- Email: [email protected]
It is not always about brand: Design-driven consumers and their self-expression
Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 43 (2018) 296–303
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jretconser
It is not always about brand: Design-driven consumers and their selfexpression
T
⁎
Kyung-Ah (Kay) Byun , Robert Paul Jones, Barbara Ross Wooldridge University of Texas at Tyler, 3900 University Blvd., Tyler, TX 75799, United States
A R T I C LE I N FO
A B S T R A C T
Keywords: Design-dominance Self-expression Need for uniqueness Brand loyalty Loyalty dilution
Consumers often utilize product design as one of the central means for expressing identity. However, few studies have investigated how consumers leverage product design for self-expression, and how a dominant design preference can influence consumers’ self-expression through brands. Drawing upon identity theory, this study examines how design-driven consumers express their personal and social identities. The results suggest that design-dominance among consumers leverages their need-for-uniqueness as a conduit for social identity expression. For consumers with a clear self-concept, expressing uniqueness through product design is weaker. The results also demonstrate that when design-dominance is strong, consumer exhibit a reduced reliance on brands to express their social identity, thus weakening brand loyalty.
1. Introduction
consumers encounter an unfamiliar brand or choose from many differing product designs within a brand, the role and value of the brand becomes less clear. The situational complexity in product selection adds uncertainty into the brand value equation which provides the opportunity for product design to play a major role in consumers’ self-expression. Acknowledging the importance that design aesthetics have in the purchase decision, there has nevertheless been little research devoted to investigating how product design facilitates consumers’ selfexpression. Perhaps more importantly, how a product design may impact a consumer differently than the reliance on brand. Thus, this study examines how design-driven consumers express their personal and social identities through design. Further, what role design-dominance plays in reinforcing consumer self-expression at the expense of brand centricity and loyalty is investigated. This study contributes to retailing literature by illustrating the relationships among design preference, self-expression, and brand loyalty. First, the authors introduce a mechanism through which consumers can express their personal and social identities via product design. We introduce a concept of design-dominance, which reflects the consumers’ psychological attachment to product design aesthetics instead of brand. Second, we seek to demonstrate the resulting dilution effect design-dominance has on brand loyalty. This is a result of a design-driven consumer's desire to satisfy their need-for-uniqueness with a specific aesthetic regardless of brand. Managerially, we emphasize that significant changes to product designs within a brand either private label or national should not be undertaken without a deep understanding of the target consumers’ design orientation.
In the retail environment both in-store and online, consumers are exposed to a limited assortment of design cues. Design elements associated with the physical space and the online store influence consumers’ perception of, and loyalty to, a retailer (Murray et al., 2017), as well as the products the retailer offers (Kahn, 2017). Design elements associated with the products being offered attract consumers and enhance their experiences with and enjoyment of the product (Bloch, 1995). These benefits accrue to consumers whether the design is associated with a national or private label brand (Ailawadi and Keller, 2004). As consumers often leverage product design as a central means for expressing their identity (Giese et al., 2014), it is important for store managers to stock, and web designers to highlight, products with aesthetic designs that attract and retain customers. For example, Benetton enjoyed great international success in the 1980's, but then lost a substantial base of brand favorable customers in the 1990's as it failed to keep up with the consumers’ changing fashion tastes (Edmondson, 2003). The literature suggests that when consumers are able to procure and display their preferred design aesthetics, it results in enhanced self-esteem, self-oriented value, and/or self-affirmation (Kumar et al., 2015; Kumar and Noble, 2016). The benefits of self-expression through design accrue even when consumers indicate that aesthetics plays no role in their purchase decisions (Bloch et al., 2003; Townsend and Sood, 2012). Conventional wisdom is that design aesthetics rarely stand alone as most if not all products are also brand identified. However, when ⁎
Corresponding author. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (K.-A.K. Byun), [email protected] (R.P. Jones), [email protected] (B.R. Wooldridge).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2018.04.009 Received 20 December 2017; Received in revised form 21 March 2018; Accepted 20 April 2018 0969-6989/ © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 43 (2018) 296–303
K.-A.K. Byun et al.
which can enhance self-esteem (Townsend and Sood, 2012), representing intrinsic personal values (Vernon and Allport, 1931). Accordingly, individuals assign different levels of importance to the visual design of a product (Bloch et al., 2003). That is, the preference for beauty or the appreciation of a particular aesthetic represents and strengthens an intrinsic personal value (Townsend and Sood, 2012; Vernon and Allport, 1931). This study suggests a concept of design-dominance, such that product design provides more value to a consumer relative to any value attributed to a brand. Consumers with high levels of design-dominance are psychologically predisposed to place more personal value on product design than brand when making purchase decisions. The power of design-dominance is such that the consumer is compelled to satisfy their aesthetic selection even if it means sacrificing any previous loyalty they may have held toward a particular brand. As a result, these designdriven consumers will remain loyal to their design preferences and therefore be more willing to purchase from a variety of brands in an effort to support their preferred aesthetics. Since the preference for beauty is an intrinsic personal value (Vernon and Allport, 1931), we suggest that design-dominance is an individual trait that is stable and relatively consistent in different situations and an outcome of consumers’ efforts to satisfy their need to be unique as an individual (Bloch et al., 2003). Then, the adherence to their particular aesthetic results in purchases which are generally distinct from mainstream brand selections (Chan et al., 2012) so that selected designs can differentiate themselves from others (Tian et al., 2001). However, the need-for-uniqueness does not always link both social and personal identity to need-for-uniqueness in the same way. Gao et al. (2009) show that an expression of personal identity, which is consistent across social occasions, can result in depressing consumer need-foruniqueness to minimize self-conflict. That is, when personal identity is clear, consumers might not feel the need-for-uniqueness and vice versa. Meanwhile, consumers who want to communicate social identity compatibility select a choice strongly related to a group (e.g., luxury brands) (Han et al., 2010). When a consumer desires for alignment with a particular social group they will express their social identity in a manner they believe will generate high levels of intra-group similarity. Meanwhile, when they want to differentiate themselves from others within the group, they seek designs that can communicate their own status or uniqueness relative to others in-group members (Berger and Ward, 2010). As a result, when their need-for-uniqueness is influenced more positively by social identity than personal identity, consumers pursuing uniqueness within a group may choose options that are less compatible than traditional within-group selections (Chan et al., 2012). Based on the literature the following hypotheses are offered:
The study is organized in the following order. First, the study develops a conceptual framework grounded in identity theory. Second, the hypotheses testing and results follow. Finally, a general discussion explores the findings and their theoretical and managerial implications addressing study limitations and future research topics. 2. Conceptual framework 2.1. Self-expression and need-for-uniqueness Self-expression is an important driver of consumer preference and choice (Aaker, 1999; Belk, 1988; Richins, 1994). This study adopts the integrated perspective or global sense of the self, which is comprised of role, social, and personal identity (Kleine et al., 1993; Hitlin, 2003; Schwartz et al., 2008; Stets and Burke, 2000). Within the self, personal identity is represented as ‘ego identity’ (Erikson, 1968), or ‘person identity’ (Stets and Burke, 2000). Individuals who are driven by their personal identity tend to have a set of goals, values, and beliefs which form a coherent sense of self across a variety of social roles such as work, home, and social events (Cross et al., 2003; Schwartz et al., 2008; Suh, 2002). This is different from social identity, which is more fluid situationally in relation to interactions with others. The multifaceted nature of social identity allows for varied responses depending on the changes from situational social roles and/or social cues (Hogg, 1996; Hogg et al., 1995; Tajfel and Turner, 1979). Although personal and social identity expression work in concert for a given occasion (Hitlin, 2003), consumers may strive for reducing any incongruence between the two (Hillenbrand and Money, 2015) or express one identity at the expense of another (Thompson and Loveland, 2015). Consumption behaviors are used for fulfilling their psychological needs like expressing identity (Thompson and Loveland, 2015) or demonstrating their uniqueness or differentiation from others (e.g, Tian et al., 2001). In particular, possessing a nice-looking product makes consumers feel more attractive to others and similarly boosts their sense of self (Townsend and Sood, 2012). Thus, this study suggests that product design provides a medium for expressing the consumer's identity, personal or social, while need-for-uniqueness mediates the relationships between identity expression and design-dominance. Fig. 1 shows a conceptual model of the study. 2.2. Design-dominance One of the main components of product design is design aesthetics (Bloch, 1995). Design aesthetics is defined as visually appealing design elements of a product (Hagtvedt and Patrick, 2014). From the aspect of product evaluation, design aesthetics bring positive perceptions on functionality (Norman, 2004), overall product judgment (Raghubir and Greenleaf, 2006), and/or price expectation (Orth et al., 2010). Psychologically, design aesthetics provide emotional and social value
Personal identity
H2:. The expression of consumer's social identity will have a significant and positive influence on need-for-uniqueness. H3:. Need-for-uniqueness will have a significant and positive influence on consumers’ design-dominance.
H1 (-)
Need-foruniqueness Social identity
H1:. The expression of consumer's personal identity will have a significant and negative influence on need-for-uniqueness.
H3 (+)
2.3. Dilution of brand loyalty
Designdominance
Design-driven consumers pursue intrinsic personal value in their preference of beauty or the appreciation of particular aesthetics (Townsend and Sood, 2012; Vernon and Allport, 1931). That is, designdriven consumers focus more on design aesthetics regardless of product category as design-dominance is relatively stable individual personal trait. As uniqueness often drives variety seeking (e.g., Drolet, 2002), highly design-driven consumers are more likely to pursue design options from a variety of brands. Thus, design-dominance allows consumers to be less reliant on brand popularity or brand reputation. The social meaning shared among specific brand users relative to designs
H2 (+) H4 (-)
Brand loyalty Fig. 1. Conceptual model. 297
Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 43 (2018) 296–303
K.-A.K. Byun et al.
Table 1 Factor analysis of the design-dominance scale.
Design-dominance_1 Design-dominance_2 Design-dominance_3 Design-dominance_4 Design-dominance_5 Design-dominance_6
Items
Factor1
Alpha
The products I purchase tend to share similar designs. I tend to try similar designs regardless of brands. If the brand that I like launches a product with a design I do not like much, I am not willing to buy the product. If a brand I am not familiar with provides a design style that I like the most, I would try the brand. In general, I can see similar designs and patterns in my possessions. I often hear from the people around me that my design choices are consistent and similar.
