories as non-body substances
(e.g., framing a phone screen as a shield to a phone) as a counter-measure when major brands
anthropomorphize their base products in marketing communications or product designs.
8.3 Directions for Future Research
The present research examines how anthropomorphic product presentations influence
consumers’ brand decision in the context of complementary accessories. More specifically, I
focus on tangible accessories that have physical forms, such as replacement brush heads. In the
market, there also exist many intangible accessories, such as software and service. Given that
these intangible accessories are not physical entities, I do not expect that consumers will perceive
them as body substances to an anthropomorphized base product, and thus anthropomorphic
product presentations should not influence their brand decisions about these intangible
accessories. Future research can empirically examine this issue and explore solutions for
72
strengthening consumers’ preference for same-brand intangible accessories.
As a main contribution of this research, I demonstrate that product anthropomorphism
can trigger a bodily consideration, which further influences consumer decision making. One
direction for follow-up studies is to identify other contexts in which such a bodily consideration
may exert its influence. One possibility is that product anthropomorphism may interact with
country of origin and location of usage in influencing product evaluation. For instance,
consumers in Florida may worry about using an anthropomorphized product originating from
Sweden if they believe that the “body build” of this humanlike product is used to cold
temperatures. Such an interesting direction awaits further investigations.
Anthropomorphic product presentations may influence other post-acquisition decisions
as well. For example, not all products are disposed of the same way at the end of their life cycle,
with some of them properly recycled and others thrown away carelessly by consumers. It is
possible that consumers may dispose of an anthropomorphized product in a more careful and
proper manner rather than throw it away carelessly, given that anthropomorphism can trigger
consumers’ application of principles governing interpersonal relationships to the focal product
(e.g., Kim & McGill, 2011). Future research can examine how product anthropomorphism
affects other types of post-acquisition decision.
73
REFERENCES
Aaker, J. L., Benet-Martí nez, V ., & Garolera, J. (2001). Consumption symbols as carriers of
culture: A Study of Japanese and Spanish brand personality constructs. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 492-508.
Aggarwal, P., & McGill, A. L. (2007). Is that car smiling at me? Schema congruity as a basis for
evaluating anthropomorphized products. Journal of Consumer Research, 34, 468-479.
Aggarwal, P., & McGill, A. L. (2012). When brands seem human, do humans act like brands?
Automatic behavioral priming effects of brand anthropomorphism. Journal of Consumer
Research, 39, 307-323.
Ahn, H., Kim, H. J., & Aggarwal, P. (2014). Helping fellow beings: Anthropomorphized social
causes and the role of anticipatory guilt. Psychological Science, 25, 224-229.
Argo, J. J., Dahl, D. W., & Morales, A. C. (2006). Consumer contamination: How consumers
react to products touched by others. Journal of Marketing, 70, 81-94.
Aribarg, A., & Foutz, N. Z. (2009). Category-based screening in choice of complementary
products. Journal of Marketing Research, 46, 518-530.
Barone, M. J., Miniard, P. W., & Romeo, J. B. (2000). The influence of positive mood on brand
extension evaluations. Journal of Consumer Research, 26, 386-400.
Basu, A., Mazumdar, T., & Raj, S. P. (2003). Indirect network externality effects on product
attributes. Marketing Science, 22, 209-221.
74
Berry, S., Khwaja, A., Kumar, V., Musalem, A., Wilbur, K. C., Allenby, G. M., Anand, B.,
Chintagunta, P., Hanemann, W. M., Jeziorski, P., & Mele, A. (2014). Structural models
of complementary choices. Marketing Letters, 25, 245-256.
Bhaskaran, S. R., & Gilbert, S. M. (2005). Selling and leasing strategies for durable goods with
complementary products. Management Science, 51, 1278-1290.
Bloch, P. H., Brunel, F., & Arnold, T. (2003). “Individual differences in the centrality of visual
product aesthetics: Concept and measurement. Journal of Consumer Research, 29, 551-
565.
Borgi, M., Gogliati-Dezza, I., Brelsford, V ., Meints, K., & Cirulli, F. (2014). Baby schema in
human and animal faces induces cuteness perception and gaze allocation in children.
Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 00411.
Brosch, T., Sander, D., & Scherer, K. R. (2007). That baby caught my eye…Attention capture by
infant faces. Emotion, 7, 685-689.
