An Investigation of the Processes by Which Product Design and Brand Strength Interact to Determine Initial Affect and Quality Judgments

JOURNAL OF CONSUMER PSYCHOLOGY, 12(2), 133-147 Copyright O 2002, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

An Investigation of the Processes by Which Product Design and Brand Strength Interact to Determine Initial Affect and Quality Judgments Christine Page Department of Management and Business Skidmore College

Paul M. Herr School of Business Administration University of Colorado

Prior research on product design has focused predominantly on the importance of product aesthetics in generating favorable consumer response. Interestingly, little attention has been given to the importance of aesthetics relative to product function (a fundamental component of product design) or to brand strength-two factors that are also considered to have a significant influence on consumers' product evaluations and on product success. This study investigates how product design (conceptualizedas product aesthetics and function) interacts with brand strength to influence consumers' product liking and quality evaluations. Results suggest that design and brand strength differentially impact liking and qualityjudgments. In addition,judgments of Iiking and quality are found to be different in the way they are formed. Specifically, product liking appears to be readily formed through a process that integrates design information only; brand strength exhibits no significant influence. Quality judgments appear to take longer to process, and involve the integration of design and brand information. "Every once in a while, a design comes along that makes you just sit up and say, Wow! I gotta get me one o' those right now! ... Last year, it was the new iMac, (and) this year the New Beetle" (Russell & Novosedlik, 1998, p. 22). Indeed, the unique aesthetics of these two products have been credited with much of their success. The iMac, with its all-in-one design, curvy translucent plastic casing, and overall simplicity has been hailed as the "the most interesting personal computer to hit the market" (Wildstrom, 1998, p. 18). Since the iMac's introduction in August 1997, more than 800,000 machines have been sold, increasing Apple Computer's market share to 5.3%, up 3.5% from a year earlier (Mitchell, 1999). Similarly, the distinct look of the new Volkswagen Beetle has been credited for much of Volkswagen's market success. Launched in April 1998, the new Beetle's symmetrical design complete with rounded fenders and oversized oval headlights, which are

Requests for reprints should be sent to Paul M. Herr, School of Business Administration, University of Colorado, Boulder, CO 80309.

noted to resemble "a happy face in a sea of snub-nosed competitors," (Vlasic, 1998, p. 88) helped Volkswagen to achieve an overall sales increase of 54% over the pervious year (Strategy, 1999). Product design, and in particular product aesthetics, is gaining increased attention as a strategic tool that firms can use to gain a sustainable competitive advantage (e.g., Kotler & Rath, 1984; Oakley, 1990; Nussbaum, 1988, 1997). In a survey of product designers in five countries in Europe and North America, aesthetics was declared as the key aspect of design by more than 75% of the respondents (Walker, 1995). The appearance of a product is considered integral to capturing consumer attention (Berkowitz, 1987; Bloch, 1995; Dumaine, 1991) and determining consumers' affective responses toward a product (i.e., their liking, or even emotional reaction toward a product; e.g., Holbrook & Zirlin, 1985; Veryzer, 1993). Product aesthetics is also argued to have a strong influence on consumers' beliefs about a product's characteristics such as its dollar value, technological sophistication, and prestige (Bloch, 1995; Nussbaum, 1993; Schmitt & Simonson, 1997; Walker, 1995).

134

PAGE AND HERR

Given the power of product aesthetics to gain consumer notice and influence consumer perceptions, it is hardly surprising that this design factor has drawn significant attention, as noted in both the popular press and the research literature. It is surprising, though, how little attention has been paid to product function in this context, an integral component to product design, and an important determinant of long-term product success (Ulrich & Eppinger, 1995). Reconsidering the iMac and the New Beetle, criticisms of these products' function have some industry analysts questioning their long-term success (e.g., Wildstrom, 1998; Silvius, 1998). Despite the overwhelmingly positive impact that the products' distinct aesthetics has had on consumers' affective evaluations, the products' function has received various criticisms, causing some individuals' higher-order (e.g., quality) evaluations to conflict with their initial affective response. Specifically, with regard to the iMac, the omission of a floppy disk drive has been noted as a major functional drawback of the computer (Wildstrom, 1998; PC World, 1998). Although an external unit can be added for a fee, the unit, complete with its cables, makes a mess of the iMac's elegance. Another noted functional drawback of the iMac is its use of Universal Serial Bus (USB) ports as a way of attaching accessories (e.g., printers, scanners; AsiaWeek, 1998; Olenick, 1998; Wildstorm, 1998). The problem with USB ports is that consumer's old non-USB accessories cannot be attached without adapters, if at all. Similarly, the New Beetle has also received some functional criticisms. Most notable is that the car's acceleration is slow compared with other sub-compact cars (Consumer Reports, 1998). Additional criticisms are that the side mirrors are positioned so that they obstruct your view when rounding corners (Henry, 1998), and that the car's A-pillars are too wide to see around (Autoweek, 1998). Veryzer (1995) argued that, to more completely understand consumers' response to product design, researchers need to adopt a conceptualization of design that acknowledges its aesthetic and functional components. Presumably, when both aspects of design are considered, it seems unlikely that consumers will respond to a product in a simple manner. We further suggest that it may be worthwhile to consider the impact of the brand name attached to a product when considering consumers' response to product design. It seems likely that brand strength may significantly impact consumers' product design evaluations. As an example, if a strong brand (e.g., BMW) is paired with poor functioning product, the value of the strong name may mitigate consumers' responses to the product's functional characteristics. Alternatively, if a weak brand (e.g., Yugo) is paired with a poor functioning product, the value of the weak name may reinforce consumers' evaluations. We investigate how product design (conceptualized as product aesthetics and function) interacts with brand strength to influence consumers' product liking and quality evaluations. This study not only provides insight into processes by which the elements of product design and brand strength in-

teract to determine consumer response, but also suggests ways in which product managers can capitalize on these processes to gain a competitive advantage.

CONCEPTUAL BACKGROUND Borrowing from the extant attitude, social cognition, design, and brand literature provides us with direction for considering how consumers may respond to product design. Figure 1 and Figure 2 provide a schematic overview of the theoretic base for our work. If we consider that consumer attitudes may consist of an affective component (feelings, liking, oremotion) as well as a cognitive component (evaluative beliefs and thoughts about an attitude object; see Bagozzi & Burnkrant, 1979, 1985; Eagly & Chaiken, 1993), some simple yet potentially powerful predictions may be generated. Before examining these predictions however, we examine some theoretical distinctions between the two components. A rich literature examines distinctions between so-called affective and cognitive judgments. Zajonc (1980) for instance, suggested that affective (liking) judgments are primary, approach judgments, and may be in part biologically based. He also argued that these judgments are made very rapidly and temporally precede more cognitive or information-based judgments.' From a functional perspective, such judgments may serve as a gross orienting response, highly useful in allowing an individual to know rapidly and with minimal effort what in the environment should be approached and what should be avoided. This is also consistent with early (Allport, 1935) as well as more recent (Fazio, 1991) notions that affective-based attitudes may serve as a ready aid in sizing up the environment; thus minimizing necessary ongoing continuous cognitive effort. With respect to consumer products, initial affective judgments would seem to be derived in large part from aesthetic aspects of the product. Bloch (1995) hypothesized that a product's form (aesthetic characteristics) can evoke the sort of affective responses (liking, approach) we describe. In addition, Veryzer and Hutchinson (1998) reported that visual aesthetic characteristics (unity and prototypicality) positively influenced aesthetic affective responses. Cognitive judgments may serve a different purpose, that of providing a follow-up method for continued evaluation of initial, affective-based judgments. Cognitive judgments derive from the thoughts an individual has about the attitude object or from the characteristics of the object itself (Eagley & Chaiken, 1993). These judgments may serve to support or re-

lour purpose here is not to renew the debate of either affective or cognitiveevaluations' relative independence, but rather to note the singularimportance of examining euch in determining the impact of product design and brand name on consumer response.

