Christian Homburg, Martin Schwemmle, & Christina Kuehnl

New Product Design: Concept,

Measurement, and Consequences
Product design is a source of competitive advantage for companies and is an important driver of company
performance. Drawing on an extensive literature review and consumer interviews, the authors define product
design and its dimensions. Using data from three samples (6,418 U.S. consumers and 1,083 and 583 European
consumers), the authors develop and validate a new scale to measure product design along the dimensions of
aesthetics, functionality, and symbolism. In addition, they investigate the impact of these design dimensions on
purchase intention, word of mouth, and willingness to pay. The results indicate that the design dimensions
positively influence willingness to pay and also have a positive effect on purchase intention and word of mouth,
both directly and indirectly through brand attitude.

Keywords: consumer behavior, product design, scale development, aesthetics, functionality, symbolism

Online Supplement: http://dx.doi.org/10.1509/jm.14.0199

P
Fifteen years ago companies competed on price. Today
it’s quality. Tomorrow it’s design.
—Robert Hayes, Harvard University, 1998
roduct design is a source of competitive advantage
for companies (Gemser and Leenders 2001; Noble
and Kumar 2010). Recognizing that product design
can improve customer retention and thus increase company
performance (Candi 2010; Hertenstein, Platt, and Veryzer
2005), practitioners have acknowledged the significance of
product design for a company’s success. This importance
holds especially true in today’s marketplace because prod-
uct design has become a principal means of making prod-
ucts differentiable. The former chairman of Sony, Norio
Ogha, underscored the weight of product design by com-
menting, “At Sony, we assume that all products of our com-
petitors have basically the same technology, price, perfor-
mance, and features. Design is the only thing that
differentiates one product from another in the marketplace”
(Peters 2005, p. 39).
Given the relevance of product design in practice,
research has begun to address its merits (e.g., Bloch 2011;
Christian Homburg is Professor of Marketing, Chair of the Marketing
Dahl 2011). However, although design is a research priority
for the Marketing Science Institute (2010, 2012), it is not
yet a well-established field of academic inquiry (Di
Benedetto 2011; Luchs and Swan 2011; Veryzer 1995). Par-
ticularly surprising is that despite product design’s high
practical relevance, both academics and practitioners lack
(1) a widely accepted definition of product design and its
dimensions that is applicable across a broad range of prod-
uct categories, (2) an adequate measure of it that is indepen-
dent of product categories, and (3) a systematic investiga-
tion of design outcomes distinguishing the dimensions.
A significant body of empirical research has measured
product design in a very limited way, ranging from a one-item
measure referring to aesthetic aspects (Landwehr, Wentzel,
and Herrmann 2012, 2013) to measures of selected dimen-
sions, such as the hedonic and utilitarian dimensions (e.g.,
Chitturi, Raghunathan, and Mahajan 2008; Dhar and Werten-
broch 2000). However, recent conceptual research extends
beyond a one- or two-dimensional measurement and con-
siders product design a three-dimensional concept (e.g.,
Bloch 2011) composed of the aesthetic, functional, and
symbolic dimensions. To the best of our knowledge, only
one study has used this three-dimensional conceptualiza-
tion, employing slightly different terms for the various
aspects (Srinivasan et al. 2012). However, that study

focuses on one product category (cars) and uses highly spe-

Department, and Director of the Institute for Market-Oriented Manage-
ment, University of Mannheim (e-mail: homburg@bwl.uni-mannheim.de).

cific items for measuring these dimensions, such as “front

Martin Schwemmle is a doctoral student, Marketing Department, Univer-

seat head room” and “driving range between fuel stops”

sity of Mannheim (e-mail: martin.schwemmle@bwl.uni-mannheim.de).

(Srinivasan et al. 2012, p. 17).

Christina Kuehnl is Assistant Professor, Marketing Department, University

The third of the aforementioned shortcomings of previ-

of Mannheim (e-mail: ckuehnl@bwl.uni-mannheim.de). The authors thank
the JM review team for their insightful suggestions during the review

ous research results from the other two inadequacies. No

process, which improved this article considerably. They are also indebted

study yet has systematically linked the three aspects of

to Thu Hoa Le, Dominik Leiner/SoSci Panel, and the student assistants

design to key outcomes of consumer behavior. As a result,

involved in this project. The helpful comments of Monika Imschloß and

the importance of the three dimensions is to date unknown.

Arnd Vomberg are also gratefully acknowledged. Rajkumar Venkatesan
served as area editor for this article.