Bucklin, R. E., Russell, G. J., & Srinivasan, V. (1998). A relationship between market share
elasticities and brand switching probabilities. Journal of Marketing Research, 35, 99-113.
Burris, C. T., & Rempel, J. K. (2004). “It’s the end of the world as we know it”: Threat and the
spatial-symbolic self. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86, 19-42.
Butterfield, M. E., Hill, S. E., & Lord, C. G. (2012). Mangy mutt or furry friend?
Anthropomorphism promotes animal welfare. Journal of Experimental Social
Psychology, 48, 957-960.
75
Chandler, J., & Schwarz, N. (2010). Use does not wear ragged the fabric of friendship: Thinking
of objects as alive makes people less willing to replace them. Journal of Consumer
Psychology, 20, 138-145.
Chandon, P., & Wansink, B. (2007). The biasing health halos of fast-food restaurant health
claims: lower calorie estimates and higher side-dish consumption intentions. Journal of
Consumer Research, 34, 301-314.
Chernev, A. (2005). Context effects without a context: Attribute balance as a reason for choice.
Journal of Consumer Research, 32, 213-223.
Cho, S., Gonzalez, R., & Yoon, C. (2011). Cross-cultural difference in the preference for cute
products: Asymmetric dominance effect with product designs. Paper presented at the 4
th
World Conference on Design Research, Delft, the Netherlands.
Coates, D. (2003). Watches Tell More than Time: Product Design, Information and the Quest for
Elegance. London: McGraw-Hill.
Crilly, N., Moultrie, J., & Clarkson, P. J. (2004). Seeing things: Consumer response to the visual
domain in product design. Design studies, 25, 547-577.
Dahl, D. W., Sengupta, J., & Vohs, K. D. (2009). Sex in advertising: Gender differences and the
role of relationship commitment. Journal of Consumer Research, 36, 215-231.
Derdenger, T., & Kumar, V. (2013). The dynamic effects of bundling as a product strategy.
Marketing Science, 32, 827-859.
Dhar, R., & Simonson, I. (1999). Making complementary choices in consumption episodes:
Highlighting versus balancing. Journal of Marketing Research, 36, 29-44.
76
Dommer, S. L., & Swaminathan, V. (2013). Explaining the endowment effect through
ownership: The role of identity, gender, and self-threat. Journal of Consumer Research,
39, 1034-1050.
Dubé , J. P., Hitsch, G. J., & Rossi, P. E. (2009). Do switching costs make markets less competitive?
Journal of Marketing Research, 46, 435-445.
Dukes, A., & Liu, L. (2015). Online shopping intermediaries: The strategic design of search
environments. Management Science, forthcoming.
Duvvuri, S. D., Ansari, A., & Gupta, S. (2007). Consumers' price sensitivities across
complementary categories. Management Science, 53, 1933-1945.
Erat, S., & Bhaskaran, S. R. (2012). Consumer mental accounts and implications to selling base
products and add-ons. Marketing Science, 31, 801-818.
Ferraro, R., Escalas, J. E., & Bettman, J. R. (2011). Our possessions, our selves: Domains of self-
worth and the possession–self link. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 21, 169-177.
Frels, J. K., Shervani, T., & Srivastava, R. K. (2003). The integrated networks model: Explaining
resource allocations in network markets. Journal of Marketing, 67, 29-45.
Frith, K. T., Cheng, H., & Shaw, P. (2004). Race and beauty: A comparison of Asian and
Western models in women's magazine advertisements. Sex Roles, 50, 53-61.
Gershoff, A. D., Mukherjee, A., & Mukhopadhyay, A. (2008). What's not to like? Preference
asymmetry in the false consensus effect. Journal of Consumer Research, 35, 119-125.
77
Glocker, M. L., Langleben, D. D., Ruparel, K., Loughead, J. W., Gur, R. C., & Sachser, N.
(2009). Baby schema in infant faces induces cuteness perception and motivation for
caretaking in adults. Ethology, 115, 257-263.
Golle, J., Lisibach, S., Mast, F. W., & Lobmaier, J. S. (2013). Sweet puppies and cute babies:
Perceptual adaptation to babyfacedness transfers across species. PloS One, 8, e58248.
Gorn, G. J., Jiang, Y., & Johar, G. V. (2008). Babyfaces, trait inferences, and company
evaluations in a public relations crisis. Journal of Consumer Research, 35, 36-49.
Griskevicius, V., & Kenrick, D. T. (2013). Fundamental motives: How evolutionary needs
influence consumer behavior. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 23, 372-386.