INITIAL AFFECT AND QUALITY JUDGMENTS

1

LikinglAffect

Aesthetics high low

I\

Brand Strength

H6(d)

H5 (b)

strung weak

L

Function high

FIGURE 1 Theoretic framework for the influence of product design and brand strength on consumers' initial liking and quality judgments. See (a) Zajonc, 1980b;Bloch, 1995; Veryzer and Hutchinson, 1998; (b) Aaker, 1991; Allison and Ulh, 1964; Cox, 1967; Farquhar, 1989; Richardson, Dick, and Jain, 1994 (see also Feldman & Lynch, 1988, accessibility4iagnosticitymodel); (c) Richardsonet a]., 1994; (d) Fiske, 1982; Fiske and Pavelchak, 1986; Fiske and Newberg, 1990; Herr, Farquar, and Fazio, 1993, 1996; Sujan, 1985.

Aesthetics

Speed of Response to

Liking Queries

's m g weak

S p d of Response to Quality Queries

FIGURE 2 Theoretic framework for the influence of aesthetics and brand strengthon consumers' response latencies. See (a) Zajonc, 1980b, 1984; (b) Fiske, 1982; Fiske and Pavelchak, 1986; Fiske and Neuberg, 1990; Herr, Farquar, and Fazio, 1993, 1996.

fute an initial aesthetic-based approach judgment. With respect to consumer products, these judgments would seem especially likely to be derived from the functional attributes possessed by the product, and would most likely be formed after the individual has made a preliminary affective judgment to approach the product sufficiently to discover the product's attributes (Zajonc, 1980; Zajonc & Markus, 1982). An example (among many) of this type of judgment is an assessment of a product's overall quality. In this article we examinejudgments of product liking and product quality as two components of consumers' response to product design. The importance of these two types of judgments and their interplay may be most evident in consumers' interaction with new products. For instance, a product's aes-

135

thetics, seen easily from a distance, may well influence consumers' overall approach to (and liking for) the product, while having minimal impact on judgments of a product's quality. Likewise, the product's functional characteristics should directly impact judgments of quality. If the brand name attached to the product is previously liked or disliked, however, the quality judgment may not reflect evaluations of the product's functional characteristics.Rather, the consumer may simply retrieve the liking or disliking for the brand and transfer it to the new instance of the brand, paying little or no attention to the functional features of the new, unfamiliar product when making the quality judgment. Hence, we suggest that rather than the simple predictions in the popular press, the effect of aesthetics is qualified by the product's functional features and is primarily localized to affective (liking) judgments, whereas functional features and brand name influence cognitive (e.g., quality) judgments. These ideas are examined in two experiments. In the first experiment we investigate the influence of product aesthetics and brand names on consumer judgments. These two factors are considered central in attracting consumer attention,creating initial impressions, and guiding product evaluations (e.g., Aaker, 1991;Schmitt & Simonson, 1997).In examining their influence, a response latency measure is used. Employing this measure allows for an investigation of the process by which product aesthetics and brand names interact to determine consumer judgments, as well as an examination of the spontaneity of liking (affective) versus quality (cognitive) evaluations. In the second experiment, we introduce functional product characteristics to examine their impact and potential interaction with aesthetics and brand name on liking and quality judgments.

HYPOTHESES

The Relative Influence of Aesthetics and Brand Names on Consumer Judgments As previously noted, aesthetics are believed to drive affective judgments (Bloch, 1995; Veryzer & Hutchinson, 1998). Brands, however, are believed to be linked to higher order judgments of performance, quality, reliability, and the like, in addition to affective judgments (Aaker, 1991; Farquhar, 1989). It seems likely then that brands may be more diagnostic of higher order judgments such as quality, whereas aesthetics may be more diagnostic of affectivejudgments such as approach, avoidance, or liking. The accessibility-diagnosticity model (Feldman & Lynch, 1988) suggests that when two possible inputs for a judgment are equally accessible, the more diagnostic input will guide the judgment. Consequently, when a liking judgment is made, we expect aesthetics to have a greater influence than brand. When a quality judgment must be made, we expect brand to have a greater influence than aesthetics. Furthermore, since strong brands are associated with highly accessible and positively evaluated product-related information (Aaker, 1996;

136

PAGE AND HERR

Farquhar, 1989), this effect is expected to be greater for strong rather than weak brands. As noted in previous research, strong brands are highly diagnostic cues that consumers can readily use to evaluate product quality (Maheswaran, Mackie, &Chaiken, 1992;Richardson, Dick, & Jain, 1994). Compared with strong brands, relatively weak brands should be less capable of serving as diagnostic cues, given that, by definition, consumers know little about them. In this situation, since weak brands have little or no associated information, the presence of any information is likely to carry much greater weight (e.g., Anderson, 1965). Hence, for weak branded products we expect aesthetic information to significantly influence quality judgments, in addition to its impact on liking. H1: Product aesthetics will have a greater impact than brand strength on consumer liking evaluations. H2: Product aesthetics' influence on product qualityjudgments is qualified by brand strength, such that its influence is greater for quality judgments of weaker than stronger branded products.

The Relative Influence of Aesthetics and Brand Name on Judgment Spontaneity With regard to the spontaneity of liking and quality judgments, we expect response latencies to liking queries to be shorter than to quality queries. This prediction follows Zajonc's (1980, 1984) suggestion that preferences are based predominantly on affective responses, which are often immediate and are not mediated by thinking about attributes of the attitude object. Hence, we expect likingjudgments to be relatively spontaneous upon initial observation of a product, whereas judgments of quality may take longer to form, indicating greater effort involved. Indeed, quality judgments may only be made when an individual is prompted to do so. H3: Liking judgments will be made more rapidly than quality judgments. Response latency is likely qualified, however, by brand strength, much as the judgments themselves are. Specifically, when product aesthetics and brand strength are inconsistent (for instance, an aesthetically displeasingproduct paired with a strong brand name) then evaluations are expected to take longer to form than when product aesthetics and brand strength are consistent. This is because more effortful processing may be needed to resolve the inconsistency (Fiske & Pavelchak, 1986; Fiske & Neuberg, 1990;Herr, Farquhar, & Fazio, 1993,1996). It seems likely, however, that this discrepancy effect will be more pronounced for strong brands than for weak brands. Recall from the discussion above that strong brands may have much additional information associated with them, while

weak brands do not. Owing to the strength of association with the strong brand, brand-specific information is likely to be activated at the time the brand is encountered. Consequently, the inconsistency for strong brands should be highly salient to participants. The situation for weak brands is quite different. Because weak brands have little (if any) strongly linked information, it is quite unlikely that presentation of the brand will activate anything that will be inconsistent with the brand, which would slow processing. Weak brands may serve as relatively undiagnostic cues for attitudinal judgments, and in this case are unlikely to create much discrepancy with either aesthetically pleasing or displeasing products. H4a: For high brand strength, relatively poor aesthetics will slow speed of responding to liking and quality queries. H4b: For low brand strength, aesthetics will not influence speed of response to liking and quality queries.

Pretests Three pretests were conducted prior to the Experiment 1. The first was designed to identify categories of products considered to be high in symbolism and functionality.As argued by Parsons (1989), the importance of aesthetic and functional aspects of design is likely to depend a great deal on the symbolic and functional purpose (respectively) that the product serves. By selecting products with high levels of symbolism and functionality, a strong test of the research hypotheses is offered. Product selection consisted of sampling 189undergraduates, who rated (on 9-point scales)the symbolism and functionality of an initial list of 76 products chosen from several consumer catalogs (e.g., tea kettles, razors, pagers, cellular phones, and portable compact disc players). The symbolic scale ranged from l (weakly symbolic) to 9 (highly symbolic); the functional scale ranged from 1(weaklyfinctional) to 9 (highlyfinctional>. From these ratings, only one product category, laptop computers, was judged to be highly symbolic and functional (symbolic M = 7.2, functional M = 7.6). As such, this category was selected. The second pretest was conducted to identify strong and weak brands within the laptop product category. In line with Farquhar (1989) and Aaker (1991), a brand is considered to have strength to the extent that it is highly familiar and favorably regarded.2 By measuring these constructs, pretest two utilized (I) an unaided free recall task and (2) a scaled affect

20urconceptualization of brand strength refers to the cognitive representation of the brand; specitically its strength of association to the category node (Herr, Farquhar, & Fazio, 1993; 1996), and the attitude associated with the brand (e.g.,Fazio, 1991). This conceptualization does not refer to consequencesofbrandstrength(suchas loyalty, perceivedquality,etc., as noted by Aaker (1 991). The presence or absence of consequences of brand strength is an empirical question.