.79 .63 .51 .60 .50 .65
.80
raters, resulting in a set of ten items that indicate their design priority and dominant design choice. From the literature review and the exploratory qualitative method, we generated an initial set of 20 items in total. We used the approach by Saxe and Weitz (1982) retaining those items that more than half of the judges rated as a representative. This process resulted in a set of 9 items. To assess dimensionality, the 9 items were administered to a sample of 47 undergraduate students to examine the appropriateness of the selected items measured on a 5-point Likert scale (5 “Strongly agree”; 1 “Strongly disagree”). An exploratory factor analysis with varimax rotation identified one factor with eigenvalues greater than one, which explained approximately 76% of the variance. Items that had one factor loadings (< .45), low item-total correlations (< .40), and significant cross-factor loadings (> .40), were deleted. As a result, six items loaded on one factor, which was named as design-dominance. Two independent judges confirmed that the eliminated items did not result in a loss of face or content validity with regard to the conceptual definition of the underlying construct. Table 1 shows the six items loaded on one factor (α = .80).
within the brand, restrains design-driven consumer need for uniqueness which detracts from their individual differentiation. In contrast, consumers with strong brand loyalty tend to be satisfied with design options provided by their preferred brand. For example, in-group members seeking intra-group acceptance seeks high brand visibility, while members seeking differentiation will select more subtle designs within their favorite brand. Either way, brand-driven consumers will have limited scope of design selections within the brand's design portfolio (e.g., Berger and Ward, 2010). As a result, design-dominance allows consumers to fulfil their need for uniqueness beyond the boundaries of brands, diminishing brand power and loyalty. That is, as the preferences for aesthetic design is higher, brand loyalty will decrease. Thus, the following hypotheses is offered: H4:. Design-dominance will have a significant and negative association with brand loyalty. 3. Method 3.1. Design, sample, and procedure
3.2.2. Other constructs Other latent variables were measured using 7-item Likert scales (1 =‘Very strongly disagree,’ 7 =‘Very strongly agree’). Personal identity was measured adopted from the self-concept clarity scale, such as “the extent to which self-beliefs are clearly and confidently defined, internally consistent, and stable” (Campbell et al., 1996, p. 141) (α = .85). We used self-categorization scale (Bergami and Bagozzi, 2000) for measuring social identity (α = .87) because social identities are, “categorizations of the self into more inclusive social units that depersonalize the self-concept” (Brewer, 1991, p. 476). The need-foruniqueness was measured with Tian et al. (2001) (α = .78). Brand loyalty was measured with Chaudhuri and Holbrook (2001) (α = .80).
To investigate the role of design-dominance in identity expression and brand loyalty, a self-administered online survey was developed and distributed to students from a southwestern U.S. college of business. Students were offered extra credit for participation (n = 223; 54% male). College-age students make purchase decisions which consider both design and brands on a regular bases and they are often engaged in expression of their identity in a variety of settings. Thus, the use of a student sample for this given topic of inquiry is appropriate (Calder et al., 1981; Enis et al., 1972). In the survey, respondents answered about their general design-dominance, personal and social identity, need-for-uniqueness, and brand loyalty respectively in a given situation where they want to buy an automobile product.
3.3. Measurement model 3.2. Construct measurement We analyzed the data through structural equation modeling (SEM) using STATA. SEM is a two-step process which requires that a measurement model first be fit to assess the appropriateness of the data to the model. The measurement model demonstrated acceptable fit (Kline, 2015); χ2 = 137.13, df= 93, χ2/df= 1.47, CFI= .97, TLI= .96, RMSEA= .046, and SRMR= .05. Items which exhibited low item-tototal correlation within scales were trimmed. Each scale retained at least three items per construct (Howell et al., 2007), with each item exhibiting a factor loading in excess of .60 on its own construct (Fornell and Bookstein, 1982). Table 2 provides the factor loadings, Cronbach's alpha, average variance extracted (AVE), and composite reliability for the measurement model. The composite reliability and Cronbach's alpha measures, indicate all scales demonstrated adequate internal consistency (Fornell and Larcker, 1981). The AVE for each construct exceeded .50 and was smaller than the composite reliability, supporting convergent validity (Chin, 1998). Discriminant validity was also satisfactory as the AVE of each construct was greater than the shared variance between the construct and other constructs in the model (Fornell and Larcker, 1981). The correlation coefficient metrics is provided at Table 3.
3.2.1. Design-dominance In order to measure design-dominance, the authors refined existing design importance scales using both qualitative and quantitative methods (Yoo and Donthu, 2001). The authors extensively examined the literature related to product design and its dominant features in consumers’ decision making. Extant research on product design focuses on design aesthetics such as an importance of aesthetic design to individual consumers (Bloch et al., 2003), which assists in understanding differences among individual consumers in recognizing the value of a superior design, the amount of design knowledge, and/or the affective reaction to design (Brunel and Swain, 2008; Mowen et al., 2010; Myszkowski and Storme, 2012). In addition to the measures from the literature review, the authors conducted an exploratory qualitative study to understand how design is important to consumers. Forty three undergraduate students responded to open-ended questions about the importance of a products design to them, and a relative importance of product design compared to brand. Following Rossiter (2002), the new items generated from the open-ended questions were tested for validity. The authors categorized the answers with the help of two independent 298
Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 43 (2018) 296–303
K.-A.K. Byun et al.
Table 2 Measurement model (CFA). Construct
Item
Loadings
Cronbach's alpha (α )
AVE
Composite reliability ( ρc )
Design-dominance
design-dominance_1 design-dominance_2 design-dominance_3 design-dominance_4 personal identity_1 personal identity_2 personal identity_3 social identity_1 social identity_2 social identity_3 loyalty_1 loyalty_2 loyalty_3 uniqueness_1 uniqueness_2 uniqueness_3
.83 .82 .67 .60 .63 .72 .98 .70 .82 .71 .66 .66 .88 .79 .83 .61
.82
.54
.82
.85
.66
.85
.87
.56
.79
.80
.54
.78
.78
.56
.79
Personal identity
Social identity
Loyalty
Need-for-uniqueness
Model fit: N = 223, χ2 = 137.13, df= 93, χ 2/df= 1.47, CFI= .97, TLI= .96, RMSEA= .046, and SRMR= .05.
social identities on brand loyalty as literature suggests a strong relationship between social identity and brand loyalty (Belk, 1988; Han et al., 2010) and emphasizes the role of brand in restoring consumers’ original self-view (Gao et al., 2009). In our model, social identity had a significant and positive relationship with brand loyalty (β = .48, p < .001) in consistent with previous literature, while personal identity demonstrated no significant influence. The results imply the dual aspects of identity expression that consumers utilize design when they feel to be unique in their intergroup relationships. In addition, the mediating effects of the need-for-uniqueness in the model was tested (Acock, 2013). The findings revealed that the needfor-uniqueness is a substantive mediator between personal identities and design-dominance, and between social identities and design-dominance (see Table 4). When direct paths were added from both identities to design-dominance, each of the direct paths was insignificant compared to when indirect paths through the need-for-uniqueness were present (based on standardized parameter estimates). Thus, the needfor-uniqueness has a full mediating effect proposed in the model. To improve generalizability of our findings, we replicated the study in a different category, a fashion item (e.g., jackets). We recruited 120 participants from MTurk for $.95 compensation in order to reflect diverse social status of respondents. After dropping responses that took less than 3 min to control careless responses (Meade and Craig, 2012), we had total 114 usable samples among which females were 50 (43.9%). Appendix B shows measurement model and SEM estimates, and the results were consistent in the fashion category supporting that consumer's leverage design to express their self- and/or social identity and design dominance negatively influences brand loyalty.
Table 3 Means, standard deviations, and correlation coefficients. Construct
Mean
1
2
3
4
5
6
1. 2. 3. 3. 4.
4.7 4.1 3.9 5.1 3.1
1.2 1.0 1.2 1.0 1.3
1 − .13* − .02 − .30*** .22***
1 − .24*** − .06 − .26***
1 .38*** .32***
1 .16**
1
design-dominance personal identity social identity loyalty uniqueness
* p < .1. ** p < .05. *** p < .01 (n = 223).
4. Results Based on the good fit in the measurement model, the authors conducted an analysis of the structural model using the maximum loglikelihood method. Fig. 2 shows the structural path loadings with the corresponding significance levels. The fit statistics again demonstrated an acceptable fit; χ2 = 136.25, df= 95, χ2/ df= 1.43, CFI= .97, TLI= .96, RMSEA= .044, and SRMR= .05 (Kline, 2015). The results showed that personal identity had a significant negative impact on need-for-uniqueness (β = -.28, p < .001), supporting H1. Social identity as hypothesized in H2, had a significant positive effect on need-foruniqueness (β = .33, p < .001). The need-for-uniqueness demonstrated a significant positive influence on design-dominance (β = .20, p < .001), and design-dominance had a significant negative relationship with brand loyalty (β = -.35, p < .001), supporting both H3 and H4. In the model, the authors controlled the impact of personal and
5. General discussion and implications 5.1. Theoretical implications
-.28
Need-foruniqueness
.20
Designdominance
This current research demonstrates that personal and social identity influence design-dominance through need-for-uniqueness. The results contribute to the retailing literature in the following perspectives. First, the findings suggest that personal value associated with design aesthetics can wield a powerful and independent influence on consumers’ identity expression. The results show that, although consumers use both design and brand to express their social identity, the positive relationship between the need-for-uniqueness and design-dominance reflects the consumer's desire to differentiate themselves in both inter- and intra-group situations for mitigating possible conflicts within multiple social identities. In addition, weak personal identity stimulates needfor-uniqueness as a way of self-restoration, resulting in pursuing design that can strengthen intrinsic value. That is, when consumers feel
Personal identity .06
-.35
.33
Social identity .48
Brand loyalty
Model fit: N=223, χ2=136.25, df=95, χ2/df=1.434, CFI=.97, TLI=.96, RMSEA=.044, and SRMR=.054. Legend: * p<.05; ** p<.01; *** p<.001
Fig. 2. SEM standardized estimates. 299
Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 43 (2018) 296–303
K.-A.K. Byun et al.