Griskevicius, V., Shiota, M. N., & Neufeld, S. L. (2010). Influence of different positive emotions
on persuasion processing: A functional evolutionary approach. Emotion, 10, 190-206.
Griskevicius, V., Tybur, J. M., & Van den Bergh, B. (2010). Going green to be seen: Status,
reputation, and conspicuous conservation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
98, 392-404.
Harris, J., & Blair, E. A. (2006). Functional compatibility risk and consumer preference for
product bundles. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 34, 19-26.
Haws, K., Reczek, R. W., Coulter, R. A., & Bearden, W. O. (2012). Keeping it all without being
buried alive: Understanding product retention tendency. Journal of Consumer
Psychology, 22, 224-236.
Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis:
A Regression-Based Approach. New York: Guilford.
78
Hayes, A. F., & Matthes, J. (2009). Computational procedures for probing interactions in OLS
and logistic regression: SPSS and SAS implementations. Behavior Research Methods,
41, 924-936.
Hellen, K., & Sä ä ksjä rvi, M. (2013). Development of a scale measuring childlike
anthropomorphism in products. Journal of Marketing Management, 29, 141-157.
Hildebrandt, K. A., & Fitzgerald, H. E. (1978). Adults’ responses to infants varying in perceived
cuteness. Behavioural Processes, 3, 159-172.
Hildebrandt, K. A., & Fitzgerald, H. E. (1979). Facial feature determinants of perceived infant
attractiveness. Infant Behavior and Development, 2, 329-339.
Hildebrandt, K. A., & Fitzgerald, H. E. (1983). The infant's physical attractiveness: Its effect on
bonding and attachment. Infant Mental Health Journal, 4, 1-12.
Hoegg, J., Alba, J. W., & Dahl, D. W. (2010). The good, the bad, and the ugly: Influence of
aesthetics on product feature judgments. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 20, 419-430.
Hur, J. D., Koo, M., & Hofmann, W. (2015). When temptations come alive: How
anthropomorphism undermines self-control. Journal of Consumer Research, 42, 340-358.
Inoue, K., & Tsuru, T. (1999). ABO antigen blood-group compatibility and allograft rejection in
corneal transplantation. Acta Ophthalmologica Scandinavica, 77, 495-499.
Jedidi, K., Jagpal, S., & Manchanda, P. (2003). Measuring heterogeneous reservation prices for
product bundles. Marketing Science, 22, 107-130.
79
Kim, H. C., & Kramer, T. (2015). Do materialists prefer the “brand-as-servant”? The interactive
effect of anthropomorphized brand roles and materialism on consumer responses. Journal
of Consumer Research, 42, 284-299.
Kim, S., & McGill, A. L. (2011). Gaming with Mr. Slot or gaming the slot machine? Power,
anthropomorphism, and risk perception. Journal of Consumer Research, 38, 94-107.
Krueger, J., & Clement, R. W. (1997). Estimates of social consensus by majorities and
minorities: The case for social projection. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 1,
299-313.
Kurt, D., Inman, J. J., & Argo, J. J. (2011). The influence of friends on consumer spending: The
role of agency-communion orientation and self-monitoring. Journal of Marketing
Research, 48, 741-754.
Kwak, H., Puzakova, M., & Rocereto, J. F. (2015). Better not smile at the price: The differential
role of brand anthropomorphization on perceived price fairness. Journal of Marketing,
79, 56-76.
Landwehr, J. R., McGill, A. L., & Herrmann, A. (2011). It's got the look: The effect of friendly
and aggressive “facial” expressions on product liking and sales. Journal of Marketing,
75, 132-146.
Laran, J., Janiszewski, C., & Cunha, M. (2008). Context-dependent effects of goal primes.
Journal of Consumer Research, 35, 653-667.
Lattin, J. M., & McAlister, L. (1985). Using a variety-seeking model to identify substitute and
complementary relationships among competing products. Journal of Marketing Research,
80
22, 330-339.
Lee, S. W., Schwarz, N., Taubman, D., & Hou, M. (2010). Sneezing in times of a flu pandemic:
Public sneezing increases perception of unrelated risks and shifts preferences for federal
spending. Psychological Science, 21, 375-377.
Little, A. C. (2012). Manipulation of infant-like traits affects perceived cuteness of infant, adult
and cat faces. Ethology, 118, 775-782.