© 2015, American Marketing Association Journal of Marketing

ISSN: 0022-2429 (print), 1547-7185 (electronic) 41 Vol. 79 (May 2015), 41–56
 Our study is an initial step in addressing the outlined
gaps and makes two main contributions. First, we theoreti-
cally develop and empirically validate a product category–
independent scale to measure product design as a three-
dimensional construct. To do so, we follow established
scale-development procedures, use three data sets from dif-
ferent countries, and show discriminant validity of our scale
from the hedonic/utilitarian (HED/UT) scale (Voss, Span-
genberg, and Grohmann 2003). Before describing the scale-
development process, we theoretically derive the definition
of product design and its dimensions through an extensive
literature review, and we validate this definition through
qualitative interviews with consumers. Although we
employ visual product stimuli for the scale-development
process, our scale is also applicable to situations in which
consumers can experience products through other senses.
Second, we apply the scale and investigate how the three
dimensions of product design affect key outcomes of con-
sumer behavior—purchase intention, word of mouth
(WOM), and willingness to pay (WTP). We also introduce
brand attitude as a mediator. Overall, we provide a scale for
product design measurement that can be applied in practice
and that advances research on product design.
In addition to being theoretically relevant, our work is
highly useful for practitioners in that it fosters a common
understanding of what product design is, thus avoiding
communication problems within companies. Our threefold
conceptualization emphasizes that product design is more
than the product’s aesthetic aspects and shows that during
the research-and-development (R&D) process, interdiscipli-
nary teams should include experts on the functional and
symbolic dimensions. Practitioners can easily use our scale,
which is based on this conceptualization, in field and online
studies. The scale does not require product experience and
is therefore also valuable in the early stages of product
development, such as testing prototypes or product con-
cepts. Finally, the scale also helps benchmark products with
regard to product design, both within the company and with
competitors’ products, providing managers with data to jus-
tify design expenditures.
Conceptualization
of Product Design
Conceptualization refers to both the theoretical meaning of
product design in terms of its definition and the specifica-
tion of the construct and its dimensions (Mueller 2004). The
conceptualization of product design, which we discuss in
this section, provides the basis for its operationalization.
Theoretical Foundation: Gestalt Theory
Gestalt theory deals with how people perceive objects and
postulates that the whole is more than the sum of its parts.
That is, people perceive the unitary whole of an object (the
so-called gestalt) rather than analyzing its separate constitu-
tive elements (the parts). These types of perceptions are
called holistic or gestalt processing on the gestalt level and
atomistic processing on the parts level (Koffka 1962; Rad-
ford and Bloch 2011; Wertheimer 1938).
42 / Journal of Marketing, May 2015
Gestalt theory helps clarify on which level product
design should be measured: either on the atomistic level, to
measure the design elements such as color and shape, or on
the holistic level, to measure the design of the product
through consumers’ holistic perception of it. We chose the
second option and measured product design through con-
sumers’ holistic perception because “one cannot visually
recognize objects without perceiving the whole although
one can still recognize objects without perceiving the parts”
(Jia, Shiv, and Rao 2014, p. 343). This reasoning suggests
that holistic processing is mandatory, whereas atomistic
processing is optional. Thus, relating the measurement of a
scale to the mandatory process is appropriate.
Product Design Definition
To the best of our knowledge, the literature contains no
widely accepted and conceptually sound definition of prod-
uct design and its dimensions that can be transferred to a
scale and applied across a broad range of product categories
(Bloch 2011; Luchs and Swan 2011; Noble and Kumar
2010). Therefore, before developing a product design scale
we offer a definition for product design. For this purpose,
we follow the procedure of Luchs and Swan (2011). These
authors identified a list of 168 articles on product design
published between January 1995 and December 2008 in
eight leading journals (Journal of the Academy of Market-
ing Science, Journal of Business Research, Journal of Con-
sumer Research, Journal of Marketing, Journal of Market-
ing Research, Journal of Product Innovation Management,
Management Science, and Marketing Science). Applying
the same procedure for the literature search in the same
selection of journals, we extended this list by another 103
articles that were published between December 2008 and
September 2014 (the original list is available online at
http://masonweb.wm.edu/productdesign; the list of addi-
tional articles appears in Web Appendix W1). Our final set
comprised 271 articles, of which 24 contained a definition
of product design (the articles and definitions appear in
Web Appendix W2). In many of these definitions, design
refers to a product’s properties or characteristics and/or
holistic dimensions, with which atomistic properties can be
combined (e.g., Bloch 2011; Luchs and Swan 2011; Orth
and Malkewitz 2008).
However, the definitions differ with regard to the con-
tent and number of dimensions. Bloch (2011, p. 378), for
example, speaks of “utilitarian, hedonic, and semiotic bene-
fits,” whereas Luchs and Swan (2011, p. 338) mention
“form,” “function,” and “holistic properties of the inte-
grated form and function.” We therefore reviewed the 271
articles again with a focus on possible dimensions of prod-
uct design. We extracted 43 articles that contained some
expression of the conceptualization of product design (a list
of the 43 articles, the dimensions, and their definitions
appears in Web Appendix W3). We allocated all dimensions
to six categories labeled according to the dimensions they
contained: (1) aesthetics, (2) functionality, (3) symbolism,
(4) shape, (5) ergonomics, and (6) others, which included
dimensions that did not fit into the other five categories.
The categories and their corresponding dimensions appear
in Web Appendix W4.
In line with our aim of developing a parsimonious scale
(Churchill 1979; Ramani and Kumar 2008; Rossiter 2002),
we determined whether all six dimensions were needed for
the conceptualization of product design, which constitutes
the basis for our scale-development process. This examina-
tion led to eliminating or summarizing some dimensions.
We excluded shape, as this category refers to atomistic pro-
cessing, which we do not consider for our product design
measurement. Within the “others” category, only three
dimensions were mentioned twice, and we therefore
excluded this category. Because the ergonomics category is
closely related to functionality in that it “concerns the com-
prehensibility and usability of a product, the suitability to
perform and correctly to communicate its utilitarian func-
tions” (Creusen and Schoormans 2005, p. 67), we sub-
sumed it under functionality.
The three resulting dimensions of product design are
aesthetics, functionality, and symbolism. We refer to them
as “design dimensions” in the following discussion. In line
with previous scholars (e.g., Batra and Ahtola 1990), we
propose that products have characteristics of all three
design dimensions. That is, a product is not aesthetic or
functional or symbolic but manifests all of these dimen-
sions simultaneously to different extents.
To examine whether consumers also conceive product
design along these three literature-based design dimensions,
we conducted qualitative interviews with consumers. We
randomly selected two images of smartphones from a set of
three and showed them to 28 consumers (57.8% female;
mean age = 24.54 years). We asked them to select one
smartphone and to describe the reasons that led to the selec-
tion. (More details on the stimulus selection, images of the
stimulus products and interview questions appear in Web
Appendix W5.) To show that the results are also valid for
other product categories, we conducted interviews with an
additional 32 consumers (53.13% female; mean age = 38
years). This time, we asked consumers to think of a product
of their choice whose design they liked, to explain why they
liked it, and to describe how the design of this product dif-
fers from the design of other products within that product
category. We provide the interview questions in Web Appen-
dix W6. All interviews were recorded and then transcribed.
We analyzed the interviews following established pro-
cedures of qualitative research (Strauss and Corbin 1998),
conducting the procedures separately for the two sets of
interviews. First, we gave the transcribed interviews to
three coders who were not familiar with our research and
did not know the three design dimensions. We provided a
short briefing on the coding procedures and asked the
coders to abstract the interviews to codes through line-by-
line analysis. Second, we asked the coders to summarize the
codes of the first step and allocate them to different cate-
gories. These categories were comparable for both sets of
interviews with minor differences in terminology. Third, we
checked whether the categories the coders had identified
could further be meaningfully summarized. Apart from
categories that referred to atomistic processing (e.g., color,
size) and minor aspects that were not directly related to
product design (e.g., price, ethics), we could allocate all
remaining categories to our three design dimensions. Table 1
gives examples of quotations; Web Appendix W7 contains
more details on codes and categories. In summary, the inter-
view analyses clearly demonstrate that consumers’ percep-
tions of product design align with our literature-based
design dimensions.
Combining gestalt theory—positing the holistic percep-
tion of products—with the literature review of the defini-
tions and dimensions of product design and the consumer
interviews, we derive the following product design defini-
tion (inspired mainly by Bloch 2011; Luchs and Swan