INITIAL AFFECT AND QUALITY JUDGMENTS

measure, respectively. Specifically, in measuring familiarity, a free association task was used in which a sample of 40 undergraduates was asked to identify brands associated with laptop computers. In doing so, the participants were given 30 sec to list all the brands that came to mind (in the order they came to mind) when presented with the category label "laptop computer." These brands represented the category's familiar brands. Supplementing these brands, the researchers identified (through store visits and from catalogs) several unfamiliar brands (not listed by the participants). The researchers then compiled a comprehensive list, containing the familiar and unfamiliar brands. Next, the favorability of each of the brands was evaluated. Specifically, a different sample of 42 undergraduates was asked to rate their liking of each listed brand. Liking was measured on an l 1 -point scale ranged from 0 (dislikea great deal) to 10 (like a great deal). IBM and AST were given the highest and lowest liking ratings, and hence were chosen as the strong and weak brand stimuli, respectively (IBM M = 8.82, AST M =4.21; t = 1 0 . 8 4 , < ~ .001) Pretest three was conducted to develop the high and low aesthetic stimuli.Virst, professional photographs of several laptop computers were taken. Each laptop was photographed in the same position and against the same color background. The photographs of some of the laptops were computer enhanced (using a graphic design program) to either improve or diminish the products' attractiveness. In altering the products' design, color, and basic Gestalt principles of unity, symmetry, proportion, and balance were used (see Ellis, 1993; Veryzer, 1993; Veryzer & Hutchinson, 1998). The finished designs were then color laser printed onto standard 8.5 x 1 1 sheets of paper and compiled into booklets. Subsequently, a sample of 30 undergraduates rated the attractiveness of each laptop computer. Product attractiveness was measured on an I I-point scale ranging from 0 (highly unattractive) to 10 (highly attractive). The laptop computers with the highest and lowest attractiveness ratings served as the "high" and "low" aesthetic stimuli, respectively (attractive laptop M = 7.59, unattractive laptop M = 4.40, t = 6.91, p < .01).4

EXPERIMENT 1 In this experiment we address the relative impact of product aesthetics and brand strength (two highly salient first im-

'our conceptualization of aesthetics is consistent with that used in the published design~onsumerliterature (see Ellis, 1993; Parsons, 1989; Veryzer, 1993; Veryzer & Hutchnson, 1998). and is appropriate given our focus on new products. Other broader conceptualizationsexist. For instance, Schmitt and Simonson (1 997) coin the term "marketing aesthetics" referring to "the marketing of sensory experiences in corporate or brand output that contributes to the organization's or brand's identity" (p. 18). '~lectronicversions of the stimuli are available from the authors upon request.

137

pression cues) on consumers' product evaluations. In doing so, a response latency test is used. In addition to measuring participants' actual judgments of the products, the response latency test allows for a sensitive measure of the process by which design and brand strength interact to guide consumer judgments.

Method

Experimental design. A 2 (brand strength; strong vs. weak) x 2 (aesthetics; high vs. low) x 2 (judgment type; liking vs. quality) mixed design (with judgment type the within factor) was used. Based on pretest data, the strong and weak brand and high and low aesthetic stimuli were combined to generate four product treatments. Participants viewed one product treatment plus four filler products (bathroom scale, camera, portable compact disc player, and a stapler). Presentation order of the stimuli was randomized.

Procedure. Participants were 80 undergraduates (20 per cell) who received extra credit in an introductory marketing course for their participation. Participants were run individually. Upon entering the laboratory, participants were seated at a computer and told that the purpose of the study was to assess their evaluations of products for potential use in an Internet catalog. Once informed of the purpose of the study, participants were told to read the instructions on their monitor. The instructions informed the participants that the study consisted of three phases. In the first phase, the products would appear on the screen for five seconds each. During this phase, participants were instructed to simply view the products. Participants viewed the product-brand pairings before being told to evaluate them so that they would become familiar with the products prior to a response latency task. The latency of responses to subsequent queries about the product-brand pairings indicates whether those judgments were made at the time of original presentation, or were only constructed at the time of the direct query (Fazio, Lenn, & Effrein, 1984; Kardes, 1986; Lynch & Srull, 1982). At the beginning of phase two, a second set of instructions appeared on the screen. The instructions explained that the participants would again view the products that they saw in phase one, however, in this phase they would be asked if specific adjectives described how they felt about the product. More specifically, participants were told that in this phase, each product would briefly appear on the screen, (750 msec) then disappear. Following its disappearance a descriptor (e.g., "like?') would appear. Once the descriptor appeared, participants were told to indicate their agreement or disagreement with the descriptor by pressing the keys marked "yes" (thef key) or "no" (the j key). All other keys on the keyboard were masked. Participants were told to respond to each

138

PAGE AND HERR

descriptor as quickly and accurately as possible. To familiarize participants with the timed task, they were given four practice products (and descriptors) before starting phase two. In phase two, six descriptors were paired with each product: like, dislike, high quality, low quality, attractive, and unattractive (the last two served as manipulation checks for the aestheticsmeasure). The negatively valenced descriptors were included to balance the positive descriptors, so that participants would not be able to simply press the same key without considering the valence of the question. The computer randomly generated the order in which the products (and their descriptors) were presented. Phase three served as a manipulation check for the brand strength measure. At the beginning of this phase, a third set of instructions appeared, explaining that the participants would view a set of brand names (which were the same as those paired with the products they just saw). As in phase two, participants were told that the brand name would briefly appear then be replaced by a descriptor. Once the descriptor appeared, participants were told to indicate their agreement or disagreement with the descriptor by pressing "yes" or "no." Participants were again given speed-accuracy instructions. As in phase two, a practice exercise, consisting of four practice brands and descriptors was given to familiarize the participants with the task. In this phase, only two descriptors, "like" and "dislike" were paired with each brand. Therefore, each subject viewed and evaluated the brands twice (once with like and once with dislike).The reason for having the participants respond to positive and negative descriptors is the same as for phase two. At the end of phase three, participants were instructed to notify the experimenter that they were done. At that time, participants were given a response booklet that measured product and brand knowledge, which were used as covariates in the study.

Dependent measures. Two dependent measures were examined; the frequency of "yes" responses to each descriptor (which measured participants' evaluative judgments; i.e., "like", "quality"), and participants' latency of response (the time interval between onset of a descriptor and a participant's response to the descriptor, in milliseconds). Latencies were measured to determine the accessibility of participants' product judgments. Covariates -Product and brand knowledge. Because previous research has shown that product evaluations may be affected by consumers' product category knowledge (e.g., Sujan, 1985) and brand knowledge (Broniarczyk & Alba, 1994)participants were also asked to indicate their subjective knowledge about the treatment and the filler products. After Bloch, Ridgway, and Sherrell (1989) participants' self-reported product and brand knowledge were measured on a two item, five-point summed scale ranging from "little or no knowledge" at 1 to a "great deal of knowledge" at 5. The

two items assessed participants' knowledge relative to (1) their friends and (2) the general population. The two covariates were measured after the product evaluation measures. In addition, the mean latency of the filler stimuli was also used as a covariate. The purpose of this measure was to control for individual differences in response speeds (see Fazio, 1990).