Table 4 Total, direct, and indirect effects. Paths
Total effects (Standardized coefficients)
Direct effects (Std. coef.)
Indirect effects (Std. coef.)
Personal identity → Design-dominance Social identity→ Design-dominance Uniqueness→Design-dominance Personal identity →Loyalty Social identity → Loyalty Uniqueness - > Loyalty Design-dominance → Loyalty Personal identity → Uniqueness Social identity → Uniqueness
− .11 .03 .20* .10 .47*** − .07* − .34*** − .28*** .33***
− .06 − .03 .20* .07 .49*** .0 − .34*** − .28*** .33***
− .05 .06 – .07 − .01 − .07* – – –
Note: *p < .1; **p < .05; ***p < .01
options. As an example, brands such as Polo Ralph Lauren adhere to a strict design profile, while designers such as Michael Kors and Chanel provide a range of design profiles from logo intensive to designs that carry no significant brand identification. This provides for customers who personally identify with the brand to express it clearly while the design-dominance customer to continue to engage with the brand through design versus brand. Customers’ design-dominance orientation can benefit retailers through an enhanced understanding of their customers brand orientation. Retailers targeting brand centric customers can leverage those customers brand preferences to provide the foundation for the appropriate brandscape and assortment. Retailers whose customer base is heavily brand loyal may opt to focus on fewer and more dominant brands in order to increase assortment breadth and depth in the brands their customers are most loyal to. The narrowing in brand focus may provide retailers the opportunity to represent new categories of product from these key brands further supporting brand loyal customers. Retailers, whose customer base is design centric with a high need-foruniqueness, can take an alternative approach to assortment development. Retailers can alter the brands carried within their assortment regularly and reduce the breadth of assortments carried from those brands, providing access to new brands and design aesthetics. This provides retailers valuable space and funding to support new or additional brands, to increase the variety of design aesthetics available to design-driven customers. As a result, the retailer will offer their customer who expresses design dominance, the necessary variety to support their aesthetic profiles. Further, the reductions to the depth of inventory carried in specific items minimizes customer impressions that items are widely available and therefore not unique. For retailers who understand that they may have a mix of both customer profiles, brand and design centric, can leverage merchandising of their retail spaces and online environments to better support their customer preferences. Products viewed online absent the heavy instore brand presence (e.g., Polo store within a store) allows designdominant customers to focus on the design undistracted by the brand. Adding small in-store displays calling out unique product availability at the retailers online store beyond what is available in-store can also help the design-dominant customer. The retailer can continue and perhaps expand in-store branded shopping environments (e.g., Polo store within a store, etc.) to better support the brand loyal customer. Providing a dual merchandising strategy for in-store and online allows the retailer to reach a design-dominant customer as well as a brand centric customer. Further, the restrictions brands place on in-store merchandise presentations are largely non-existent in the virtual environment. The online store can be particularly beneficial to review search parameters that focus on design elements rather than brand to facilitate the designdominant shopper.
insecure or inconsistent in their self, they will pursue uniqueness by selecting designs they prefer, as a way of self-restoration. Second, this study introduces a concept and measurement of designdominance, the relative importance assigned to design over brand, and demonstrates that, when design becomes a medium for identity expression, consumers may leave the once loyal brand seeking preferred design options to fulfil their need-for-uniqueness. The dualistic mechanism of identity expression through design-dominance indicates that design is not an attribute which is always subordinate to the brand. Rather, consumers’ design-dominance can either expand or narrow the spectrum of brand choices included in consumers’ consideration sets. Design-driven consumers are free to access many brand options to satisfy their personal aesthetic design needs, while brand-oriented consumers limit brand selection to maintain congruence with their social identity although they may seek design options within their preferred brand which can satisfy their need-for-uniqueness. Therefore, relying on brand alone for attracting and satisfying their customers may result in neglecting a significant role design to play with design-dominant consumers. Finally, design-dominance discriminates the effect of design on consumer decision making based on individual preferences driven by intrinsic value separate from the effect that brands may have in consumer decision making. The discriminating nature of design-dominance can help to clarify target consumer tendencies toward design versus brand preference which managers can utilize when making assortment decisions in design portfolios for a brand. Thus, design-dominance offers retailers multiple avenues to explore when satisfying consumer needs, and helps retailers understanding a possible dilution of brand loyalty with an introduction of new aesthetic designs.
5.2. Managerial implications In this study a new tool design-dominance, may help brand managers identify potential customers while simultaneously maintaining their relationship with existing customers. Often design aesthetics help in brand development and success, as they help drive a connection through a specific design aesthetic with new customers. Adherence to a particular aesthetic can increase identifiability that can make a brand standout in the marketplace (e.g., Ralph Lauren Polo, Apple, etc). A design-dominance customer however, who may have originally been attracted to a brand because of a specific design aesthetic, may turn away from the brand because of its strict adherence to that same aesthetic. Therefore, while maintaining a specific aesthetic design profile may be beneficial customers, it may be anathema to others. Customer engagement can help brand managers identify their customer's orientation toward design and/or brand. The information gained from this engagement can provide guidance on an approach which may best serve their customer and enhance brand relationships. In some cases it may be adherence to a specific aesthetic to drive brand loyalty while in others loyalty may result from providing a broad range of design 300
Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 43 (2018) 296–303
K.-A.K. Byun et al.
importance of design compared other product attributes can be developed. Addition psychological needs beyond need-for-uniqueness can be explored relative to how consumers invest in identities and how the identity investment influences other psychological needs reciprocally; such as variety-seeking. Situational factors (e.g., social trends, design popularity, design portfolio, brand reputation, etc.) and their influence on design preferences and purchase behavior would also generate insights. Furthermore, this study can be extended to examine how design and brand elements can be used to improve the efficiency of an online product suggestion strategies. Finally, future studies can test the recency or frequency of purchases or demographic differences among consumers as interesting variables that may influence participants’ design dominance and brand loyalty and extend the topic into different categories.
5.3. Limitations and future studies This study offers several avenues for future research. This study utilized a cross-sectional survey methodology, while longitudinal or experimental designs may provide more insight into the design orientation of consumers. Particularly interesting would be an examination of changes to the design cues utilized by a brand and how they may impact brand loyalty and equity. Research which explores the power of design in a specific product category may help further define the value of design in the consumer decision-making process. Additionally, examining the role of particular design themes (e.g., modern vs. classic, etc.) in consumer design choice can broaden the understanding of how design cues impact purchasing behavior. Since design-dominance is a relative measure comparing the importance of design over brand, a comprehensive scale that shows not only visual centrality but also the
Appendix A. Survey questionnaires
Variable
Items
Design Dominance DP_1 * In general, I do buy a product with a design I like regardless of brands. DP_2 * I focus on designs rather than brands, if qualities are not different. DP_3 * If the brand that I like launches a product with a design I do not like much, I am not willing to buy the product. DP_4 * If a brand I am not familiar with provides a design style that I like much, I would try the brand. DP_5 If the brand that I like launches a product with a design I do not like much, I am not willing to buy the product. DP_6 If a brand I am not familiar with provides a design style that I like the most, I would try the brand. Personal Identity: Self-Concept Clarity (Campbell et al., 1996) PSID _1R My beliefs about myself often conflict with one another. PSID _2R* On one day I might have one opinion of myself and on another day I might have a different opinion. PSID _3R I spend a lot of time wondering about what kind of person I really am. PSID _4R Sometimes I feel that I am not really the person that I appear to be. PSID _5R When I think about the kind of person I have been in the past, I’m not sure what I was really like. PSID _6 I seldom experience conflict between the different aspects of my personality. PSID _7R Sometimes I think I know other people better than I know myself. PSID _8R* My beliefs about myself seem to change very frequently. PSID _9R* If I were asked to describe my personality, my description might end up being different from one day to another day. PSID _10R Even if I wanted to, I don’t think I would tell someone what I’m really like. PSID _11 In general, I have a clear sense of who I am and what I am. PSID _12R It is often hard for me to make up my mind about things because I don’t really know what I want. Social Identity: Self-categorization (Bergami and Bagozzi, 2000) SOCID_1 * When someone criticizes the brand I like, it feels like a personal insult. SOCID_2 I am very interested in what others think about the brand I like. SOCID_3 When I talk about consumers of the brand I like, I usually say “we”; rather than “they”. SOCID_4 * This brand's success feels like my success. SOCID_5 * When someone praises the brand I like, it feels like a personal compliment. SOCID_6 If a story in the media criticized the brand I like, I would feel embarrassed. SOCID_7 The brand I like represents my identity very well. Need for Uniqueness (Tian et al., 2001) Uniq_1 * I collect unusual products as a way of telling people that I am different. Uniq_2 * I often dress unconventionally even when it's likely to offend others. Uniq_3 * I often try to avoid products or brands that I know are bought by the general population. Brand Loyalty (Chaudhuri and Holbrook, 2001)
301
Standardized alpha
Cronbach's alpha
.76 .76 .78
.82
.79 .80 .81 .88 .88 .88 .88 .88 .91 .89 .88 .88
.89
.88 .89 .89 .85 .86 .86 .84 .84 .85 .86
.87
.68 .64 .79
.78
Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 43 (2018) 296–303
K.-A.K. Byun et al.
Loy_1 * Loy_2 Loy_3 * Loy_4 *
In general I tend to stick to a specific brand. My favorite brand would be my first choice. I would not buy other brands if my favorite brand is available at the store. In general, I consider myself to be loyal to my favorite brand.
.74 .77 .78 .72
.80
Notes: All items were measured on 7-point Likert scales (1 =”Strongly Disagree,” 7 =”Strongly Agree”) except Design Dominance that used a 5-point scale to allow comparison of reliability coefficients with previous design-related scales which usually measured in a 5-point scale. The items marked with * only were analyzed for the efficiency of estimation in the SEM analysis.
Appendix B. Replication study results in fashion products See Figs. B1 and B2. See Table B1.