TABLE 1
Consumer Quotations for the Three Design Dimensions
Dimension Consumer Quotations
Aesthetic dimension •“I think the design is more beautiful.”
•“I find this somehow more appealing. It seems somehow wider and rounder. This one is more
massive. That one is a little more elegant.”
•“When I imagine having this one in the kitchen, it would truly be an eye-catcher.”
•“I prefer this … because of its design: It’s just more striking.”
Functional dimension •“The features are pretty important to me. I don’t need a camera that is super good but I want a
strong Wi-Fi connection.”
•“It seems to be well made and sturdy … and probably is also Wi-Fi and even LTE-enabled.”
•“It is light and practical.”
•“Falling toy blocks don’t cause any scratches or defects. This table is made of a special, hardened
glass.”
Symbolic dimension •“When you want to portray something to the outside world, you always want to show that you have
good taste, that you value yourself sufficiently to allow yourself some luxuries such as a fancy
phone. You portray parts of your lifestyle.”
•“If a person really cares about how a product is designed, then maybe this could imply something
about that person. However if the person does not care then there is nothing that can be implied
about him or her.”
•“I think that many people define themselves through, for example, their smartphones.”
•“It’s elegant and streamlined. And it doesn’t have the image of a show-off car … or a granny car.”
Notes: The interviews were conducted in German and were translated by someone other than the authors.