Yes Response Results

Manipulation checks. Results from chi-square tests on the number of "yes" responses (frequencies)reveal significant main effects for aesthetics and brand strength. Consistent with the pretest findings, the high aesthetic laptop was more frequently judged attractive than low aesthetic laptop, (95% vs. 20%; 46.04, p < .001) and the strong brand was evaluated more positively than the weak brand (93% vs. 47%; x 2 = 19.27, p < .001).

x2=

Hypothesis tests. The frequency of "yes" responses to liking and high quality were analyzed using logistic regression and planned c ~ r n ~ a r i s o nThe s . ~ results support HI, which predicted that product aesthetics would have a greater impact than brand strength on consumers' liking evaluations. Specifically, as shown in Figure 3, aesthetics had a positive effect on participants' liking judgments @s < .05), while brand strength exhibited no influence @s > .lo). That is, increases (decreases)in aesthetics, raised (lowered)liking evaluations, irrespective of the brand name attached to the product (e.g., IBM or AST). Similarly, as depicted in Figure 4, aesthetics were also found to positively impact participants' quality evaluations (ps < .05). However, unlike the liking judgments, brand strength also had a positive influence, but only for the unattractive laptop. These results support H2; the impact of aesthetics on quality judgments was qualified by brand strength, such that aesthetics had a greater impact on weaker than stronger branded products (p < .05). Unattractive laptops (evaluated as inferior to attractive laptops) were judged to be of higher quality when paired with IBM (a strong brand) rather than with AST (a weak brand) (p < .05). Brand strength had no differential impact on quality judgments of attractive laptops (ps > .lo). These findings suggest that, with regard to liking or quality judgments, weak brands can be competitive with strong

he frequency of yes responses to negatively valenced descriptors (used to balance the positive descriptors) generally mirrored the frequency of responses to the positive descriptors.Forexample, with regard to the attractive laptop, participants' responses to "like" (e.g., 95% liked the attractive AST laptop) mirrored their responses to "dislike" (e.g.,5% disliked the attractive AST laptop).

INlTlAL AFFECT AND QUALITY JUDGMENTS

Product Liking 10%

SfcOngBd Weak Brand

139

Once transformed, response latencies for the descriptors were examined using between subjects analyses of covariance, with overall knowledge7 and mean filler latency as covariates. Correlation analyses showed that the overall knowledge covariate was not significantly correlated with any of the response latency descriptors (ps > .lo). Consequently, knowledge was excluded from response latency analyses. The mean latency of the filler stimuli was significantly correlated with the response latency descriptors (ps < .01). Further, this covariate was found to be highly significant (ps < .001). Hence, tests of the research hypotheses concerning response latencies included this covariate in the analyses. A 2 (brand strength; strong vs. weak) x 2 (aesthetics; high vs. low) x 2 (judgment type; liking vs. quality descriptor) analysis of covariance was conducted on the response latencies.8 Judgment type was a within subjects factor. As predicted by H3, a main effect for judgment type occurred, in which liking judgments were made significantly faster than quality judgments (F(l,75) = 4.18, p < .05). No other effects involving judgment type approached significance. These findings suggest that consumers may spontaneously form initial liking evaluations (affective judgments) for products, but that more cognitive judgments (quality) take longer. Planned comparisons provide support for H4a and H4b. Specifically, as shown in Figure 5, for the strong brand, inconsistencies in aesthetics and brand strength (e.g., an unattractive IBM laptop) significantly slowed participants liking and quality evaluations (relative to the attractive IBM lap~ .05. This finding suggests that inconsistop), t (75)= 2 . 4 7 , < tencies caused participants' to engage in more effortful (perhaps integrative) processing in forming their product judgments. For weak brands, inconsistencies (e.g., an attractive AST laptop) had no significant effect on participants liking and quality evaluations, t (75) = .26, ns, perhaps because no information was strongly linked to the brand whose inconsistency was salient, and hence the weak brand was not diagnostic of any attitude.

I LQWAesthetics

High Aesthetics

FIGURE 3 Product liking frequency of yes responses

Product

\

Quality

Weak Brand

I

High AesUietin

FIGURE 4

Low Aesthetics

Product quality frequency of yes responses

brands by producing attractive products. If however, weak brands fail to produce attractive products, then, with regard to consumers' quality evaluations, they may be at a significant competitive disadvantage relative to strong brands. Apparently, the value of strong brands has the ability to mitigate negative product aesthetics, at least initially.

Response Latency Results Hypotheses tests. Initial screening of the data found the distribution of response latencies to be positively skewed. This is not uncommon for response latency data. Consequently, the data were transformed, using a reciprocal transformation ( 1/[X+ 11) prior to being analyzed (Fazio, 1990).~

' ~ f t e rtransformations, each dependent variable met assumptionsof normality, linearity, and homogeneity of variance.

7 ~ h two e knowledge covariates (product and brand knowledge) were measured on two-item, surnmated scales. A reliability analysis for the product knowledge scale produced a coefficient alpha of 30. For the brand knowledge scale, coefficient alphas of .97 and .98 were produced for the high and low equity brands, respectively. An examination of the correlation of the two knowledge measures found product and brand knowledge to be significantly correlated (Pearson's r = 37, p < .01). Given this finding the two knowledge measures were averaged to form a single "knowledge" covariate. X~ypically, "yes" responses are made more rapidly than "no" responses (Carpenter and Just, 1975;1976) and are analyzed separately. In this case wide unequal cell sizes for "no" responses (n = 2 to 20) made separate analysis of "no" responses infeasible. An overall i test revealed, however, that yes responses were not significantly faster than no responses ( t = .43,ns). Also, a correlation between mean yes and no responses was highly significant (r = .54, p < .0001. Finally, a separate analysis of variance conducted only on the yes responses revealed a pattern of results identical to the pattern presented here. Consequently, yes and no responses were analyzed together.

140

PAGE AND HERR

Discussion Experiment 1 investigated the influence of aesthetics and brand strength on the formation of consumers' product lik-

Shott

Response

1 74

Latency

Weak Brand

S w n g Brand tong

I High Aesthetics

Low Aesthetics

FIGURE 5 Pattern of response latencies for liking and quality. Means represent untransformed response latencies in milliseconds.

It is noteworthy that response latencies were significantly slower for weak brand consistencies (weak brand or low aes-

thetics) than for strong brand consistencies (strong brand or high aesthetics) (ps <.05). Further, for weak and strong brand inconsistencies, response latencies were essentially the same (ps > .lo). These findings suggest that participants' evaluations of weak- branded products (consistencies or inconsistencies) may involve more integrative processing. Since consumers' may have no stored evaluation for weak brands, it follows that their judgments for such products may be effortful. Although negatively valenced descriptors were included only to permit interpretation of response latencies (i.e. to assure that participants could not anticipate the valence of the descriptor prior to its presentation), it is interesting to note that a post hoc analysis of response latencies revealed findings consistent with past work (Jordan, 1965; Rodin, 1978) that suggests that liking and disliking responses are not at opposite ends of a continuum, but rather represent distinct unipolar constructs. Specifically, the average disliking response was in fact significantly slower than the liking response, t (79) = 2.05, p < .05. This is consistent with one interpretation that disliking is more effortful in nature than liking, and requires an implicit necessity on the part of the person who makes a disliking judgment to justify that position. Such justification requires marshalling evidence consistent with the judgment, which should take longer than when no such justification is required (as in a liking judgment, where an additional search for anything negative is not required; cf. Lee, Herr, Kardes, & Kim, 1999; Kruglanski & Freund, 1983; Rodin, 1978). Here we have evidence that the default value appears to be liking a new object, and that both disliking and quality judgments (high or low) require additional effort. What makes the present results especially interesting is that the liking judgment appears to be based primarily on the aesthetic characteristics of the new product.