.29
Need-foruniqueness
-.30
Designdominance
Personal identity .09
-.19
.49
Social identity
Brand loyalty
.55
Model fit: N=114, χ2=151.002, df=96, χ2/df=1.325, CFI=.95, TLI=.94, and RMSEA=.07. Legend: * p<.05; ** p<.01; *** p<.001
Fig. B1. Standardized estimates in the replication study.
20s : -.003 30+: -.45
Personal Identity
20s : .40 30+: .23
Designdominance
Need for Uniqueness 20s : .95 30+: .19
20s : .24 30+: -.42
20s : .11 30+: -.25
Social Identity
Brand Loyalty
20s : .45 30+: .11
Model fit: N=64 (M) and 50 (F), χ2= 271.33, df=186, CFI=.92, TLI=.91, and RMSEA=.09. Legend: * = p<0.05; ** = p<0.01; *** = p<0.001
Fig. B2. Age effects in the replication study.
Table B1 Measurement model (CFA). Construct
Item
Standardized Loadings
Cronbach's alpha (α )
AVE
Composite reliability ( ρc )
Design-dominance
design-dominance_1 design-dominance_2 design-dominance_3 design-dominance_4 personal identity_1 personal identity_2 personal identity_3 social identity_1 social identity_2 social identity_3 loyalty_1 loyalty_2 loyalty_3 uniqueness_1 uniqueness_2 uniqueness_3
.93 .85 .76 .67 .95 .89 .78 .73 .82 .95 .75 .74 .93 .78 .86 .89
.88
.65
.88
.91
.77
.91
.88
.70
.88
.85
.66
.85
.89
.71
.88
Personal identity
Social identity
Loyalty
Need-for-uniqueness
Model fit: χ2 = 149.94, df= 94, χ2/df= 1.59, RMSEA= .07, CFI= .95, and SRMR= .06. 302
Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 43 (2018) 296–303
K.-A.K. Byun et al.
References
theories of self. Soc. Psychol. Q. 66 (2), 118–137. Hogg, M.A., 1996. Social identity, self-categorization, and the small group. Underst. Group Behav. 2, 227–253. Hogg, M.A., Terry, D.J., White, K.M., 1995. A tale of two theories: a critical comparison of identity theory with social identity theory. Soc. Psychol. Q. 58 (4), 255–269. Howell, R.D., Breivik, E., Wilcox, J.B., 2007. Reconsidering formative measurement. Psychol. Meth. 12 (2), 205–218. Kahn, B.E., 2017. Using visual design to improve customer perceptions of online assortments. J. Retail. 93 (1), 29–42. Kleine III, R.E., Kleine, S.S., Kernan, J.B., 1993. Mundane consumption and the self: a social-identity perspective. J. Consum. Psychol. 2 (3), 209–235. Kline, R.B., 2015. Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. Guilford publications. Kumar, M., Townsend, J.D., Vorhies, D.W., 2015. Enhancing consumers’ affection for a brand using product design. J. Prod. Innov. Manag. 32 (5), 716–730. Kumar, M., Noble, C.H., 2016. Beyond form and function: Why do consumers value product design? J. Bus. Res. 69 (2), 613–620. Meade, A.W., Craig, S.B., 2012. Identifying careless responses in survey data. Psychol. Methods 17 (3), 437–455. Mowen, J.C., Fang, X., Scott, K., 2010. Visual product aesthetics: a hierarchical analysis of its trait and value antecedents and its behavioral consequences. Eur. J. Mark. 44 (11/ 12), 1744–1762. Murray, J., Elms, J., Teller, C., 2017. Examining the role of store design on consumers' cross-sectional perceptions of retail brand loyalty. J. Ret. Cons. Svcs. 38, 147–156. Myszkowski, N., Storme, M., 2012. How personality traits predict design-driven consumer choices. Eur. J. Psychol. 8 (4), 641–650. Norman, D.A., 2004. Emotional design: why we love (or hate) everyday things. Basic Books, New York, NY. Orth, U.R., Compana, D., Malkewitz, K., 2010. Formation of consumer price expectation based on package design: attractive and quality routes. JMTP 18 (1), 23–40. Raghubir, P., Greenleaf, E., 2006. Ratios in proportion: what should the shape of the package be? J. Mark. 70, 95–107. Richins, M.L., 1994. Valuing things: the public and private meanings of possessions. J. Consum. Res. 21 (3), 504–521. Rossiter, J.R., 2002. The C-OAR-SE procedure for scale development in marketing. Int. J. Res. Mark. 19 (4), 305–335. Saxe, R., Weitz, B.A., 1982. The SOCO scale: a measure of the customer orientation of salespeople. J. Mark. Res. 19 (3), 343–351. Schwartz, S.J., Zamboanga, B.L., Weisskirch, R.S., 2008. Broadening the study of the self: integrating the study of personal identity and cultural identity. Soc. Personal. Psychol. Compass 2 (2), 635–651. Stets, J.E., Burke, P.J., 2000. Identity theory and social identity theory. Soc. Psychol. Q. 63 (3), 224–237. Suh, E.M., 2002. Culture, identity consistency, and subjective well-being. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 83 (6), 1378–1391. Tajfel, H., Turner, J.C., 1979. An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In: Austin, W.C., Worchel, S. (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations. Brooks/Cole, Pacific Grove, CA, pp. 33–48. Tian, K.T., Bearden, W.O., Hunter, G.L., 2001. Consumers' need for uniqueness: scale development and validation. J. Consum. Res. 28 (1), 50–66. Townsend, C., Sood, S., 2012. Self-affirmation through the choice of highly aesthetic products. J. Consum. Res. 39 (2), 415–428. Thompson, S.A., Loveland, J.M., 2015. Integrating identity and consumption: an identity investment theory. JMTP 23 (3), 235–253. Vernon, P.E., Allport, G.W., 1931. A test for personal values. J. Abnorm. Soc. Psychol. 26 (3), 231–248. Yoo, B., Donthu, N., 2001. Developing and validating a multidimensional consumer-based brand equity scale. J. Bus. Res. 52 (1), 1–14.
Aaker, J.L., 1999. The malleable self: the role of self-expression in persuasion. J. Mark. Res. 36 (1), 45–57. Acock, A., 2013. Discovering structural equation modeling using STAT. Stata Press. Ailawadi, K.L., Keller, K.L., 2004. Understanding retail branding: conceptual insights and research priorities. J. Retail. 80 (4), 331–342. Belk, R.W., 1988. Possessions and the extended self. J. Consum. Res. 15 (2), 139–168. Bergami, M., Bagozzi, R.P., 2000. Self‐categorization, affective commitment and group self‐esteem as distinct aspects of social identity in the organization. Brit. J. Soc. Psychol. 39 (4), 555–577. Berger, J., Ward, M., 2010. Subtle signals of inconspicuous consumption. J. Consum. Res. 37 (4), 555–569. Bloch, P.H., 1995. Seeking the ideal form: product design and consumer response. J. Mark. 59 (3), 16–29. Bloch, P.H., Brunel, F.F., Arnold, T.J., 2003. Individual differences in the centrality of visual product aesthetics: concept and measurement. J. Consum. Res. 29 (4), 551–565. Brewer, M.B., 1991. The social self: on being the same and different at the same time. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 17 (5), 475–482. Brunel, F.F., Swain, S., 2008. A moderated perceptual model of product aesthetic evaluations. Eur. Adv. Consum. Res. 8, 444–445. Calder, B.J., Phillips, L.W., Tybout, A.M., 1981. Designing research for application. J. Consum. Res. 8 (2), 197–207. Campbell, J.D., Trapnell, P.D., Heine, S.J., Katz, I.M., Lavallee, L.F., Lehman, D.R., 1996. Self-concept clarity: measurement, personality correlates, and cultural boundaries. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 70 (1), 141–156. Chan, C., Berger, J., Van Boven, L., 2012. Identifiable but not identical: combining social identity and uniqueness motives in choice. J. Consum. Res. 39 (3), 561–573. Chaudhuri, A., Holbrook, M.B., 2001. The chain of effects from brand trust and brand affect to brand performance: the role of brand loyalty. J. Mark. 65 (2), 81–93. Chin, W.W., 1998. Commentary: issues and opinion on structural equation modeling. MIS Q. 22 (1), 7–16. Cross, S.E., Gore, J.S., Morris, M.L., 2003. The relational-interdependent self-construal, self-concept consistency, and well-being. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 85 (5), 933–944. Drolet, A., 2002. Inherent rule variability in consumer choice: changing rules for change's sake. J. Consum. Res. 29, 293–305. Edmondson, G., 2003. Has Benetton stopped unraveling? Bus. Week 30, 76. Enis, B.M., Cox, K.K., Stafford, J.E., 1972. Students as subjects in consumer behavior experiments. J. Mark. Res. 9 (1), 72–74. Erikson, E.H., 1968. Identity youth and crisis. NewYork. Norton. Fornell, C., Bookstein, F.L., 1982. Two structural equation models: lisrel and PLS applied to consumer exit-voice theory. J. Marketing Res 19. pp. 440–452. Fornell, C., Larcker, D.F., 1981. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. J. Mark. Res. 18 (1), 39–50. Gao, L., Wheeler, S.C., Shivl, B., 2009. The "shaken self": product choices as a means of restoring self-view confidence. J. Consum. Res. 36 (1), 29–38. Giese, J.L., Malkewitz, K., Orth, U.R., Henderson, P.W., 2014. Advancing the aesthetic middle principle: trade-offs in design attractiveness and strength. J. Bus. Res. 67 (6), 1154–1161. Han, Y.J., Nunes, J.C., Drèze, X., 2010. Signaling status with luxury goods: the role of brand prominence. J. Mark. 74 (4), 15–30. Hagtvedt, H., Patrick, V.M., 2014. Consumer response to overstyling: Balancing aesthetics and functionality in product design. Psychol. Mark. 31 (7), 518–525. Hillenbrand, C., Money, K.G., 2015. Unpacking the mechanism by which psychological ownership manifests at the level of the individual: a dynamic model of identity and self. JMTP 23 (2), 148–165. Hitlin, S., 2003. Values as the core of personal identity: drawing links between two
303
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jretconser
It is not always about brand: Design-driven consumers and their selfexpression
T
⁎
Kyung-Ah (Kay) Byun , Robert Paul Jones, Barbara Ross Wooldridge University of Texas at Tyler, 3900 University Blvd., Tyler, TX 75799, United States
A R T I C LE I N FO
A B S T R A C T
Keywords: Design-dominance Self-expression Need for uniqueness Brand loyalty Loyalty dilution
Consumers often utilize product design as one of the central means for expressing identity. However, few studies have investigated how consumers leverage product design for self-expression, and how a dominant design preference can influence consumers’ self-expression through brands. Drawing upon identity theory, this study examines how design-driven consumers express their personal and social identities. The results suggest that design-dominance among consumers leverages their need-for-uniqueness as a conduit for social identity expression. For consumers with a clear self-concept, expressing uniqueness through product design is weaker. The results also demonstrate that when design-dominance is strong, consumer exhibit a reduced reliance on brands to express their social identity, thus weakening brand loyalty.