New Product Design / 43

2011): product design refers to a set of constitutive ele-
ments of a product that consumers perceive and organize as
a multidimensional construct comprising the three dimen-
sions of aesthetics, functionality, and symbolism. Because
these constitutive elements can be both visual and non-
visual, this definition of product design applies to both
visual and nonvisual examination of products. Next, we
describe the three design dimensions in more detail.
Product Design Dimensions
Aesthetics. The aesthetic dimension refers to the per-
ceived appearance and beauty of a product (Bloch 2011;
Desmet and Hekkert 2007). Aesthetics can be (1) an attri-
bute of the product itself, (2) created in the eye of the behol-
der, or (3) a combination of these two options (Reber,
Schwarz, and Winkielman 2004). Our definition of the aes-
thetic dimension corresponds with the third, integrative
alternative and thus links to our definition of product
design: a product has attributes that cause a perception of
beauty for the beholder (Leder et al. 2004).
Functionality. The functional dimension reflects the
consumer’s perceptions of a product’s ability to fulfill its
purpose (Bloch 2011; Boztepe 2007). We acknowledge that
for some products (e.g., cars), a proper assessment of func-
tionality is only possible upon consumption or usage. How-
ever, as Hoegg and Alba (2011) emphasize, in many cases,
consumers are able to assess the functionality of a product
from merely seeing it. This view is also supported by
Hollins and Pugh (1990) as well as Radford and Bloch
(2011). Such perceived functionality is especially important
for online shops, in which consumers do not have the
opportunity to comprehensively experience the product
(Spears and Yazdanparast 2014).
Symbolism. The symbolic dimension refers to the per-
ceived message a product communicates regarding a con-
sumer’s self-image to both the consumer and others on the
basis of visual elements (Aaker 1999; Belk 1988; Bloch
2011). The symbolic meaning of a product can evoke varied
associations, including those linked with a certain place or
time (Creusen and Schoormans 2005). It can also be used to
express personal values and dispositions or to form one’s
own identity (McCracken 1986). This third dimension
extends our conceptualization beyond many existing prod-
uct design conceptualizations (see Web Appendix W3).
Symbolism is an essential dimension because aesthetics and
functionality alone do not fully capture product design
(Bloch 2011; Rindova and Petkova 2007). For example, the
aesthetic and symbolic dimensions may contain opposing
perceptions, as when “someone who likes a colorful design
[aesthetic dimension] may not buy it because it looks ‘too
childish’ [symbolic dimension]” (Creusen and Schoormans
2005, p. 67). Furthermore, the symbolic dimension is “as
important as the utilitarian perspective” (Verganti 2008,
p. 440) because products often reflect consumers’ desire to
express their extended selves (Belk 1988; Holt 1997;
Kleine, Kleine, and Kernan 1993).
44 / Journal of Marketing, May 2015
Developing a
Product Design Scale
Review of Existing Scales
Before we operationalize the three dimensions of product
design, we provide a review of existing scales that are
linked with product design. These measures include the
Centrality of Visual Product Aesthetics scale (Bloch,
Brunel, and Arnold 2003), the Vehicle Quality Survey
(Srinivasan et al. 2012), and the HED/UT scale (Voss,
Spangenberg, and Grohmann 2003). Next, we briefly elabo-
rate on each scale and explain why it is not adequate to
meet our objectives.
The Centrality of Visual Product Aesthetics scale mea-
sures the “level of significance that visual aesthetics hold
for a particular consumer in his/her relationship with prod-
ucts” (Bloch, Brunel, and Arnold 2003, p. 551). It consists
of three subdimensions—value, acumen, and response—
and comprises 11 items. Because this scale focuses on char-
acteristics inherent in consumers and not in products, it
does not meet our objective of measuring product design.
The Vehicle Quality Survey is part of the Automotive
Performance, Execution and Layout study conducted annu-
ally by J.D. Power and Associates. The survey asks con-
sumers who have bought a new car to state how satisfied
they are with 95 attributes of the car. Consequently, items
are highly specific to cars and refer to characteristics such
as “front seat head room,” “driving range between fuel
stops,” “look and feel of steering wheel,” and “overall inte-
rior quietness” (Srinivasan et al. 2012, p. 17). Three major
issues arise with this scale. First, an evaluation comprising
95 items is burdensome. Second, because the items are
highly product category specific, they cannot be transferred
to other product categories. Third, because this scale
focuses on customer satisfaction, the consumer can make
the evaluation only after having significant experience with
the product, whereas our definitions of the design dimen-
sions explicitly require no prior use of the product.
The HED/UT scale was developed to measure “hedonic
and utilitarian dimensions of consumer attitudes toward
product categories” (Voss, Spangenberg, and Grohmann
2003, p. 311). The scale consists of ten adjective pairs, such
as “dull/exciting” and “unnecessary/necessary.” From a
conceptual point of view, it differs from our scale in one
important respect: the HED/UT scale does not include the
important symbolic dimension and thus does not capture all
relevant aspects of product design (Creusen and Schoor-
mans 2005; Verganti 2008). In a subsequent section, we
empirically show that our product design scale, which
includes a symbolic dimension, is superior to the HED/UT
scale.
Summary and Overview of the Scale-Development
Process
As the prior discussion demonstrates, existing scales are not
appropriate for measuring product design. We therefore
develop a new scale, which covers the design dimensions
we derived conceptually, is parsimonious with respect to
the number of dimensions and items (Churchill 1979;
Rossiter 2002; Voss, Spangenberg, and Grohmann 2003),
and does not refer to a particular product category. In line
with prior research (e.g., Brakus, Schmitt, and Zarantonello
2009; Ramani and Kumar 2008), we followed established
scale-development procedures (e.g., Campbell and Fiske
1959; Churchill 1979; Gerbing and Anderson 1988). Figure 1
shows the six steps in the scale-development process.
Generation of the Item Pool
At the beginning of the scale-development process, we gave
the definitions of the three design dimensions to 45 con-

FIGURE 1
Overview of the Scale-Development Process
Process Steps Data and Methods Results

(1) Item
45 consumers Initial set of 29 items


Generation
Literature review (Web Appendix W8).


30 consumer judges
(2) Item
Statistical procedures (EFA, CFA), Final scale with nine items

Reduction data of 6,418 U.S. consumers were used (Table 3).
(Study 1).


Discriminant validity between the design
dimensions: Fornell–Larcker criterion Model with three
(3) Scale

Comparison of different models with CFAs,  dimensions has the best
Dimensionality
selection of the best model based on the fit (Table 4, Figure 2).
lowest AIC (data from Study 1).


Collection of further data (1,083
Results are stable—i.e.,
European consumers, Study 2;
(4) Scale they could be verified with
583 European consumers, Study 3). 
Validation two other data sets (see

Calculation of Step 3 with the new data
Web Appendix W10).
(Studies 2 and 3).