ing and quality evaluations. The results showed categorical liking judgments to be significantly impacted by aesthetics, but not by brand strength. That is, participants liking for the attractive (unattractive) laptop was unaffected by the brand name attached to the product (IBM or AST). Participants' quality judgments were, however, influenced by brand strength, such that unattractive laptops were evaluated as having significantly higher quality if paired with a strong (IBM) than a weak (AST) brand. In addition, conflicts in aesthetics and brand strength (e.g., unattractive IBM laptop) significantly increased the time it took for participants' to provide their liking and quality evaluations for products paired with a strong (but not with a weak) brand (relative to consistent situations). Taken together, these results suggest that for new products paired with strong brands, consumers' may recognize inconsistencies in design and brand strength when forming liking and quality judgments (evidenced by slower response times; see Figure 5), but use the inconsistent information only in their quality judgments (as seen in Figures 3 and 4). That is, when aesthetics and brand strength conflict, consumers' use the value of strong brands to resolve the inconsistency and guide their quality evaluation. Conversely, strong brands appear to have relatively little impact on consumers liking evaluations. For weak branded products, inconsistencies appear to be neither recognized (perhaps because consumers have no stored evaluation for weak brands) nor used in liking or quality judgments. For these brands, liking and quality evaluations appear to be based solely on product aesthetics. The results also found participants' overall response latencies (in both consistent and inconsistent situations) to be faster for liking judgments than quality judgments. Liking judgments appear to be based primarily on product appearance while product qualityjudgments appear to integrate both appearance and brand strength. These findings are consistent with earlier speculation regarding the value of distinguishing between affect and cognitive based attitudes. We suggest this distinction may not be so clear cut given aesthetic's additional impact on quality judgments. When provided with a product's functional characteristics the impact of aesthetics on quality judgments may be mitigated. Consumers often have product function information available (in addition to the brand name) when making product judgments. We address the relative impact of product function and its potential interaction with product aesthetics and brand strength on liking and quality judgments in Experiment 2.

EXPERIMENT 2 In this experiment, we introduce product function to examine its relative impact on liking and quality judgments. We expect

INITIAL AFFECT AND QUALiTY JUDGMENTS

product liking to be influenced primarily by aesthetics. Like brand names, product function is argued to be associated with higher order judgments such as performance and reliability. Hence, product function, as well as brand strength, is not expected to have a significant impact on initial product liking (approach-avoidance) judgment^.^ Judgments of quality, however, are expected to be influenced by product function. Richardson et al. (1994) noted that because a product's functional attributes are in fact related to the product, they serve as highly predictive indicators of a product's true quality. Brand strength is also expected to have an impact given that brand names provide a composite of information about various attributes of a product. As in Experiment 1, brand's influence is expected to be greater for strong rather than weak brands, as strong brands are associated with more information than weak brands. Further, the influence of strong brands is expected to be greater in situations where a product's functional and aesthetic aspects are in conflict than when they are consistent. That is, when aesthetics and function are inconsistent (e.g., an attractive, poorly functioning product), it is expected that product's paired with strong brands will be judged of higher quality than products paired with weak brands (due to the high diagnosticity of strong brands relative to weak brands). When a product's aesthetic and functional characteristics are consistent (an attractive, high functioning product, or an unattractive, poorly functioning product), the impact of brand is expected to be minimal. This is because brands, while diagnostic, are independent of the physical product, and thus may have less influence on quality judgments than consistent, product related information (see Cox, 1967; Maheswaran, Mackie, & Chaiken, 1992, for related discussions).

H5: Product aesthetics will primarily influence consumer liking judgments, whereas product function and brand strength will primarily influence consumer quality judgments.

H6: When design factors (aesthetics and function) are inconsistent, brand strength will influence quality judgments; when design factors are consistent, the impact of brand strength will be mitigated.

141

Pretest A pretest was conducted to develop high and low function stimuli for the laptop computer. Using an unaided free association task, 35 undergraduates listed all the functional attributes that came to mind (in the order they came to mind) when presented with the category label "laptop computer." Participants were given 30 sec to provide their associations. These "top-of-mind" associations were presumed to represent evaluatively important attributes as they were strongly linked to the product in participants' long term memory (Fazio, 1986).Supplementing these responses, two graduate students (after reviewing the subject lists) generated additional evaluatively unimportant functional traits. The researchers then compiled a comprehensive list containing the important and unimportant attributes. Next, a sample of 43 undergraduates rated the importance of each attribute within the list. Specifically, participants were asked to imagine for the moment that they were in the market for a laptop computer. Participants were then instructed to evaluate how important each of the products' attributes were to their purchase decision. Attribute importance was measured on an 1 1 -point scale ranging from 0 (highly unimportant) to I0 (highly important). The three attributes rated as highly important and highly unimportant were chosen as the "high" and "low" function stimuli respectively. The reason for choosing three attributes for the high and low stimuli was to avoid unnecessary complexity (see Yamamoto & Lambert, 1994). To guard against ceiling and floor effects, the highest and lowest rated attributes were not considered. Table 1 provides the mean ratings for the high and low function attributes.

Method

Experimental design. A 2 (brand strength; strong vs. weak) x 2 (aesthetics; high vs. low) x 2 (function; high vs. low) x 2 (judgment type; liking vs. quality) mixed design was used. The product treatments were the same as in Experiment 1, with the addition of the function stimuli. Specifically, the strong and weak brand, high and low aesthetic, and high and low function stimuli were combined to generate eight product treatments. Stimulus booklets contained one product treatTABLE 1

Pretest 2 Results: Means for High and Low Function Attributes )werecognize that a tremendous amount of research exists identifying the link between attributes and attitudes (e.g., Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975). Recall that our purpose here is to focus on initial judgments, which may occur prior to sufficient integration of attribute information. Fazio (1991). and Sanbonmatsu and Fazio (1990) also note that the likelihood of a direct link between attribute evaluation and attitude depends on individuals' motivation and opportunity (suggesting that the initial attitude often may not be formed through the more effortful integrative route). Given time and motivation to consider attribute information at length, it is likely that such information will directly influence product attitudes.

Product Category

Laptop

High Function Has an internal modem

8.79

Low Function

No modem capacity

2.97

Interchangeable 8.76 CDIFloppy

No expandable memory

3.3 1

Pentium processor 8.39

No internal modem

3.38

142

PAGE AND HERR

ment and seven fillers representing real products from several different product categories (e.g., bathroom scale, calculator, camera, and the like). The order of presentation of stimuli within each booklet was randomized.

Procedure. 200 undergraduates (25 per cell) participated in exchange for extra credit in an introductory marketing course. Participants were run in groups of 8-10. After being introduced to the experimenter, participants were presented with a stimulus booklet and response booklet, which recorded their product evaluations. Once informed of the purpose of the study, the participants were instructed to open the response booklet to the first page. This page contained a set of instructions that the experimenter read aloud to the group. Participants were told to evaluate each of the stimulus booklet's products and to record their responses to the products in the response booklet. Eleven-point scales were used to measure participants' product liking and quality evaluations. The product liking scale ranged from 0 (dislike a great deal) to 10 (like a great deal), while the product quality scale ranged from 0 (very low quality) to 10 (very high quality). Liking and quality judgments were c~unterbalanced.'~' At the conclusion of the experiment, participants were debriefed and thanked for their participation. Covariates - Product and brand knowledge. As in Experiment 1, participants' self-reported product and brand knowledge were measured as covariates (using the same two-item measures as were used in Experiment 1). The two covariates were measured after the product evaluation measures.