1. Introduction
consumers encounter an unfamiliar brand or choose from many differing product designs within a brand, the role and value of the brand becomes less clear. The situational complexity in product selection adds uncertainty into the brand value equation which provides the opportunity for product design to play a major role in consumers’ self-expression. Acknowledging the importance that design aesthetics have in the purchase decision, there has nevertheless been little research devoted to investigating how product design facilitates consumers’ selfexpression. Perhaps more importantly, how a product design may impact a consumer differently than the reliance on brand. Thus, this study examines how design-driven consumers express their personal and social identities through design. Further, what role design-dominance plays in reinforcing consumer self-expression at the expense of brand centricity and loyalty is investigated. This study contributes to retailing literature by illustrating the relationships among design preference, self-expression, and brand loyalty. First, the authors introduce a mechanism through which consumers can express their personal and social identities via product design. We introduce a concept of design-dominance, which reflects the consumers’ psychological attachment to product design aesthetics instead of brand. Second, we seek to demonstrate the resulting dilution effect design-dominance has on brand loyalty. This is a result of a design-driven consumer's desire to satisfy their need-for-uniqueness with a specific aesthetic regardless of brand. Managerially, we emphasize that significant changes to product designs within a brand either private label or national should not be undertaken without a deep understanding of the target consumers’ design orientation.
In the retail environment both in-store and online, consumers are exposed to a limited assortment of design cues. Design elements associated with the physical space and the online store influence consumers’ perception of, and loyalty to, a retailer (Murray et al., 2017), as well as the products the retailer offers (Kahn, 2017). Design elements associated with the products being offered attract consumers and enhance their experiences with and enjoyment of the product (Bloch, 1995). These benefits accrue to consumers whether the design is associated with a national or private label brand (Ailawadi and Keller, 2004). As consumers often leverage product design as a central means for expressing their identity (Giese et al., 2014), it is important for store managers to stock, and web designers to highlight, products with aesthetic designs that attract and retain customers. For example, Benetton enjoyed great international success in the 1980's, but then lost a substantial base of brand favorable customers in the 1990's as it failed to keep up with the consumers’ changing fashion tastes (Edmondson, 2003). The literature suggests that when consumers are able to procure and display their preferred design aesthetics, it results in enhanced self-esteem, self-oriented value, and/or self-affirmation (Kumar et al., 2015; Kumar and Noble, 2016). The benefits of self-expression through design accrue even when consumers indicate that aesthetics plays no role in their purchase decisions (Bloch et al., 2003; Townsend and Sood, 2012). Conventional wisdom is that design aesthetics rarely stand alone as most if not all products are also brand identified. However, when ⁎
Corresponding author. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (K.-A.K. Byun), [email protected] (R.P. Jones), [email protected] (B.R. Wooldridge).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2018.04.009 Received 20 December 2017; Received in revised form 21 March 2018; Accepted 20 April 2018 0969-6989/ © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 43 (2018) 296–303
K.-A.K. Byun et al.
which can enhance self-esteem (Townsend and Sood, 2012), representing intrinsic personal values (Vernon and Allport, 1931). Accordingly, individuals assign different levels of importance to the visual design of a product (Bloch et al., 2003). That is, the preference for beauty or the appreciation of a particular aesthetic represents and strengthens an intrinsic personal value (Townsend and Sood, 2012; Vernon and Allport, 1931). This study suggests a concept of design-dominance, such that product design provides more value to a consumer relative to any value attributed to a brand. Consumers with high levels of design-dominance are psychologically predisposed to place more personal value on product design than brand when making purchase decisions. The power of design-dominance is such that the consumer is compelled to satisfy their aesthetic selection even if it means sacrificing any previous loyalty they may have held toward a particular brand. As a result, these designdriven consumers will remain loyal to their design preferences and therefore be more willing to purchase from a variety of brands in an effort to support their preferred aesthetics. Since the preference for beauty is an intrinsic personal value (Vernon and Allport, 1931), we suggest that design-dominance is an individual trait that is stable and relatively consistent in different situations and an outcome of consumers’ efforts to satisfy their need to be unique as an individual (Bloch et al., 2003). Then, the adherence to their particular aesthetic results in purchases which are generally distinct from mainstream brand selections (Chan et al., 2012) so that selected designs can differentiate themselves from others (Tian et al., 2001). However, the need-for-uniqueness does not always link both social and personal identity to need-for-uniqueness in the same way. Gao et al. (2009) show that an expression of personal identity, which is consistent across social occasions, can result in depressing consumer need-foruniqueness to minimize self-conflict. That is, when personal identity is clear, consumers might not feel the need-for-uniqueness and vice versa. Meanwhile, consumers who want to communicate social identity compatibility select a choice strongly related to a group (e.g., luxury brands) (Han et al., 2010). When a consumer desires for alignment with a particular social group they will express their social identity in a manner they believe will generate high levels of intra-group similarity. Meanwhile, when they want to differentiate themselves from others within the group, they seek designs that can communicate their own status or uniqueness relative to others in-group members (Berger and Ward, 2010). As a result, when their need-for-uniqueness is influenced more positively by social identity than personal identity, consumers pursuing uniqueness within a group may choose options that are less compatible than traditional within-group selections (Chan et al., 2012). Based on the literature the following hypotheses are offered:
The study is organized in the following order. First, the study develops a conceptual framework grounded in identity theory. Second, the hypotheses testing and results follow. Finally, a general discussion explores the findings and their theoretical and managerial implications addressing study limitations and future research topics. 2. Conceptual framework 2.1. Self-expression and need-for-uniqueness Self-expression is an important driver of consumer preference and choice (Aaker, 1999; Belk, 1988; Richins, 1994). This study adopts the integrated perspective or global sense of the self, which is comprised of role, social, and personal identity (Kleine et al., 1993; Hitlin, 2003; Schwartz et al., 2008; Stets and Burke, 2000). Within the self, personal identity is represented as ‘ego identity’ (Erikson, 1968), or ‘person identity’ (Stets and Burke, 2000). Individuals who are driven by their personal identity tend to have a set of goals, values, and beliefs which form a coherent sense of self across a variety of social roles such as work, home, and social events (Cross et al., 2003; Schwartz et al., 2008; Suh, 2002). This is different from social identity, which is more fluid situationally in relation to interactions with others. The multifaceted nature of social identity allows for varied responses depending on the changes from situational social roles and/or social cues (Hogg, 1996; Hogg et al., 1995; Tajfel and Turner, 1979). Although personal and social identity expression work in concert for a given occasion (Hitlin, 2003), consumers may strive for reducing any incongruence between the two (Hillenbrand and Money, 2015) or express one identity at the expense of another (Thompson and Loveland, 2015). Consumption behaviors are used for fulfilling their psychological needs like expressing identity (Thompson and Loveland, 2015) or demonstrating their uniqueness or differentiation from others (e.g, Tian et al., 2001). In particular, possessing a nice-looking product makes consumers feel more attractive to others and similarly boosts their sense of self (Townsend and Sood, 2012). Thus, this study suggests that product design provides a medium for expressing the consumer's identity, personal or social, while need-for-uniqueness mediates the relationships between identity expression and design-dominance. Fig. 1 shows a conceptual model of the study. 2.2. Design-dominance One of the main components of product design is design aesthetics (Bloch, 1995). Design aesthetics is defined as visually appealing design elements of a product (Hagtvedt and Patrick, 2014). From the aspect of product evaluation, design aesthetics bring positive perceptions on functionality (Norman, 2004), overall product judgment (Raghubir and Greenleaf, 2006), and/or price expectation (Orth et al., 2010). Psychologically, design aesthetics provide emotional and social value
Personal identity
H2:. The expression of consumer's social identity will have a significant and positive influence on need-for-uniqueness. H3:. Need-for-uniqueness will have a significant and positive influence on consumers’ design-dominance.
H1 (-)
Need-foruniqueness Social identity
H1:. The expression of consumer's personal identity will have a significant and negative influence on need-for-uniqueness.
H3 (+)
2.3. Dilution of brand loyalty
Designdominance
Design-driven consumers pursue intrinsic personal value in their preference of beauty or the appreciation of particular aesthetics (Townsend and Sood, 2012; Vernon and Allport, 1931). That is, designdriven consumers focus more on design aesthetics regardless of product category as design-dominance is relatively stable individual personal trait. As uniqueness often drives variety seeking (e.g., Drolet, 2002), highly design-driven consumers are more likely to pursue design options from a variety of brands. Thus, design-dominance allows consumers to be less reliant on brand popularity or brand reputation. The social meaning shared among specific brand users relative to designs
H2 (+) H4 (-)
Brand loyalty Fig. 1. Conceptual model. 297
Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 43 (2018) 296–303
K.-A.K. Byun et al.
Table 1 Factor analysis of the design-dominance scale.
Design-dominance_1 Design-dominance_2 Design-dominance_3 Design-dominance_4 Design-dominance_5 Design-dominance_6
Items
Factor1
Alpha
The products I purchase tend to share similar designs. I tend to try similar designs regardless of brands. If the brand that I like launches a product with a design I do not like much, I am not willing to buy the product. If a brand I am not familiar with provides a design style that I like the most, I would try the brand. In general, I can see similar designs and patterns in my possessions. I often hear from the people around me that my design choices are consistent and similar.