Discriminant validity of the

CFAs to check discriminant validity of
design dimensions from
(5) Discriminant product design from brand personality and
 brand personality and the
Validity the HED/UT scale.
HED/UT scale could be

Data from Studies 2 and 3 were used.
shown.

The three design
dimensions have an
(6) Use of the

Structural equation model impact on WTP as well as
Scale to Analyze
(with mediation analysis/bootstrapping).  on purchase intention and
Outcomes of

Data from Studies 1 and 3 were used. WOM, both directly and
Product Design
indirectly via brand
attitude (Figure 3).

Notes: EFA: exploratory factor analysis, CFA: confirmatory factor analysis, AIC: Akaike’s Information Criterion; WOM: word of mouth; WTP:
willingness to pay.

New Product Design / 45

sumers and asked them to generate questions to measure the TABLE 2
dimensions. Surprisingly, for each dimension the proposed Sample Characteristics (Study 1)
items were remarkably similar. With regard to the aesthetic
Criterion Characteristics
dimension, two aspects were mentioned frequently: the
product’s beauty and the consumers’ liking of the product. Age (years) M 39.95
With regard to the dimension of functionality, consumers SD 14.63
Gender Female 63.04%
emphasized that functional product designs reveal what the Male 36.96%
products do and imply how to use them so that they fulfill Education Some grade school .06%
their purpose and “do their job.” With regard to the sym- Completed grade school .56%
bolic dimension, answers were more diverse, but the gist of Some high school 2.82%
the responses was that symbolic product designs “show Completed high school 26.71%
who I am.” These statements correspond with the results of Some college 33.44%
Completed college 25.65%
the consumer interviews we conducted to validate the three Postgraduate 10.77%
design dimensions (Table 1). Occupation Not employed 33.90%
In addition to the user-generated items, we included (hours worked per week) Less than 35 hours 18.98%
items that were adapted from or inspired by existing scales 35 hours or more 47.09%
(e.g., Babin, Darden, and Griffin 1994; Brakus, Schmitt, Refused to answer .03%
and Zarantonello 2009; Peck and Childers 2003; Ramani Household income Under $10,000 4.32%
$10,000–$24,999 14.76%
and Kumar 2008; Sprott, Czellar, and Spangenberg 2009; $25,000–$39,999 20.65%
Tian, Bearden, and Hunter 2001). In total, these two $40,000–$74,999 34.14%
sources—consumers and the literature—yielded an initial $75,000 and above 19.01%
set of 29 items (see Web Appendix W8). Refused to answer 7.12%
Notes: Sample size = 6,418.
Reduction of the Number of Items (Study 1)
Because a scale with 29 items is too lengthy to be usable in Because we intended to develop a product category–
practice, we had to reduce the initial item pool. Reducing a independent scale, we ran our analyses on an aggregate
scale to an acceptable number of items essentially relies on level for all products. An exploratory factor analysis (EFA)
two approaches: the use of consumer judgments and statis- with Varimax rotation revealed three factors with eigenval-
tical purification procedures (Churchill 1979; Rossiter ues greater than 1. All items loaded on the factor they were
2002; Voss, Spangenberg, and Grohmann 2003). We supposed to load on (see Web Appendix W8).
applied both approaches. Next, we conducted confirmatory factor analyses (CFAs)
First, we asked 30 consumers (different from the 45 with Stata 13 (Brakus, Schmitt, and Zarantonello 2009; Gerb-
consumers who generated the items) to rate the degree to ing and Anderson 1988). With regard to the definition of prod-
which each of the 29 items fit the definition of its respective uct design as having three dimensions, we first ran a model
design dimension. Second, we applied statistical reduction with the three latent factors—aesthetics, functionality, and
procedures to the 29 items. For the data collection, we symbolism. This model showed acceptable goodness-of-fit
cooperated with a large international market research insti- measures. One functional item (F1) had an indicator reliability
tute that allowed us to integrate our items into its regular below .4; thus, we excluded it (Bagozzi and Yi 1988, 2012).
online panel survey of U.S. consumers. The market To achieve a parsimonious scale, we selected the three
research institute collected the data and oversaw the data items with the highest indicator reliabilities for every dimen-
collection process. Within this panel, 10,657 households sion (Batra, Lenk, and Wedel 2010; Park et al. 2010): A3,
received online access to the questionnaire. In total, 6,418 A4, A7; F3, F4, F6; and S3, S4, S5 for the aesthetic, func-
consumers (63% female; mean age = 39.95 years; effective tional, and symbolic dimensions, respectively (see Table 3).
response rate = 60.22%) used five-point Likert scales to rate Consumer judges had also given these items very high rat-
one randomly assigned image among 15 typical household ings. This smaller model (shown in Figure 2) achieved
and multimedia products with respect to the three design excellent goodness-of-fit values1: comparative fit index
dimensions. The products were a television, an MP3 player, (CFI) = .99; Tucker–Lewis index (TLI) = .99; standardized
a camcorder, a DVD player, two digital cameras (one com- root mean square residual (SRMR) = .02; root mean square
pact and one SLR), a pocket camcorder, a Blu-ray Disc error of approximation (RMSEA) = .05. All indicator relia-
player, a coffee machine, two irons, an espresso machine, a bilities were above .4 (the lowest was .71). Composite relia-
hair dryer, a juicer, and a vacuum cleaner. These products bilities (CRs) and average variances extracted (AVEs) were
reflect the common product range of a consumer electronics above the required thresholds of .6 and .5 (Hu and Bentler
retailer and are familiar to, relevant for, and owned by many 1995): CRaesthetic = .92; CRfunctional = .95; CRsymbolic = .93;
consumers. Furthermore, they have been used in previous
studies (e.g., Hoegg, Alba, and Dahl 2010; Mugge and Dahl 1Chi-square is a direct function of the sample size. Given the
2013). The item order of the product design scale was ran- large sample of 6,418 consumers, this measure could not be used
domized across participants. Table 2 provides the sample meaningfully for judging the model’s fit to the data and is there-
characteristics in greater detail. fore not reported.