Lobmaier, J. S., Sprengelmeyer, R., Wiffen, B., & Perrett, D. I. (2010). Female and male
responses to cuteness, age and emotion in infant faces. Evolution and Human Behavior,
31, 16-21.
Lorenz, K. (1971), Studies in Animal and Human Behaviour, Vol. 2. (R. Martin, Trans.).
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. (Original work published 1950)
Luo, L. Z., Li, H., & Lee, K. (2011). Are children’s faces really more appealing than those of
adults? Testing the baby schema hypothesis beyond infancy. Journal of Experimental
Child Psychology, 110, 115-124.
Ma, Y., Seetharaman, P. B., & Narasimhan, C. (2012). Modeling dependencies in brand choice
outcomes across complementary categories. Journal of Retailing, 88, 47-62.
Ma, Z., Gill, T., & Jiang, Y. (2015). Core versus peripheral innovations: The effect of innovation
locus on consumer adoption of new products. Journal of Marketing Research, 52, 309-
324.
81
MacInnis, D. J., & Folkes, V. S. (2010). The disciplinary status of consumer behavior: A
sociology of science perspective on key controversies. Journal of Consumer Research,
36, 899-914.
Manchanda, P., Ansari, A., & Gupta, S. (1999). The “shopping basket”: A model for
multicategory purchase incidence decisions. Marketing Science, 18, 95-114.
May, F., & Monga, A. (2014). When time has a will of its own, the powerless don't have the will
to wait: Anthropomorphism of time can decrease patience. Journal of Consumer
Research, 40, 924-942.
Meyers-Levy, J., & Sternthal, B. (1993). A two-factor explanation of assimilation and contrast
effects. Journal of Marketing Research, 36, 359-368.
Miesler, L., Leder, H., & Herrmann, A. (2011). Isn’t it cute: An evolutionary perspective of
baby-schema effects in visual product designs. International Journal of Design, 5, 17-30.
Monga, A. B., & Gü rhan-Canli, Z. (2012). The influence of mating mind-sets on brand extension
evaluation. Journal of Marketing Research, 49, 581-593.
Morewedge, C. K., Preston, J., & Wegner, D. M. (2007). Timescale bias in the attribution of
mind. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93, 1-11.
Morreall, J. (1991). Cuteness. British Journal of Aesthetics, 31, 39-47.
Mulhern, F. J., & Leone, R. P. (1991). Implicit price bundling of retail products: A multiproduct
approach to maximizing store profitability. Journal of Marketing, 55, 63-76.
Nass, C., & Moon, Y. (2000). Machines and mindlessness: Social responses to computers.
Journal of Social Issues, 56, 81-103.
82
Naylor, R. W., Lamberton, C. P., & Norton, D. A. (2011). Seeing ourselves in others: Reviewer
ambiguity, egocentric anchoring, and persuasion. Journal of Marketing Research, 48,
617-631.
Nenkov, G. Y ., & Scott, M. L. (2014). “So cute I could eat it up”: Priming effects of cute
products on indulgent consumption. Journal of Consumer Research, 41, 326-341.
Nittono, H., Fukushima, M., Yano, A., & Moriya, H. (2012). The power of kawaii: Viewing cute
images promotes a careful behavior and narrows attentional focus. PloS One, 7, e46362.
Noble, P. M., & Gruca, T. S. (1999). Industrial pricing: Theory and managerial practice.
Marketing Science, 18, 435-454.
Olatunji, B. O., Sawchuk, C. N., de Jong, P. J., & Lohr, J. M. (2007). Disgust sensitivity and
anxiety disorder symptoms: Psychometric properties of the disgust emotion scale.
Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 29, 115-124.
Orth, U. R., Campana, D., & Malkewitz, K. (2010). Formation of consumer price expectation
based on package design: Attractive and quality routes. Journal of Marketing Theory and
Practice, 18, 23-40.
Orth, U. R., & Malkewitz, K. (2008). Holistic package design and consumer brand impressions.
Journal of Marketing, 72, 64-81.
Öst, L. G. (1992). Blood and injection phobia: Background and cognitive, physiological, and
behavioral variables. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 101, 68-74.
83
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, 133-147.
Park, C. W., Eisingerich, A. B., & Park, J. W. (2013). Attachment–aversion (AA) model of
customer–brand relationships. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 23, 229-248.
Park, C. W., Jun, S. Y., & MacInnis, D. J. (2000). Choosing what I want versus rejecting what I
do not want: An application of decision framing to product option choice decisions.