.79 .63 .51 .60 .50 .65
.80
raters, resulting in a set of ten items that indicate their design priority and dominant design choice. From the literature review and the exploratory qualitative method, we generated an initial set of 20 items in total. We used the approach by Saxe and Weitz (1982) retaining those items that more than half of the judges rated as a representative. This process resulted in a set of 9 items. To assess dimensionality, the 9 items were administered to a sample of 47 undergraduate students to examine the appropriateness of the selected items measured on a 5-point Likert scale (5 “Strongly agree”; 1 “Strongly disagree”). An exploratory factor analysis with varimax rotation identified one factor with eigenvalues greater than one, which explained approximately 76% of the variance. Items that had one factor loadings (< .45), low item-total correlations (< .40), and significant cross-factor loadings (> .40), were deleted. As a result, six items loaded on one factor, which was named as design-dominance. Two independent judges confirmed that the eliminated items did not result in a loss of face or content validity with regard to the conceptual definition of the underlying construct. Table 1 shows the six items loaded on one factor (α = .80).
within the brand, restrains design-driven consumer need for uniqueness which detracts from their individual differentiation. In contrast, consumers with strong brand loyalty tend to be satisfied with design options provided by their preferred brand. For example, in-group members seeking intra-group acceptance seeks high brand visibility, while members seeking differentiation will select more subtle designs within their favorite brand. Either way, brand-driven consumers will have limited scope of design selections within the brand's design portfolio (e.g., Berger and Ward, 2010). As a result, design-dominance allows consumers to fulfil their need for uniqueness beyond the boundaries of brands, diminishing brand power and loyalty. That is, as the preferences for aesthetic design is higher, brand loyalty will decrease. Thus, the following hypotheses is offered: H4:. Design-dominance will have a significant and negative association with brand loyalty. 3. Method 3.1. Design, sample, and procedure
3.2.2. Other constructs Other latent variables were measured using 7-item Likert scales (1 =‘Very strongly disagree,’ 7 =‘Very strongly agree’). Personal identity was measured adopted from the self-concept clarity scale, such as “the extent to which self-beliefs are clearly and confidently defined, internally consistent, and stable” (Campbell et al., 1996, p. 141) (α = .85). We used self-categorization scale (Bergami and Bagozzi, 2000) for measuring social identity (α = .87) because social identities are, “categorizations of the self into more inclusive social units that depersonalize the self-concept” (Brewer, 1991, p. 476). The need-foruniqueness was measured with Tian et al. (2001) (α = .78). Brand loyalty was measured with Chaudhuri and Holbrook (2001) (α = .80).
To investigate the role of design-dominance in identity expression and brand loyalty, a self-administered online survey was developed and distributed to students from a southwestern U.S. college of business. Students were offered extra credit for participation (n = 223; 54% male). College-age students make purchase decisions which consider both design and brands on a regular bases and they are often engaged in expression of their identity in a variety of settings. Thus, the use of a student sample for this given topic of inquiry is appropriate (Calder et al., 1981; Enis et al., 1972). In the survey, respondents answered about their general design-dominance, personal and social identity, need-for-uniqueness, and brand loyalty respectively in a given situation where they want to buy an automobile product.
3.3. Measurement model 3.2. Construct measurement We analyzed the data through structural equation modeling (SEM) using STATA. SEM is a two-step process which requires that a measurement model first be fit to assess the appropriateness of the data to the model. The measurement model demonstrated acceptable fit (Kline, 2015); χ2 = 137.13, df= 93, χ2/df= 1.47, CFI= .97, TLI= .96, RMSEA= .046, and SRMR= .05. Items which exhibited low item-tototal correlation within scales were trimmed. Each scale retained at least three items per construct (Howell et al., 2007), with each item exhibiting a factor loading in excess of .60 on its own construct (Fornell and Bookstein, 1982). Table 2 provides the factor loadings, Cronbach's alpha, average variance extracted (AVE), and composite reliability for the measurement model. The composite reliability and Cronbach's alpha measures, indicate all scales demonstrated adequate internal consistency (Fornell and Larcker, 1981). The AVE for each construct exceeded .50 and was smaller than the composite reliability, supporting convergent validity (Chin, 1998). Discriminant validity was also satisfactory as the AVE of each construct was greater than the shared variance between the construct and other constructs in the model (Fornell and Larcker, 1981). The correlation coefficient metrics is provided at Table 3.
3.2.1. Design-dominance In order to measure design-dominance, the authors refined existing design importance scales using both qualitative and quantitative methods (Yoo and Donthu, 2001). The authors extensively examined the literature related to product design and its dominant features in consumers’ decision making. Extant research on product design focuses on design aesthetics such as an importance of aesthetic design to individual consumers (Bloch et al., 2003), which assists in understanding differences among individual consumers in recognizing the value of a superior design, the amount of design knowledge, and/or the affective reaction to design (Brunel and Swain, 2008; Mowen et al., 2010; Myszkowski and Storme, 2012). In addition to the measures from the literature review, the authors conducted an exploratory qualitative study to understand how design is important to consumers. Forty three undergraduate students responded to open-ended questions about the importance of a products design to them, and a relative importance of product design compared to brand. Following Rossiter (2002), the new items generated from the open-ended questions were tested for validity. The authors categorized the answers with the help of two independent 298
Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 43 (2018) 296–303
K.-A.K. Byun et al.
Table 2 Measurement model (CFA). Construct
Item
Loadings
Cronbach's alpha (α )
AVE
Composite reliability ( ρc )
Design-dominance
design-dominance_1 design-dominance_2 design-dominance_3 design-dominance_4 personal identity_1 personal identity_2 personal identity_3 social identity_1 social identity_2 social identity_3 loyalty_1 loyalty_2 loyalty_3 uniqueness_1 uniqueness_2 uniqueness_3
.83 .82 .67 .60 .63 .72 .98 .70 .82 .71 .66 .66 .88 .79 .83 .61
.82
.54
.82
.85
.66
.85
.87
.56
.79
.80
.54
.78
.78
.56
.79
Personal identity
Social identity
Loyalty
Need-for-uniqueness
Model fit: N = 223, χ2 = 137.13, df= 93, χ 2/df= 1.47, CFI= .97, TLI= .96, RMSEA= .046, and SRMR= .05.
social identities on brand loyalty as literature suggests a strong relationship between social identity and brand loyalty (Belk, 1988; Han et al., 2010) and emphasizes the role of brand in restoring consumers’ original self-view (Gao et al., 2009). In our model, social identity had a significant and positive relationship with brand loyalty (β = .48, p < .001) in consistent with previous literature, while personal identity demonstrated no significant influence. The results imply the dual aspects of identity expression that consumers utilize design when they feel to be unique in their intergroup relationships. In addition, the mediating effects of the need-for-uniqueness in the model was tested (Acock, 2013). The findings revealed that the needfor-uniqueness is a substantive mediator between personal identities and design-dominance, and between social identities and design-dominance (see Table 4). When direct paths were added from both identities to design-dominance, each of the direct paths was insignificant compared to when indirect paths through the need-for-uniqueness were present (based on standardized parameter estimates). Thus, the needfor-uniqueness has a full mediating effect proposed in the model. To improve generalizability of our findings, we replicated the study in a different category, a fashion item (e.g., jackets). We recruited 120 participants from MTurk for $.95 compensation in order to reflect diverse social status of respondents. After dropping responses that took less than 3 min to control careless responses (Meade and Craig, 2012), we had total 114 usable samples among which females were 50 (43.9%). Appendix B shows measurement model and SEM estimates, and the results were consistent in the fashion category supporting that consumer's leverage design to express their self- and/or social identity and design dominance negatively influences brand loyalty.
Table 3 Means, standard deviations, and correlation coefficients. Construct
Mean
1
2
3
4
5
6
1. 2. 3. 3. 4.
4.7 4.1 3.9 5.1 3.1
1.2 1.0 1.2 1.0 1.3
1 − .13* − .02 − .30*** .22***
1 − .24*** − .06 − .26***
1 .38*** .32***
1 .16**
1
design-dominance personal identity social identity loyalty uniqueness
* p < .1. ** p < .05. *** p < .01 (n = 223).
4. Results Based on the good fit in the measurement model, the authors conducted an analysis of the structural model using the maximum loglikelihood method. Fig. 2 shows the structural path loadings with the corresponding significance levels. The fit statistics again demonstrated an acceptable fit; χ2 = 136.25, df= 95, χ2/ df= 1.43, CFI= .97, TLI= .96, RMSEA= .044, and SRMR= .05 (Kline, 2015). The results showed that personal identity had a significant negative impact on need-for-uniqueness (β = -.28, p < .001), supporting H1. Social identity as hypothesized in H2, had a significant positive effect on need-foruniqueness (β = .33, p < .001). The need-for-uniqueness demonstrated a significant positive influence on design-dominance (β = .20, p < .001), and design-dominance had a significant negative relationship with brand loyalty (β = -.35, p < .001), supporting both H3 and H4. In the model, the authors controlled the impact of personal and
5. General discussion and implications 5.1. Theoretical implications
-.28
Need-foruniqueness
.20
Designdominance
This current research demonstrates that personal and social identity influence design-dominance through need-for-uniqueness. The results contribute to the retailing literature in the following perspectives. First, the findings suggest that personal value associated with design aesthetics can wield a powerful and independent influence on consumers’ identity expression. The results show that, although consumers use both design and brand to express their social identity, the positive relationship between the need-for-uniqueness and design-dominance reflects the consumer's desire to differentiate themselves in both inter- and intra-group situations for mitigating possible conflicts within multiple social identities. In addition, weak personal identity stimulates needfor-uniqueness as a way of self-restoration, resulting in pursuing design that can strengthen intrinsic value. That is, when consumers feel
Personal identity .06
-.35
.33
Social identity .48
Brand loyalty
Model fit: N=223, χ2=136.25, df=95, χ2/df=1.434, CFI=.97, TLI=.96, RMSEA=.044, and SRMR=.054. Legend: * p<.05; ** p<.01; *** p<.001
Fig. 2. SEM standardized estimates. 299
Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 43 (2018) 296–303
K.-A.K. Byun et al.