46 / Journal of Marketing, May 2015

 TABLE 3
Items, Means, and Standard Deviations (Study 1)
Item No. The product… M SD
A3 ...is visually striking 2.26 1.13
A4 ...is good looking 2.08 1.07
A7 ...looks appealing 2.10 1.07
F3 ...is likely to perform well 1.86 .88
F4 ...seems to be capable of doing its job 1.76 .85
F5 ...seems to be functional 1.78 .86
S4 ...would help me in establishing a distinctive image 3.34 1.29
S5 ...would be helpful to distinguish myself from the mass 3.34 1.30
S6 ...would accurately symbolize or express my achievements 3.35 1.29
Notes: All items assessed on a five-point scale (1 = “strongly agree,” and 5 = “strongly disagree”). Only items included in the final scale are
reported. For items F3–5 and S4–6, the questionnaire indicated to the respondent to judge the product “only from looking at it.” Item
numbers are consistent with Web Appendix W8.

FIGURE 2
CFA: The Three-Factor Model

*p < .01.
Notes: Numbers in parentheses refer to the item numbers as indicated in Table 3 and Web Appendix W8. All coefficient values are standard-
ized and appear above the associated path. Dotted lines and numbers next to them represent correlations of factors. Circles represent
the measurement errors for each of the items.