Results

Manipulation checks. Included in the experiment were three 1 I-point scales to verify the effectiveness of the aesthetic, function, and brand strength manipulations, respectively. These measures were introduced after the dependent variable measures. Analyses of variance revealed significant main effects for all manipulations. Consistent with the pretest findings, high aesthetic and high function laptops were rated higher than the low aesthetic and low function laptops (aesthetics M = 7.72 vs. 3.67, function M = 8.24 vs. 2.54, all ps < .001). In addition, IBM (the strong brand) was preferred to AST (the weak brand) (M = 8.08 vs. 4.75, p < .001).

x 2 (function; high vs. low) x 2 (judgment type; liking vs. quality) mixed analysis of covariance, with brand strength, aesthetics, and function as between-subjects factors, judgment type a within- subjects factor, and overall knowledge as the covariate. The covariate proved insignificant ( p > .4) so the analysis was repeated as a mixed analysis of variance. The means for this analysis are presented in Table 2. A main effect forjudgment type indicates that participants' liking and quality evaluations differed, F(1,192) = 5.24, p < .05. This main effect is qualified however, by a judgment type by brand strength interaction (F(1,192)= 8.31, p < .01) and a judgment type by aesthetics interaction, F(1,192) = 7.83, p < .01). These interactions are presented in Figures 6a and 6b. Consistent with H5, brand strength significantly influenced quality judgments, t(192) = 2.39, p < .05, but had no impact on liking judgments, t(192) = .33, ns. Panel b shows that aesthetics significantly influenced liking judgments, t(192) = 5.66, p < .05. Aesthetics were also found, though, to influence quality judgments, t(192) = 3.66, p < .05. The impact of aesthetics on quality may not be surprising given the amount of time that subjects had to make their judgments. Moreover, given the classic Dion, Berscheid, and Walster (1972) findings that persons make inferences (after initially forming a liking impression) that "what is beautiful is good" this finding is less surprising still. Importantly, however, inferences drawn from a product's unattractiveness were more strongly linked to low liking scores for the product than to inferring that it was a low quality product, t(192)= 2.06,p< .05. Hence, at least for unattractive products aesthetics have a greater impact on liking judgments than on quality judgments. The relation between attractive products and quality judgments may be linked by an automatic inference process, triggered by the initial liking judgment, itself precipitated by product attractiveness. A main effect was also found for functional characteristics, F(l, 192)= 198,p< .O1, indicating that this factor had no differential effect on liking and quality judgments. However, TABLE 2 Mean Liking and Quality Judgments Brund Strength

Lnw

High High Function

Low Function

High aesthetics

8.40,

Low aesthetics

7.00b

High aesthetics Low aesthetics

Low

High Function

Function

5.24,,

8.28,

4.60,

2.36d

6.96b

2.726

8.48,

5.60,

7.88&

4.32,

8.16,

3.20,~

7.0%

3.086

Liking

Hypothesis tests. The data were analyzed using a 2 (brand strength; strong vs. weak) x 2 (aesthetics; high vs. low)

10

Orderwas neithera main effect norinteractedwith any other variable,so was dropped from subsequent reported analyses.

Quality

Note.

Means not sharing a common subscript differ at p < .05.

INITIAL AFFECT AND QUALITY JUDGMENTS

Producr Jud~nunr

-

3.36

143

-

'-Quality

FIGURE 6 Panel A: Brand strength by judgment interaction. Panel B: Aesthetics by judgment interaction

FIGURE 7 High aesthetics and low aesthetics.

that product function also influenced product liking again may not be surprising given that participants had ample time to evaluate the product's characteristics before making their evaluation (see Sanbonmatsu & Fazio, 1990). With less time at their disposal, participants would not be able to engage in more effortful processing associated with integrating information into an evaluative judgment. Additional support for H5 is found in planned comparisons, the patterns for which are presented in Figure 7. The impact of aesthetics at high function levels appears to be confined to lilung judgments. This main effect essentially disappears for judgments of quality. This is reflected in the upper portion of Figure 7, which shows the lines connecting liking judgments to have steeper slopes than lines connecting quality judgments. This is further reflected by significant differences in liking judgments between high and low aesthetic IBM laptops, t(192) = 2.30, p < .05, and high and low aesthetic AST laptops, r(192) = 2.16, p < .05, whereas the same comparisons made with respect to quality judgments reveal a non-significant impact of aesthetics, t(192) =

.55, ns and 1.50, ns, for IBM and AST respectively. At low function levels, aesthetics impacts both liking and quality judgments (for liking, t(192) = 4.72 and 3.08 for IBM and AST respectively, and for quality, t(192) = 4.10 and 2.12 respectively, all p's < .05). Moreover, when the design factors (aesthetics and function) are inconsistent, brand strength does not influence liking judgments, t(192) = .36, ns, but does influence quality judgments, t(192)= 2.95, p < .05, supporting H6. The contrast is seen in Figure 7 in the wide gap in quality judgments within high aesthetics/low function products (between brand strength) and low aesthetic or high function products (also between brand strength). This same comparison with respect to liking judgments alone is non-significant, t(192)= 3 9 , ns, indicating a localized influence of brand strength on quality judgments. When design factors are consistent, the impact of brand strength is insignificant for all judgments, also predicted by H6. This contrast is graphically represented in Figure 7 by the relatively narrower judgment gaps within high aestheticthigh function products and low aestheticllow func-

144

PAGE AND HERR

tion products (both between levels of brand strength). In these cases, design appears to overwhelm brand strength.

Discussion Experiment 2 investigated the influence of aesthetic and functional aspects of design with strong and weak brands on consumers' product liking and quality evaluations. With regard to product liking judgments, aesthetics and function were found to positively impact such evaluations while brand strength exhibited no significant influence. That is, regardless of the brand name attached to the product, increases (decreases) in aesthetics or function enhanced (reduced) product liking. These results suggest that affective product judgments appear to integrate only product design cues, without considering brand category information. With regard to perceptions of quality, product function was found to positively influence such judgments. That is, high function products were rated as being of higher quality than low function products. Brand strength also influenced these judgments, but only when the product's design cues conflicted. Specifically, when there was a conflict between function and aesthetics (a high functionAow aesthetic product or low function or high aesthetic product), participants relied on the strength of the brand name attached to the product to resolve the conflict. Conversely, when a product's design cues matched (e.g., high function or high aesthetics), brand strength had no impact. Unlike affectivejudgments then, decisions of quality appear to involve some integration of brand information. This integration may reflect the relative diagnosticity of a strong brand with respect to underlying quality, or, alternatively, may reflect a process whereby the brand signifies something special that compensates for relatively weak performance on other characteristics. These findings support those of Experiment 1, which suggest that the process by which consumers form liking and quality evaluations of highly symbolic and functional products differ. That is, liking evaluations appear to be formed through the integration of just product information, while quality judgments seem to combine both product and brand information.

GENERAL DISCUSSION We investigated the influence of product design and brand strength on consumers' initial product liking and quality evaluations. Results from both experiments revealed that product design had a positive effect on consumers' liking and quality judgments. Brand strength, on the other hand, had no significant impact on product liking, but did influencejudgments of quality when (I) there was a conflict between a product's design cues (aesthetics and function) or (2) there was a conflict between design (aesthetics) and brand strength. In these situ-

ations, brand strength was used to resolve the apparent conflict and guide quality judgments. These results carry both theoretical and practical significance. From a theoretical perspective, we join the recent dialogue regarding the efficacy oftreating affective and cognitive judgments as distinct entities (see, for instance, Garbarino & Edell, 1997; Loewenstein, 1996; Shiv & Fedorikhin, 1999). Specifically, we document how affective and cognitive judgments may differ in temporal construction and structure. That is, liking judgments appear to be readily formed (evidenced by fast response latencies) through a process that integrates product design cues, to the exclusion of brand category information. Quality judgments, on the other hand, appear to take longer to process (evidenced by slower response latencies) and involve some integration of design and brand information. Therefore, while both product design and brand strength play an important role in generating favorable consumer response, their relative importance on the formation of liking and quality judgments appears to differ. Recent research by Shiv and Fedorikhin (1999) support our findings of the significance of design in generating affective responses. The authors note that affective judgments predominate when processing capacity is constrained. Further, the authors found that the physical presence of the target object exacerbated the relative dominance of affective judgments. The latter finding suggests that the impact of aesthetics may be even more pronounced in a shopping environment (when processing capacity is taxed and the physical product is generally present). Hence, it is all the more important that products be aesthetically pleasing to compete for consumers' scant attentional and subsequent cognitive processing resources. It is noteworthy that although we conceptualized this work using Zajonc's (1980) theory of preference, two additional theoretical frameworks are relevant. The affective-cognitive matching framework, (see Fabrigar & Petty (1999), suggests that liking judgments should be influenced mainly by affective (e.g., aesthetic) information while quality judgments should be influenced primarily by cognitive (e.g., brand strength) information. This framework, however, cannot fully account for these results because quality judgments were influenced by both cognitive and affective information. Despite the popularity and utility of the affective-cognitive matching framework, there appear to be limitations of its applicability, at least in the context of new product perception. A second theoretical framework, the theory of lay epistemology (Freund, Kruglanski, & Shpitzajen, 1985; Kruglanski & Webster, 1996) is also relevant. Specifically, consumers may regard liking judgments as subjective, with no clearly right or wrong answers. As a consequence,concern about forming an incorrect impression (Kruglanski's fear of invalidity) should be low, and consumers should use information that is quickly and easily processed (Kruglanski's immediacy principle) such as aesthetic information. In contrast, consumers may consider quality judgments as objective because valid reference points often do exist, for example in the