Table 4 Total, direct, and indirect effects. Paths
Total effects (Standardized coefficients)
Direct effects (Std. coef.)
Indirect effects (Std. coef.)
Personal identity → Design-dominance Social identity→ Design-dominance Uniqueness→Design-dominance Personal identity →Loyalty Social identity → Loyalty Uniqueness - > Loyalty Design-dominance → Loyalty Personal identity → Uniqueness Social identity → Uniqueness
− .11 .03 .20* .10 .47*** − .07* − .34*** − .28*** .33***
− .06 − .03 .20* .07 .49*** .0 − .34*** − .28*** .33***
− .05 .06 – .07 − .01 − .07* – – –
Note: *p < .1; **p < .05; ***p < .01
options. As an example, brands such as Polo Ralph Lauren adhere to a strict design profile, while designers such as Michael Kors and Chanel provide a range of design profiles from logo intensive to designs that carry no significant brand identification. This provides for customers who personally identify with the brand to express it clearly while the design-dominance customer to continue to engage with the brand through design versus brand. Customers’ design-dominance orientation can benefit retailers through an enhanced understanding of their customers brand orientation. Retailers targeting brand centric customers can leverage those customers brand preferences to provide the foundation for the appropriate brandscape and assortment. Retailers whose customer base is heavily brand loyal may opt to focus on fewer and more dominant brands in order to increase assortment breadth and depth in the brands their customers are most loyal to. The narrowing in brand focus may provide retailers the opportunity to represent new categories of product from these key brands further supporting brand loyal customers. Retailers, whose customer base is design centric with a high need-foruniqueness, can take an alternative approach to assortment development. Retailers can alter the brands carried within their assortment regularly and reduce the breadth of assortments carried from those brands, providing access to new brands and design aesthetics. This provides retailers valuable space and funding to support new or additional brands, to increase the variety of design aesthetics available to design-driven customers. As a result, the retailer will offer their customer who expresses design dominance, the necessary variety to support their aesthetic profiles. Further, the reductions to the depth of inventory carried in specific items minimizes customer impressions that items are widely available and therefore not unique. For retailers who understand that they may have a mix of both customer profiles, brand and design centric, can leverage merchandising of their retail spaces and online environments to better support their customer preferences. Products viewed online absent the heavy instore brand presence (e.g., Polo store within a store) allows designdominant customers to focus on the design undistracted by the brand. Adding small in-store displays calling out unique product availability at the retailers online store beyond what is available in-store can also help the design-dominant customer. The retailer can continue and perhaps expand in-store branded shopping environments (e.g., Polo store within a store, etc.) to better support the brand loyal customer. Providing a dual merchandising strategy for in-store and online allows the retailer to reach a design-dominant customer as well as a brand centric customer. Further, the restrictions brands place on in-store merchandise presentations are largely non-existent in the virtual environment. The online store can be particularly beneficial to review search parameters that focus on design elements rather than brand to facilitate the designdominant shopper.
insecure or inconsistent in their self, they will pursue uniqueness by selecting designs they prefer, as a way of self-restoration. Second, this study introduces a concept and measurement of designdominance, the relative importance assigned to design over brand, and demonstrates that, when design becomes a medium for identity expression, consumers may leave the once loyal brand seeking preferred design options to fulfil their need-for-uniqueness. The dualistic mechanism of identity expression through design-dominance indicates that design is not an attribute which is always subordinate to the brand. Rather, consumers’ design-dominance can either expand or narrow the spectrum of brand choices included in consumers’ consideration sets. Design-driven consumers are free to access many brand options to satisfy their personal aesthetic design needs, while brand-oriented consumers limit brand selection to maintain congruence with their social identity although they may seek design options within their preferred brand which can satisfy their need-for-uniqueness. Therefore, relying on brand alone for attracting and satisfying their customers may result in neglecting a significant role design to play with design-dominant consumers. Finally, design-dominance discriminates the effect of design on consumer decision making based on individual preferences driven by intrinsic value separate from the effect that brands may have in consumer decision making. The discriminating nature of design-dominance can help to clarify target consumer tendencies toward design versus brand preference which managers can utilize when making assortment decisions in design portfolios for a brand. Thus, design-dominance offers retailers multiple avenues to explore when satisfying consumer needs, and helps retailers understanding a possible dilution of brand loyalty with an introduction of new aesthetic designs.
5.2. Managerial implications In this study a new tool design-dominance, may help brand managers identify potential customers while simultaneously maintaining their relationship with existing customers. Often design aesthetics help in brand development and success, as they help drive a connection through a specific design aesthetic with new customers. Adherence to a particular aesthetic can increase identifiability that can make a brand standout in the marketplace (e.g., Ralph Lauren Polo, Apple, etc). A design-dominance customer however, who may have originally been attracted to a brand because of a specific design aesthetic, may turn away from the brand because of its strict adherence to that same aesthetic. Therefore, while maintaining a specific aesthetic design profile may be beneficial customers, it may be anathema to others. Customer engagement can help brand managers identify their customer's orientation toward design and/or brand. The information gained from this engagement can provide guidance on an approach which may best serve their customer and enhance brand relationships. In some cases it may be adherence to a specific aesthetic to drive brand loyalty while in others loyalty may result from providing a broad range of design 300
Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 43 (2018) 296–303
K.-A.K. Byun et al.
importance of design compared other product attributes can be developed. Addition psychological needs beyond need-for-uniqueness can be explored relative to how consumers invest in identities and how the identity investment influences other psychological needs reciprocally; such as variety-seeking. Situational factors (e.g., social trends, design popularity, design portfolio, brand reputation, etc.) and their influence on design preferences and purchase behavior would also generate insights. Furthermore, this study can be extended to examine how design and brand elements can be used to improve the efficiency of an online product suggestion strategies. Finally, future studies can test the recency or frequency of purchases or demographic differences among consumers as interesting variables that may influence participants’ design dominance and brand loyalty and extend the topic into different categories.
5.3. Limitations and future studies This study offers several avenues for future research. This study utilized a cross-sectional survey methodology, while longitudinal or experimental designs may provide more insight into the design orientation of consumers. Particularly interesting would be an examination of changes to the design cues utilized by a brand and how they may impact brand loyalty and equity. Research which explores the power of design in a specific product category may help further define the value of design in the consumer decision-making process. Additionally, examining the role of particular design themes (e.g., modern vs. classic, etc.) in consumer design choice can broaden the understanding of how design cues impact purchasing behavior. Since design-dominance is a relative measure comparing the importance of design over brand, a comprehensive scale that shows not only visual centrality but also the
Appendix A. Survey questionnaires
Variable
Items
Design Dominance DP_1 * In general, I do buy a product with a design I like regardless of brands. DP_2 * I focus on designs rather than brands, if qualities are not different. DP_3 * If the brand that I like launches a product with a design I do not like much, I am not willing to buy the product. DP_4 * If a brand I am not familiar with provides a design style that I like much, I would try the brand. DP_5 If the brand that I like launches a product with a design I do not like much, I am not willing to buy the product. DP_6 If a brand I am not familiar with provides a design style that I like the most, I would try the brand. Personal Identity: Self-Concept Clarity (Campbell et al., 1996) PSID _1R My beliefs about myself often conflict with one another. PSID _2R* On one day I might have one opinion of myself and on another day I might have a different opinion. PSID _3R I spend a lot of time wondering about what kind of person I really am. PSID _4R Sometimes I feel that I am not really the person that I appear to be. PSID _5R When I think about the kind of person I have been in the past, I’m not sure what I was really like. PSID _6 I seldom experience conflict between the different aspects of my personality. PSID _7R Sometimes I think I know other people better than I know myself. PSID _8R* My beliefs about myself seem to change very frequently. PSID _9R* If I were asked to describe my personality, my description might end up being different from one day to another day. PSID _10R Even if I wanted to, I don’t think I would tell someone what I’m really like. PSID _11 In general, I have a clear sense of who I am and what I am. PSID _12R It is often hard for me to make up my mind about things because I don’t really know what I want. Social Identity: Self-categorization (Bergami and Bagozzi, 2000) SOCID_1 * When someone criticizes the brand I like, it feels like a personal insult. SOCID_2 I am very interested in what others think about the brand I like. SOCID_3 When I talk about consumers of the brand I like, I usually say “we”; rather than “they”. SOCID_4 * This brand's success feels like my success. SOCID_5 * When someone praises the brand I like, it feels like a personal compliment. SOCID_6 If a story in the media criticized the brand I like, I would feel embarrassed. SOCID_7 The brand I like represents my identity very well. Need for Uniqueness (Tian et al., 2001) Uniq_1 * I collect unusual products as a way of telling people that I am different. Uniq_2 * I often dress unconventionally even when it's likely to offend others. Uniq_3 * I often try to avoid products or brands that I know are bought by the general population. Brand Loyalty (Chaudhuri and Holbrook, 2001)
301
Standardized alpha
Cronbach's alpha
.76 .76 .78
.82
.79 .80 .81 .88 .88 .88 .88 .88 .91 .89 .88 .88
.89
.88 .89 .89 .85 .86 .86 .84 .84 .85 .86
.87
.68 .64 .79
.78
Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 43 (2018) 296–303
K.-A.K. Byun et al.
Loy_1 * Loy_2 Loy_3 * Loy_4 *
In general I tend to stick to a specific brand. My favorite brand would be my first choice. I would not buy other brands if my favorite brand is available at the store. In general, I consider myself to be loyal to my favorite brand.
.74 .77 .78 .72
.80
Notes: All items were measured on 7-point Likert scales (1 =”Strongly Disagree,” 7 =”Strongly Agree”) except Design Dominance that used a 5-point scale to allow comparison of reliability coefficients with previous design-related scales which usually measured in a 5-point scale. The items marked with * only were analyzed for the efficiency of estimation in the SEM analysis.
Appendix B. Replication study results in fashion products See Figs. B1 and B2. See Table B1.