Journal of Marketing Research, 37, 187-202.
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, 1-17.
Park, C. W., Milberg, S., & Lawson, R. (1991). Evaluation of brand extensions: The role of
product feature similarity and brand concept consistency. Journal of Consumer Research,
18, 185-193.
Parsons, C. E., Young, K. S., Kumari, N., Stein, A., & Kringelbach, M. L. (2011). The
motivational salience of infant faces is similar for men and women. PloS One, 6, e20632.
Peck, J., & Shu, S. B. (2009). The effect of mere touch on perceived ownership. Journal of
Consumer Research, 36, 434-447.
Picker, R. C. (2011). The razors-and-blades myth(s). University of Chicago Law Review, 78, 225-
255.
84
Pol, G., Park, C. W., & Eisingerich, A. B. (2011). Blinding beauty: When and how product
attractiveness overpowers negative information. Paper presented at the Society for
Consumer Psychology Annual Winter Conference, GA: Atlanta.
Pol, G., Park, C. W., & Reimann, M. (2013). The power of beauty: How aesthetically appealing
products drive behavioral effort in consumers. Paper presented at the Anthropology of
Consumption and Markets Conference, Irvine, CA.
Puzakova, M., Kwak, H., & Rocereto, J. F. (2013). When humanizing brands goes wrong: The
detrimental effect of brand anthropomorphization amid product wrongdoings. Journal of
Marketing, 77, 81-100.
Rahinel, R., & Redden, J. P. (2013). Brands as product coordinators: Matching brands make joint
consumption experiences more enjoyable. Journal of Consumer Research, 39, 1290-
1299.
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.
Rozin, P., Nemeroff, C., Horowitz, M., Gordon, B., & Voet, W. (1995). The borders of the self:
Contamination sensitivity and potency of the body apertures and other body parts.
Journal of Research in Personality, 29, 318-340.
Rozin, P., Nemeroff, C., Wane, M., & Sherrod, A. (1989). Operation of the sympathetic magical
law of contagion in interpersonal attitudes among Americans. Bulletin of the
Psychonomic Society, 27, 367-370.
85
Sherman, G. D., & Haidt, J. (2011). Cuteness and disgust: The humanizing and dehumanizing
effects of emotion. Emotion Review, 3, 245-251.
Sherman, G. D., Haidt, J., & Coan, J. A. (2009). Viewing cute images increases behavioral
carefulness. Emotion, 9, 282-286.
Shi, J. P., Wang, X., Liu, X. Y ., & Zhu, J. N. (2011). Analysis on the application of traditional
shoulder adornment arts in fashion design. Advanced Materials Research, 175-176, 777-
781.
Shocker, A. D., Bayus, B. L., & Kim, N. (2004). Product complements and substitutes in the real
world: The relevance of “other products”. Journal of Marketing, 68, 28-40.
Shu, S. B., & Peck, J. (2011). Psychological ownership and affective reaction: Emotional
attachment process variables and the endowment effect. Journal of Consumer
Psychology, 21, 439-452.
Simonin, B. L., & Ruth, J. A. (1995). Bundling as a strategy for new product introduction:
Effects on consumers' reservation prices for the bundle, the new product, and its tie-in.
Journal of Business Research, 33, 219-230.
Sinitsyn, M. (2012). Coordination of price promotions in complementary categories.
Management Science, 58, 2076-2094.
Solomon, M. R., Ashmore, R. D., & Longo, L. C. (1992). The beauty match-up hypothesis:
Congruence between types of beauty and product images in advertising. Journal of
Advertising, 21, 23-34.
86
Spence, J. T., & Helmreich, R. L. (1978). Masculinity and Femininity: Their Psychological
Dimensions, Correlates, and Antecedents. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.
Spiecker, B., & Steutel, J. (2001). Reflective equilibrium as a method of philosophy of
education. Methods in Philosophy of Education, ed. Freida Heyting, Dieter Lenzen, and
John White (pp. 30-47). London: Routledge.
Spiller, S. A., Fitzsimons, G. J., Lynch Jr, J. G., & McClelland, G. H. (2013). Spotlights,
floodlights, and the magic number zero: Simple effects tests in moderated regression.
Journal of Marketing Research, 50, 277-288.