INITIAL AFFECT AND QUALITY JUDGMENTS

form of quality judgments by experts or the quality ratings published in consumer buying guides such as Consumer Reports. Consequently, consumers' fear of invalidity might be heightened, motivating them to go beyond information that is quickly and easily processed and to instead consider using more complex, multidimensional information (e.g., aesthetics and brand strength and product function). Alternatively, consumers may simply recognize that quality is a multidimensional construct. When Freund et al. (1985) manipulated a unidimensional versus a multidimensional focus by varying the type ofjudgment task in which participants were asked to perform the results were dramatic. A multidimensional task (relative to a unidimensional task) increased participants' fear of invalidity, decreased the need for cognitive closure, and prompted individuals to go beyond the immediacy principle. Both of these latter interpretations suggest yet another important difference between liking and quality judgments that may prove important for consumer judgment and decision making; liking judgments should be more susceptible than quality judgments to anchoring effects. From a practical perspective, these results suggest that with regard to consumers' liking evaluations, weak brands (e.g., AST) may be able to compete with strong brands (e.g., IBM) by producing superiorly designed (functionally and aesthetically) products. With regard to quality judgments, weak brands may be at a significant competitivedisadvantage compared with strong brands if they produce products with inferior aesthetics or function. In such situations, unlike strong brands, the value of weak brands offers no protection against negative product information. Consequently, for weak brands, product design may significantly impact product success; superior design may raise consumers' product evaluations to a level where weak brands may compete with strong brands, while inferior design lowers such evaluations to a point where weak brands may be at a significant disadvantage. For strong brands, design's impact may initially be much less consequential. Specifically, while good design supports consumers' product evaluations, poor design does not significantly hurt such initial evaluations. That is, the value of strong brands seems to mitigate the damaging effects of negative product information in the near term. It is important to note that the present work focuses on first impressions that the consumers form of new products. Hence, these results are most likely to generalize to situations in which consumers have little prior knowledge about the specific product, and may be unlikely to generalize to situations in which consumers have experience with the product, either through direct sensory channels, or other informational routes. These situations notwithstanding, other domains exist in which these results may have considerable applicability. For instance, it is not at all unusual for catalogue or Internet shoppers to form initial impressions based solely on the aesthetic, brand, and limited functional information presented. Furthermore, the presentation of this type of information is common not only in catalogues and the Internet, but also in magazine and newspaper advertising,on billboards,and the like.

145

This work addressed consumer responses to a product categorized as high in symbolism and functionality. Future research should examine the relative impact of aesthetics, functional characteristics,' and brand strength on judgments of other types of products as well. For example, products low in symbolism may be impervious to aesthetic characteristics. It is likely that brands not high in functionality and symbolism may be so strongly linked to affect (rather than quality), that the present results would change dramatically. Moreover, quality judgments may play be much less strongly linked to brands for some product categories than those examined here. Clearly, future research should be directed at identifying any boundary conditions for the effects here described. An additional direction for future work would include examining the point at which brand strength fails to protect against the negative impact of poor design. For instance, how much exposure to a profoundly ugly product paired with a strong brand would be sufficient to weaken the brand's protective influence, or even harm the brand by adding negatively valued associations to its cognitive representation? The present work suggests that whatever the outcome of these additional investigations, there is merit in investigating the interplay of product design and brand strength in the formation of consumers' product judgments.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This work represents the Christine Page's doctoral dissertation, chaired by Paul M. Herr. We gratefully acknowledge the helpful comments of the members of Christine Page's dissertation committee, Bridgette Braig, Dipankar Chakravarti, Reid Hastie, and Jim Nelson, and the motivation and inspiration provided by Elizabeth McDonel Herr. In addition, we thank the editor and two reviewers for their dedicated efforts.

REFERENCES Aaker, David A. (1991). Munuging brund equity. New York: Free Press. Allport, Gordon W. (1935). Attitudes. In C. Murchison (Ed.),Hundbook (fSociul Psychology (pp. 798-884). Worcester, MA: Clark University Press. Anderson, Norman H. (1 965). Averaging versus addingas astimulus-combination rule in impression formation. Journal ofExperitnentu1 Psychology, 70, 394400. AsiaWeek. (1998, September 4). Return of the iMac, AsiuWeek. 10. Autoweek. (1998, November 16). New beetle, new owners: Zero to 60 on fresh flowers, 24-25. Bagozzi, Richard P., & Bumkrant, Robert E. (1979). Attitude organization and the attitude-behavior relationship. Journal of Personuliry u d Social Psychology. 37. 9 13-929. Bagozzi, Richard P., & Burnkrant, Robert E. (1985). Attitude organization and the attitude-behaviorrelation: A reply to Dillon and Kumar. Journu1 of Personulity and SociuI Psychology. 49. 47-57. Berkowitz. Marvin. (1987). Product shape as a design innovation strategy. Jounurl of Produc.t Innovution Munugement, 4, 274-283. Bloch, Peter H. (1995, July). Seeking the ideal form:Product designandconsumer response. Jourtzul ofMurkering, 59, 16-29.

146

PAGE AND HERR

Bloch, Peter H., Ridgway, Nancy M., & Sherrell, Daniel L. (1989, Winter). Extending the concept of shopping: An investigation of browsing activity. Joumul of the Academy ($Marketing Science. 17. 13-21. Broniarczyk, Susan M., & Alba, Joseph W. (1594, May). The Importance of the brand in brand extension. Journul ($Marketing Research, 31, 214-228. Carpenter, Pahicia A., & Just, Marcel A. (1975). Sentence comprehension: Psycholinguistic processing model of verification. Psychr~k~gicul Review. 82,4>73. Carpenter, Patricia A. (1976). Models of sentenceverification and linguistic comprehension. Psychologicul Review. 83, 3 1 8-322. Consumer Reports (1 998, November). Beetlemania. 28-29. Cox, Donald F. (1967). The sorting rule model of the consumer product evaluation process. In Donald Cox (Ed.), Risk taking and infirmation hndling in consumer behavior (pp. 324-369). Boston: Division of Research, Graduate School of Business Administration, Harvard University. Dion, Karen, Berscheid, Ellen, & Walster, Elaine. (1972). What is beautiful is good. Journal r$Personulity and Social Psychology, 24, 295-290. Dumaine, Brain. (1991, March 11). Design that sells and sells and .... Fortune, 86-94. Eagly, Alice H., & Chaiken, Shelly. (1993). The psychology ofattitudes. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Inc. Ellis, Seth R. (1993). A psychometric investigation of u scalefor the evuluution ofthe oesrhetic element in consumer durable goods. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Arizona, Arizona. Fabrigar, Leandre R., & Petty, Richard E. (1999). The role of the affective and cognitive bases of attitudes in susceptibility to affectively and cognitively based persuasion. Personulity and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25, 363-38 l. Farquhar, Peter H. (1989). Managing brand equity. Murketing Reseurch, I, 24-33. Fazio, Russell H. (1986). How do attitudes guide behavior? In Richard M. Sorrentino and E. Troy Higgins (Eds.), Handbook ofmotivation andcognition: Foundation ofsocial behavior (204-243). New York: Guilford. Fazio, Russell H. (1990). A practical guide to the use of response latency in social psychological research. In C. Hendrick & M. S. Clark (Eds.),Reseurch method.^ in personulity and social psychology (pp. 74-97). Newbury, CA: Sage. Fazio, Russell H.(1991). Multiple processes by whichattitudes guidebehavior: The mode model as an integrativeframework. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.). Advances in experimental socialpsychology (Vol. 23, pp 75-1 09), New York: Academic. Fazio, Russell H., Lenn, Tracy M. & Effrein, Edward A. (1984). Spontaneous attitude formation. Social Cognition. 2(3) 217-234. Feldman, Jack M., &Lynch, JohnG. (1988, August). Self-generatedvalidity and other effects of measurement on belief, attitude, intention, and behavior. Journul of Applied Psychology, 73, 421 -35. Fishbein, Martin, & Ajzen, Icek. (1975). Beliej uttitude, intention, and behavior. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Fiske, Susan T., & Pavelchak, M. A. (1986). Category-based versus piecemeal-based affective responses: Developments in schema-triggeredaffect. Handbook of motivation and cognition: Foundations of social behavior (pp. 167-203), New York: Guilford. Freund Tallie., Kruglanski, Arie W., & Shpitzajen,Avivit. (1985). The freezing and unfreezing of impressional primacy: Effects of the need for structure and the fear of invalidity. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 4, 479487. Garbarino, Ellen. C., & Edell, Julie A. (1997, September). Cognitive effort, affect, and choice. Journal of Consutner Research, 24, 147-158. Henry, Ed (1998).Going buggy over the new beetle. Kiplinger's, 52(6), 129-133. Hem, Paul M., Farquhar, Peter H., & Fazio, Russell. H. (1993). Using dominunce measures to evaluate brand extensions (Rep. No. 93-1 20). Cambridge, MA: Marketing Science Institute. Herr, Paul M., Farquar, Peter H., & Fazio, Russell H. (1996). Impact of dominance and relatedness on brand extensions. Journal ofconsumer Psy~hology,5(2). 135-1 59.