New Product Design / 47

AVEaesthetic = .79; AVEfunctional = .86; AVEsymbolic = .83.
Table 3 provides means and standard deviations of the final
item selection. We also ran CFAs with more than three
items per dimension and compared their goodness-of-fit
values (Voss, Spangenberg, and Grohmann 2003). The
three-item measurement proved to be the superior alterna-
tive (for the model comparison, see Web Appendix W9).
Establishing Scale Dimensionality
A first indication of the scale’s dimensionality is that the
model shown in Figure 2 clearly meets Fornell and Larcker’s
(1981) criterion, which requires that for every pair of fac-
tors, the squared estimated correlation should be smaller
than each factor’s AVE. Computing these squared correla-
tions from Figure 2 and comparing them with the AVEs
reveals that discriminant validity exists for each pair of fac-
tors. This finding is the first indication of the adequacy of
the three design dimensions underlying the nine items.
To further clarify the dimensionality, we compared
alternative models with confirmative factor analyses (see
Table 4) using procedures from prior research (Bloch,
Brunel, and Arnold 2003; Brakus, Schmitt, and Zaran-
tonello 2009; Tian, Bearden, and Hunter 2001). The models
were (1) the null model assuming correlations of 0 between
all measured variables, (2) the aforementioned three-factor
model (aesthetic, functional, and symbolic dimensions),
and (3) a one-factor model in which all items load on one
factor. We also included three two-factor models in which
items of two dimensions were grouped into one factor: (4) a
model with the factors aesthetics/functionality and symbol-
ism, (5) a model with the factors aesthetics/symbolism and
functionality, and (6) a model with the factors functionality/
symbolism and aesthetics.
For Models 2, 4, 5, and 6, we investigated both a case
with correlated factors and a case with orthogonal factors
(Models 1 and 3 have only one factor and therefore no cor-
relation between factors). In all cases, the correlated models
had goodness-of-fit values either the same as or better than
the corresponding models with orthogonal factors. The three-
factor model achieved the best fit statistics (see Table 4). In
addition, the Akaike information criterion (AIC) is lowest
for the three-factor solution (Homburg 1991). This result
confirms the product design operationalization with the aes-
thetic, functional, and symbolic dimensions.
TABLE 4
Model Comparison: Scale Dimensionality
Number Model Chi-Squarea d.f.
1 Null 54,059.15 36
2 Three factors 341.06 24
3 One factor 25,127.26 27
4 Two factors (A/F combined) 10,223.40 26
5 Two factors (A/S combined) 12,938.03 26
6 Two factors (F/S combined) 16,107.38 26
aChi-square is a direct function of the sample size. Given the large sample of 6,418 consumers, this measure could not be used meaningfully
for judging the model’s fit to the data.
bDifferences are calculated with regard to Model 2, which is the best model with the lowest AIC.
Notes: A = aesthetic; F = functional; S = symbolic. The model in boldface (Model 2) is the selected model.
48 / Journal of Marketing, May 2015
Validation of the Product Design Scale
(Studies 2 and 3)
The main purpose of Studies 2 and 3 is to validate the
design scale in a different cultural background and to col-
lect WTP as another dependent variable as well as further
variables for discriminant validity testing. Whereas the data
for Study 1 were collected in the United States, data for
Studies 2 and 3 were collected from European consumers.
Product design items were translated and checked with
backward translation.
Study 2 used different products from those in Study 1:
water kettles, headphones, and sunglasses. This difference
from Study 1 is important because we aim to develop a
product design scale that can be applied to a broad range of
product categories. For each category, we selected two
products that were randomly assigned to consumers. Like
prior investigators of product design (e.g., Hoegg, Alba, and
Dahl 2010; Mugge and Dahl 2013), we selected these prod-
ucts for reasons of relevance and familiarity to the target
group. We collected data with the help of the provider of a
European online consumer panel that gives scholars access
to its convenience sample for scientific purposes. Every
consumer rated one product in each of the three product
categories. Consistent with Study 1, design dimensions
were assessed with five-point Likert scales.
We invited 6,500 randomly selected panel members to
participate in our survey. Of these, 6,421 were successfully
sent e-mail invitations, and 1,088 recipients completed
questionnaires. In addition to offering a lottery of ten Ama-
zon.com vouchers (€15 each), for each completed question-
naire we donated €.50 to a charity organization supporting
children who suffer from cancer. We eliminated four par-
ticipants because of nondifferentiation (Barge and Gehlbach
2012) and one participant because of a low answering time,
resulting in 1,083 usable questionnaires (63% female; mean
age = 34.78 years; effective response rate: 16.87%). Table 5
presents details on the sample characteristics.
In Study 3, we used a subset of the products that were
included in Study 1. We selected two products from the
household category (iron and coffee machine) and two
products from the multimedia category (television and SLR
camera) and collected data from students of a major Euro-
pean university. The selected products and their brands are
common in Europe, so students would know them well.
AIC
CFI TLI RMSEA SRMR Differenceb
—
.
.994 .991 .045 .019 0
.535 .381 .381 .158 24,780.20
.811 .739 .247 .128 9,878.34
.761 .669 .278 .125 12,592.97
.702 .588 .310 .189 15,762.33
 TABLE 5 tor 2. The two-factor model was superior because it showed
Sample Characteristics (Study 2) a better model fit and also had a lower AIC value. The
AVEs of both factors were greater than their squared corre-
Criterion Characteristics
lation. Thus, consumer attitudes toward product categories,
Age (years) M 34.77 which are measured by the HED/UT scale, and product
SD 14.02 design, which is measured by our scale, are constructs with
discriminant validity.
Gender Female 63.25%
Male 36.75%
Educationa Completed grade school .09% Second, we compared the constructs on the dimension
Completed high school 8.32% level. We ran a CFA with the five factors of HED, UT, aes-
Completed college 39.13% thetic, functional, and symbolic. The Fornell–Larcker crite-
Postgraduate 47.92% rion was met for every pair of these five factors. This result
Other 4.53% implies that not only the scales themselves but also the
Occupation School/education 3.52%
Student 34.17% dimensions of both scales—for example, aesthetic and
Employee 36.76% hedonic or utilitarian and functional—show discriminant
Self-employed 7.78% validity and are thus distinct.
Other 17.78% Third, whereas the HED/UT scale measures “hedonic
Monthly income Under €1,000 40.88% and utilitarian dimensions of consumer attitudes toward
€1,000–€2,499 33.62%
€2,500–€3,999 11.05%
product categories” (Voss, Spangenberg, and Grohmann
€4,000 and above 4.91% 2003, p. 311), our new scale measures product design.
Refused to answer 9.54% Thus, our scale should be a better predictor of product
aThe school system in Europe differs from the system in the United design than the HED/UT scale. To verify this argument and
States. We tried to make results comparable by allocating the further show the validity of our product design scale, we set
European categories to the U.S. categorization. “Postgraduate” up two models. In Model 1, our three design dimensions
includes all academic degrees (including a bachelor’s degree).
(measured through the corresponding nine items) are the
independent construct, and the product design factor is the
Notes: Sample size = 1,083.