.29
Need-foruniqueness
-.30
Designdominance
Personal identity .09
-.19
.49
Social identity
Brand loyalty
.55
Model fit: N=114, χ2=151.002, df=96, χ2/df=1.325, CFI=.95, TLI=.94, and RMSEA=.07. Legend: * p<.05; ** p<.01; *** p<.001
Fig. B1. Standardized estimates in the replication study.
20s : -.003 30+: -.45
Personal Identity
20s : .40 30+: .23
Designdominance
Need for Uniqueness 20s : .95 30+: .19
20s : .24 30+: -.42
20s : .11 30+: -.25
Social Identity
Brand Loyalty
20s : .45 30+: .11
Model fit: N=64 (M) and 50 (F), χ2= 271.33, df=186, CFI=.92, TLI=.91, and RMSEA=.09. Legend: * = p<0.05; ** = p<0.01; *** = p<0.001
Fig. B2. Age effects in the replication study.
Table B1 Measurement model (CFA). Construct
Item
Standardized Loadings
Cronbach's alpha (α )
AVE
Composite reliability ( ρc )
Design-dominance
design-dominance_1 design-dominance_2 design-dominance_3 design-dominance_4 personal identity_1 personal identity_2 personal identity_3 social identity_1 social identity_2 social identity_3 loyalty_1 loyalty_2 loyalty_3 uniqueness_1 uniqueness_2 uniqueness_3
.93 .85 .76 .67 .95 .89 .78 .73 .82 .95 .75 .74 .93 .78 .86 .89
.88
.65
.88
.91
.77
.91
.88
.70
.88
.85
.66
.85
.89
.71
.88
Personal identity
Social identity
Loyalty
Need-for-uniqueness
Model fit: χ2 = 149.94, df= 94, χ2/df= 1.59, RMSEA= .07, CFI= .95, and SRMR= .06. 302
Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 43 (2018) 296–303
K.-A.K. Byun et al.
References
theories of self. Soc. Psychol. Q. 66 (2), 118–137. Hogg, M.A., 1996. Social identity, self-categorization, and the small group. Underst. Group Behav. 2, 227–253. Hogg, M.A., Terry, D.J., White, K.M., 1995. A tale of two theories: a critical comparison of identity theory with social identity theory. Soc. Psychol. Q. 58 (4), 255–269. Howell, R.D., Breivik, E., Wilcox, J.B., 2007. Reconsidering formative measurement. Psychol. Meth. 12 (2), 205–218. Kahn, B.E., 2017. Using visual design to improve customer perceptions of online assortments. J. Retail. 93 (1), 29–42. Kleine III, R.E., Kleine, S.S., Kernan, J.B., 1993. Mundane consumption and the self: a social-identity perspective. J. Consum. Psychol. 2 (3), 209–235. Kline, R.B., 2015. Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. Guilford publications. Kumar, M., Townsend, J.D., Vorhies, D.W., 2015. Enhancing consumers’ affection for a brand using product design. J. Prod. Innov. Manag. 32 (5), 716–730. Kumar, M., Noble, C.H., 2016. Beyond form and function: Why do consumers value product design? J. Bus. Res. 69 (2), 613–620. Meade, A.W., Craig, S.B., 2012. Identifying careless responses in survey data. Psychol. Methods 17 (3), 437–455. Mowen, J.C., Fang, X., Scott, K., 2010. Visual product aesthetics: a hierarchical analysis of its trait and value antecedents and its behavioral consequences. Eur. J. Mark. 44 (11/ 12), 1744–1762. Murray, J., Elms, J., Teller, C., 2017. Examining the role of store design on consumers' cross-sectional perceptions of retail brand loyalty. J. Ret. Cons. Svcs. 38, 147–156. Myszkowski, N., Storme, M., 2012. How personality traits predict design-driven consumer choices. Eur. J. Psychol. 8 (4), 641–650. Norman, D.A., 2004. Emotional design: why we love (or hate) everyday things. Basic Books, New York, NY. Orth, U.R., Compana, D., Malkewitz, K., 2010. Formation of consumer price expectation based on package design: attractive and quality routes. JMTP 18 (1), 23–40. Raghubir, P., Greenleaf, E., 2006. Ratios in proportion: what should the shape of the package be? J. Mark. 70, 95–107. Richins, M.L., 1994. Valuing things: the public and private meanings of possessions. J. Consum. Res. 21 (3), 504–521. Rossiter, J.R., 2002. The C-OAR-SE procedure for scale development in marketing. Int. J. Res. Mark. 19 (4), 305–335. Saxe, R., Weitz, B.A., 1982. The SOCO scale: a measure of the customer orientation of salespeople. J. Mark. Res. 19 (3), 343–351. Schwartz, S.J., Zamboanga, B.L., Weisskirch, R.S., 2008. Broadening the study of the self: integrating the study of personal identity and cultural identity. Soc. Personal. Psychol. Compass 2 (2), 635–651. Stets, J.E., Burke, P.J., 2000. Identity theory and social identity theory. Soc. Psychol. Q. 63 (3), 224–237. Suh, E.M., 2002. Culture, identity consistency, and subjective well-being. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 83 (6), 1378–1391. Tajfel, H., Turner, J.C., 1979. An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In: Austin, W.C., Worchel, S. (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations. Brooks/Cole, Pacific Grove, CA, pp. 33–48. Tian, K.T., Bearden, W.O., Hunter, G.L., 2001. Consumers' need for uniqueness: scale development and validation. J. Consum. Res. 28 (1), 50–66. Townsend, C., Sood, S., 2012. Self-affirmation through the choice of highly aesthetic products. J. Consum. Res. 39 (2), 415–428. Thompson, S.A., Loveland, J.M., 2015. Integrating identity and consumption: an identity investment theory. JMTP 23 (3), 235–253. Vernon, P.E., Allport, G.W., 1931. A test for personal values. J. Abnorm. Soc. Psychol. 26 (3), 231–248. Yoo, B., Donthu, N., 2001. Developing and validating a multidimensional consumer-based brand equity scale. J. Bus. Res. 52 (1), 1–14.
Aaker, J.L., 1999. The malleable self: the role of self-expression in persuasion. J. Mark. Res. 36 (1), 45–57. Acock, A., 2013. Discovering structural equation modeling using STAT. Stata Press. Ailawadi, K.L., Keller, K.L., 2004. Understanding retail branding: conceptual insights and research priorities. J. Retail. 80 (4), 331–342. Belk, R.W., 1988. Possessions and the extended self. J. Consum. Res. 15 (2), 139–168. Bergami, M., Bagozzi, R.P., 2000. Self‐categorization, affective commitment and group self‐esteem as distinct aspects of social identity in the organization. Brit. J. Soc. Psychol. 39 (4), 555–577. Berger, J., Ward, M., 2010. Subtle signals of inconspicuous consumption. J. Consum. Res. 37 (4), 555–569. Bloch, P.H., 1995. Seeking the ideal form: product design and consumer response. J. Mark. 59 (3), 16–29. Bloch, P.H., Brunel, F.F., Arnold, T.J., 2003. Individual differences in the centrality of visual product aesthetics: concept and measurement. J. Consum. Res. 29 (4), 551–565. Brewer, M.B., 1991. The social self: on being the same and different at the same time. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 17 (5), 475–482. Brunel, F.F., Swain, S., 2008. A moderated perceptual model of product aesthetic evaluations. Eur. Adv. Consum. Res. 8, 444–445. Calder, B.J., Phillips, L.W., Tybout, A.M., 1981. Designing research for application. J. Consum. Res. 8 (2), 197–207. Campbell, J.D., Trapnell, P.D., Heine, S.J., Katz, I.M., Lavallee, L.F., Lehman, D.R., 1996. Self-concept clarity: measurement, personality correlates, and cultural boundaries. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 70 (1), 141–156. Chan, C., Berger, J., Van Boven, L., 2012. Identifiable but not identical: combining social identity and uniqueness motives in choice. J. Consum. Res. 39 (3), 561–573. Chaudhuri, A., Holbrook, M.B., 2001. The chain of effects from brand trust and brand affect to brand performance: the role of brand loyalty. J. Mark. 65 (2), 81–93. Chin, W.W., 1998. Commentary: issues and opinion on structural equation modeling. MIS Q. 22 (1), 7–16. Cross, S.E., Gore, J.S., Morris, M.L., 2003. The relational-interdependent self-construal, self-concept consistency, and well-being. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 85 (5), 933–944. Drolet, A., 2002. Inherent rule variability in consumer choice: changing rules for change's sake. J. Consum. Res. 29, 293–305. Edmondson, G., 2003. Has Benetton stopped unraveling? Bus. Week 30, 76. Enis, B.M., Cox, K.K., Stafford, J.E., 1972. Students as subjects in consumer behavior experiments. J. Mark. Res. 9 (1), 72–74. Erikson, E.H., 1968. Identity youth and crisis. NewYork. Norton. Fornell, C., Bookstein, F.L., 1982. Two structural equation models: lisrel and PLS applied to consumer exit-voice theory. J. Marketing Res 19. pp. 440–452. Fornell, C., Larcker, D.F., 1981. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. J. Mark. Res. 18 (1), 39–50. Gao, L., Wheeler, S.C., Shivl, B., 2009. The "shaken self": product choices as a means of restoring self-view confidence. J. Consum. Res. 36 (1), 29–38. Giese, J.L., Malkewitz, K., Orth, U.R., Henderson, P.W., 2014. Advancing the aesthetic middle principle: trade-offs in design attractiveness and strength. J. Bus. Res. 67 (6), 1154–1161. Han, Y.J., Nunes, J.C., Drèze, X., 2010. Signaling status with luxury goods: the role of brand prominence. J. Mark. 74 (4), 15–30. Hagtvedt, H., Patrick, V.M., 2014. Consumer response to overstyling: Balancing aesthetics and functionality in product design. Psychol. Mark. 31 (7), 518–525. Hillenbrand, C., Money, K.G., 2015. Unpacking the mechanism by which psychological ownership manifests at the level of the individual: a dynamic model of identity and self. JMTP 23 (2), 148–165. Hitlin, S., 2003. Values as the core of personal identity: drawing links between two
303