Holbrook, Moms B., & Zirlin, Robert B. (1985). Artistic creation, artworks, and aestheticappreciation.Advances in Non-Profit Marketing, 1, 1-54. Jordan, Nehemiah. (1965). The "asymmetry" of "liking" and "disliking": A Phenomenon meriting further reflection and research. Public Opinion Quarterly, 29, 3 15-322. Kardes, Frank R. (1986, June). Effects of initial productjudgments on subsequent memory-based judgments. Journul of Consumer Reseurch, 13, 1-1 1. Kotler, Philip, & Rath, G. Alexander. (1984). Design - a powerful but neglected tool. Journal of Business Strutegy, 5, 25-30. K~glanski,Arie.W., & Freund, Tallie. (1983). The freezing and unfreezing of lay inferences:Effects on impressional primacy, ethnic stereotyping, and numerical anchoring.Jr~urnulof Experimental and Social Psychology, 19,448468. Kruglanski Arie. W., & Webster, Donna M. (1996). Motivated closing of the mind: "Seizing"and "Freezing". Psychologicul Review, 103, 263-283. Lee, Honjoon, Hen; Paul M., Kardes, Frank. R., &KimChankon. (1999). Motivated search: Effects of choice accountability,issue involvement, and prior knowledge on information acquisition and use. Journul of Business Research. 45. 75-88. Loewenstein, George. F. (19%). Out of control: Visceral influences onbehavior. Orguniwtiorurl Behuvior and Hutnun Decision Proc:esses, 65, 272-292. Lynch, John G.,& Srull, T. K. (1982). "Memory and attentional factors in consumer choice: Concepts and research methods. Journul of Consumer Reseurch. 9,18-37. Maheswaran, Durairaj, Mackie, Diane M., & Chaiken, Shelly. (1992).Brand name as a heuristic cue: The effects of task importance and expectancy confirmation on consumer judgments. Journul of Consumer Psychology, 1, 317-336. Mitchell, Russ. (1999, January 18). Maximizing iMacs. U.S. News & World Report, 4 3 4 5 . Nussbaum, Bruce. (1988, April 1I). Smart design. Business Week, 102-1 17. Nussbaum, Bruce. (1993, June 7). Hot products. Business Week, 54-57. Nussbaum, Bruce. (1997, June 2). Winners. Business Week, 92-95 Oakley, Mark. (1990). Design and design management. In Mark Oakley (Ed.), Design munugement: A handbook of issues and methods (pp. 3-14), Cambridge, MA: Basil Blackwell Inc. Olenick, Doug. (1998, July 27). Low-cost iMac expected to attract consumers previously reluctant to upgrade-system welcome on sales floor. Computer Retail Week, 3 1. Parsons, Leonard J. (1989). Product design. In W. Henry, M. Menasco, & H. Takada (Eds.), New product development curd testing (pp. 51-76). Lexington, MA: Lexington Books. Economics. 70, 507-536. Richardon, Paul. S., Dick, Alan. S., & Jain, Arun K. (1994). Extrinsicandintrinsic cue effects on perceptionsof store brandquality. JournalofMarketing, 58, 28-36. Rodin, Miriam. J. (1978).Liking anddisliking: Sketchofanalternativeview. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 4(3), 473478. Russell, Bob., & Novosedlik Will. (1998, May). Design matters: New iMac apotheosis of lateral thinking. Strategy, 25, 22-23. Sanbonmatsu, David M., & Fazio, Russell H. (1990). The role of attitudes in memory-based decision making. Joumul r,fPersonulityundSocial Psychology, 59,614422. Schmin, Bernd, & Simonson, Alex. (1997). Murketing Aesthetics. New York: The Free Press. Shiv, Baba, & Fedorikhin, Alexander. (1999, December). Heart and mind in conflict: The interplay of affect and cognition in consumer decision making. Journul of Consumer Reswrch, 26, 278-292. Silvius, Susan. (1998, December). iMac vs. pentium: No points for good looks. P C World, 74-75. Strategy. (1999). Beetle drives sales with aggressive launch. March 29, 19-20. Sujan, Mita. (1985). Consumer knowledge: Effects on evaluation strategies mediating consumer judgments. Journul of Consumer Reseurch, 12, 3146.

INITIAL AFFECT AND QUALITY JUDGMENTS ~ l r i c hKarl , T., & Eppinger, Steven D. (1995). Product design und development. New York: McGraw-Hill. Veryzer, Robert W., Jr. (1993). Aesthetic responses and the influence of design principles on product preferences. In L. McAllister & M. Rothschild (Ms.), Advances in consumer reseurch (Vol. 20, pp. 224-231), Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research. Veryzer, Robert W., Jr. (1995). The place of product design and aesthetics in consumer research. In F. R. Kardes & M. Sujan (Ms.), Advunces in consumer reseurch (Vol. 22, pp. 641-645), Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research. Veryzer, Robert W., Jr., & Hutchinson, J. W. (1998). The influence of unity and prototypicality on aestheticresponses to new product designs.Journal ($Consumer Reseurch. 24(4), 374-394. Vlasic, Bill. (1998, May 25). Bug-Eyed over the new beetle. Business Week, 88.

147

Walker, Stuart. (1995). Theenvironment, product aesthetics and surface. Design issues, 11(3), 15-27. Wildstrom, Stephen. (1998, September 7). Is Apple's iMac for you? Business Week 18. Yamamoto, Mel, & Lambert, David R. (1994). The impact of product aesthetics on the evaluation of industrial products. Journcll of Producr innovation Munagement, 11, 309-324. Zajonc, Robert B. (1980). Feeling and thinking: Preferences need no inferences. Americun Psychologist, 35, 151-175. Zajonc, Robert B. ( 1 984). On the Primacy of Affect. Americun Psychologist, 39. 117-123. Zajonc, Robert B., & Markus, Hazel. (1982). Affective and Cognitive Factors in Preferences. Journul r,f'Consutner Reseurch, 9, 123-1 3 1.

Accepted by Dawn Iacobucci.