Sprengelmeyer, R., Perrett, D. I., Fagan, E. C., Cornwell, R. E., Lobmaier, J. S., Sprengelmeyer,
A., ... & Milne, N. (2009). The cutest little baby face a hormonal link to sensitivity to
cuteness in infant faces. Psychological Science, 20, 149-154.
Srinivasan, R., Lilien, G. L., & Rangaswamt, A. (2006). The emergence of dominant designs.
Journal of Marketing, 70, 1-17.
Tam, K. P., Lee, S. L., & Chao, M. M. (2013). Saving Mr. Nature: Anthropomorphism enhances
connectedness to and protectiveness toward nature. Journal of Experimental Social
Psychology, 49, 514-521.
Teece, D. J. (2010). Business models, business strategy and innovation. Long Range Planning,
43, 172-194.
Tellis, G. J. (1986). Beyond the many faces of price: An integration of pricing strategies. Journal
of Marketing, 50, 146-160.
87
Touré -Tillery, M., & McGill, A. L. (2015). Who or what to believe: Trust and the differential
persuasiveness of human and anthropomorphized messengers. Journal of Marketing, 79,
94-110.
Townsend, C., & Shu, S. B. (2010). When and how aesthetics influences financial decisions.
Journal of Consumer Psychology, 20, 452-458.
Townsend, C., & Sood, S. (2012). Self-affirmation through the choice of highly aesthetic
products. Journal of Consumer Research, 39, 415-428.
Trudel, R., & Argo, J. J. (2013). The effect of product size and form distortion on consumer
recycling behavior. Journal of Consumer Research, 40, 632-643.
Tversky, B., & Hemenway, K. (1984). Objects, parts, and categories. Journal of Experimental
Psychology: General, 113, 169-193.
Tybur, J. M., Lieberman, D., & Griskevicius, V . (2009). Microbes, mating, and morality: Individual
differences in three functional domains of disgust. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 97, 103-122.
United Laser (2015). The toner truth. http://www.unitedlaser.com/toner_truth.html.
Wan, J., & Aggarwal, P. (2015). Defriending Mr. Clean: The role of anthropomorphism in
consumer-brand relationships. Strong Brands, Strong Relationships, ed. Susan Fournier,
Michael Breazeale, and Jill Avery (pp. 119-134). Oxford, UK: Routledge.
Wang, Q., Chen, Y ., & Xie, J. (2010). Survival in markets with network effects: Product
compatibility and order-of-entry effects. Journal of Marketing, 74, 1-14.
Waytz, A., Cacioppo, J., & Epley, N. (2010). Who sees human? The stability and importance of
88
individual differences in anthropomorphism. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 5,
219-232.
Waytz, A., Heafner, J., & Epley, N. (2014). The mind in the machine: Anthropomorphism
increases trust in an autonomous vehicle. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 52,
113-117.
Waytz, A., Morewedge, C. K., Epley, N., Monteleone, G., Gao, J. H., & Cacioppo, J. T. (2010).
Making sense by making sentient: Effectance motivation increases anthropomorphism.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 99, 410-435.
Weiss, M. (1994). Nonperson and nonhome: Territorial seclusion of appearance-impaired
children. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 22, 463-487.
Yalcin, T., Ofek, E., Koenigsberg, O., & Biyalogorsky, E. (2013). Complementary goods:
Creating, capturing, and competing for value. Marketing Science, 32, 554-569.
Zebrowitz, L. A., Andreoletti, C., Collins, M. A., Lee, S. Y ., & Blumenthal, J. (1998). Bright,
bad, babyfaced boys: Appearance stereotypes do not always yield self-fulfilling prophecy
effects. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 1300-1320.
89
APPENDIX 1: STIMULI USED IN STUDY 1, CHAPTER 1
Cute-looking Elegant-looking
90
APPENDIX 2: STIMULI USED IN STUDY 2, CHAPTER 1
Cute-looking Elegant-looking
91
APPENDIX 3: STIMULI USED IN STUDY 3, CHAPTER 1
Cute-looking Elegant-looking
92
APPENDIX 4: STIMULI USED IN STUDY 4, CHAPTER 1
Cute-looking Elegant-looking
93
APPENDIX 5: STIMULI USED IN STUDY 1, CHAPTER 2
Panel A
Anthropomorphic Non-anthropomorphic
Panel B
94
APPENDIX 6: STIMULI USED IN STUDIES 2 AND 3, CHAPTER 2
Panel A (Studies 2 and 3)
Anthropomorphic Non-anthropomorphic
Panel B (Studies 2 and 3) Panel C (Study 3)
Accessory Product
95
APPENDIX 7: STIMULI USED IN STUDY 4, CHAPTER 2
Panel A
Anthropomorphic Non-anthropomorphic
Panel B
Abstract (if available)
Abstract
After consumers have acquired a product, they often need to make further post-acquisition decisions, including (1) whether to retain or discard the already-owned product and (2) what complementary goods to choose for the already-owned product. These post-acquisition decisions are important to brand profitability, consumer welfare, and sustainable consumption, yet systematic research on these decisions is scant. As marketing variables over which managers have direct control, both product designs and product presentations in advertising can strongly influence consumers' perceptions of an already-owned product and, as a consequence, have a potential impact on their decisions about the focal product. Drawing on both social and evolutionary psychological theories, my dissertation examines how product designs and product presentations shape consumers' post-acquisition decisions. ❧ In the first chapter, I focus on product retention decisions and investigate how cuteness (vs. elegance) as a visual theme of product design impacts consumers' decision about whether to retain or discard an already-owned product. Drawing on an evolutionary perspective, I demonstrate that, just as the cuteness of human and animal babies is conducive to bonding and relationship maintenance, a cute-looking product design results in consumers' higher willingness to retain the product than an elegant-looking product design does due to the stronger desire for nurturance triggered by cuteness versus elegance. Importantly, the advantage of cuteness over elegance in strengthening product retention is different from a general favorable response toward cuteness, given that the cuteness advantage over elegance does not necessarily extend to product acquisition decisions. This research identifies when cuteness-elicited nurturance desire matters in a consumption context and contributes to the burgeoning literatures on product retention and product aesthetics. ❧ My second chapter examines consumers' brand choice of complementary accessories for an already-owned product, which represents another type of post-acquisition decision. The famous ""razor-and-blade model"" has been employed across many industries, in which a firm mainly generates its profit from the sales of accessories (e.g., blades) for a base product (e.g., the razor). My second chapter shows that anthropomorphic presentations of a base product (e.g., making a Canon printer move its ""lips"" when ""talking"" in a video advertisement) increase consumers' choice share of complementary accessories provided by the same brand that offers the focal base product (e.g., Canon ink cartridges) over accessories from a different brand (e.g., Staples ink cartridges). This is because anthropomorphic presentations of a base product trigger a bodily consideration, in which consumers perceive accessories as ""body substances"" of the anthropomorphized base product. Consumers are naturally averse to foreign body-related substances, and they also project such an aversion onto complementary accessories from a competing brand, which represent ""foreign body substances"" to the focal base product. This research uncovers a novel mechanism through which product anthropomorphism affects consumer decision-making and addresses a very important managerial question.
Linked assets
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
Conceptually similar
PDF
The motivational power of beauty: how aesthetically appealing products drive purchase effort in consumers
PDF
Powerful brand influentials: conceptualization, measurement, and distinctiveness of a brand’s influential consumers
PDF
Essays on consumer product evaluation and online shopping intermediaries
Asset Metadata
Creator
Jia, He (Michael)
(author)
Core Title
How product designs and presentations influence consumers’ post-acquisition decisions
School
Marshall School of Business
Degree
Doctor of Philosophy
Degree Program
Business Administration
Publication Date
04/20/2017
Defense Date
03/04/2016
Publisher
University of Southern California
(original),
University of Southern California. Libraries
(digital)
Tag
Advertising,anthropomorphism,complementary goods,cuteness,OAI-PMH Harvest,post-acquisition decision,product design,product retention
Format
application/pdf
(imt)
Language
English
Contributor
Electronically uploaded by the author
(provenance)
Advisor
Park, C. Whan (
committee chair
), Cody, Michael (
committee member
), Folkes, Valerie (
committee member
), MacInnis, Deborah (
committee member
), Priester, Joseph (
committee member
)
Creator Email
hejia@usc.edu,jiahemkt@gmail.com
Permanent Link (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c40-237151
Unique identifier
UC11277165
Identifier
etd-JiaHeMicha-4325.pdf (filename),usctheses-c40-237151 (legacy record id)
Legacy Identifier
etd-JiaHeMicha-4325-0.pdf
Dmrecord
237151
Document Type
Dissertation
Format
application/pdf (imt)
Rights
Jia, He (Michael)
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
anthropomorphism
complementary goods
cuteness
post-acquisition decision
product design
product retention