Every participant was randomly assigned to one product. In
total, we received 587 questionnaires. For reasons of homo-
geneity, we excluded four participants because they were
senior students and older than 40 years, resulting in 583
usable questionnaires (69.87% female; mean age = 20.4
years).
To validate the product design scale, we applied the pro-
cedures of Study 1 to Studies 2 and 3. Web Appendix W10
provides detailed results, and we summarize the findings
here. First, for both studies, an EFA with Varimax rotation
with the nine design items confirmed the three factors as
identified in Study 1. That is, every item loaded on the
intended dimension and yielded no large cross-loadings.
Second, the comparison of models (see Table 4 and Web
Appendix W10) showed that for both studies, the three-factor
solution was the superior model. Third, fit indices, compos-
ite and indicator reliabilities, and AVEs of the three-factor
models all exceeded the recommended thresholds. Fourth,
the Fornell–Larcker criterion was met for every pair of fac-
tors. In summary, these analyses of both samples confirm
the scale items and the scale dimensionality of aesthetic,
functional, and symbolic dimensions for other products in
different regions (United States vs. Europe).
Product Design Scale and HED/UT Scale (Study 3)
Previously, we discussed the conceptual difference between
our scale and the HED/UT scale (Voss, Spangenberg, and
Grohmann 2003). We next extend this reasoning with
empirical analyses.
First, we compared a one-factor model (with the items
of the HED/UT scale and the items of our scale loading on
the same factor) with a two-factor model in which HED/UT
items load on factor 1 and our product design items on fac-
dependent construct. This dependent construct is introduced
by the statement “How do you assess the design of the
shown [product]?” and measured by three overall items (1 =
“like very much,” and 5 = “like not at all”; 1 = “very good,”
and 5 = “very bad”; 1 = “very appealing,” and 5 = “not at
all appealing”; inspired by MacInnis and Park 1991). In
Model 2, instead of our design dimensions, the factors HED
and UT (measured with their ten items) are the independent
construct explaining the product design construct (Voss,
Spangenberg, and Grohmann 2003). The variance of prod-
uct design explained by the design dimensions model
(69%) clearly exceeds the variance explained by the
HED/UT model (43%).
Using the Scale to Analyze
Outcomes of Product Design
Theoretical design frameworks suggest that product design
influences consumer behavior (Bloch 1995; Luchs and
Swan 2011; Noble and Kumar 2010). However, these
frameworks are conceptual, and prior empirical work has
focused on single elements of product design. Thus, to date,
no empirical research has linked product design in its
entirety (rather than merely parts of the customer design)
with consumer behavior. Our definition and scale allow us
to close this gap. In this section, we explicitly consider the
aesthetic, functional, and symbolic dimensions separately.
This discrete analysis enables us to investigate which
dimension has a stronger impact and should therefore be the
focus of managers’ attention. The empirical investigation of
the three design dimensions, especially the separate exami-
nation of effects for each dimension, is a central contribu-
tion of this article.

New Product Design / 49

 In line with the theoretical framework of Luchs and
Swan (2011), we chose two prominent constructs of con-
sumer behavior as outcomes of product design. First, we
considered purchase intention because it has been widely
used in consumer research and because design researchers
also regard it as an important outcome of product design
(e.g., Chang and Wildt 1994; Herbst et al. 2012; Raghubir
and Greenleaf 2006). Second, we selected WOM as an out-
come of product design in our model. Defined as “informal
communications between private parties concerning evalua-
tions of goods and services to other consumers” (Anderson
1998, p. 6), WOM is a common variable in marketing and
product design research (e.g., Cheema and Kaikati 2010;
Chitturi, Raghunathan, and Mahajan 2008; Lovett, Peres,
and Shachar 2013). Because consumers can talk about the
design of a product solely on the basis of its visual evalua-
tion, such as after seeing it in a shop window, and because
the aforementioned definition of WOM refers only to com-
munication and not to recommendations, which would
require product experience, WOM fulfills our requirement
that the product design scale require no experience with
using the product.
Furthermore, prior research suggests a strong link
between product design and brand and calls for its empiri-
cal investigation (Keller and Lehmann 2006; Luchs and
Swan 2011; Noble and Kumar 2010). Against this back-
ground and because this application is the first empirical
use of our product design scale, we aimed to analyze the
role of the brand for the effects of product design in a more
general way. We thus looked for an overall brand construct.
The literature suggests using brand attitude, which refers to
an overall evaluation of the brand (e.g., Keller 2003) and
thus perfectly matches our aim. Therefore, we selected
brand attitude, defined as “psychological tendencies to
evaluate objects along a degree of favor or liking” (Schmitt
2012, p. 7), as a mediator for our model.
Hypothesis Development
Product design influences consumers’ purchase intention
through several mechanisms. Product design (especially the
aesthetic dimension) affects consumers’ evaluation of the
product, their immediate desire to own the product, and
their decision to acquire it (Reimann et al. 2010; Yeung and
Wyer 2005). Moreover, product design (especially the func-
tional dimension) can be “a reliable indicator of functional
performance” (Hoegg and Alba 2011, p. 346) and thus can
increase the likelihood of purchase (Bao, Bao, and Sheng
2011; Hoegg and Alba 2011; Richardson, Dick, and Jain
1994). The symbolic dimension in particular can help con-
sumers protect or maintain their self-concept (Belk 1988;
Sirgy 1982; Tian, Bearden, and Hunter 2001). Because con-
sumers want to defend and foster the understanding of who
they are, products and product designs that are linked with
this self-supporting function have a greater likelihood of
being purchased (Tian, Bearden, and Hunter 2001). Accord-
ingly, we propose the following:
H1: The (a) aesthetic, (b) functional, and (c) symbolic dimen-
sions of product design positively influence purchase
intention.
50 / Journal of Marketing, May 2015
We further expect that the three design dimensions posi-
tively affect WOM. Consumers engage in WOM because of
social, emotional, or functional benefits—that is, to “send
signals to others about one’s expertise [and] uniqueness,...
to share positive or negative feelings, and ... to provide and
supply information” (Lovett, Peres, and Shachar 2013, p.
428). One of the risks associated with WOM is the sharing
of inappropriate advice (Gatignon and Robertson 1986).
Product design can act as a cue or signal and reduce the risk
of this kind of WOM (Akdeniz, Calantone, and Voorhees
2013; Erdem, Swait, and Valenzuela 2006). We therefore
hypothesize the following:
H2: The (a) aesthetic, (b) functional, and (c) symbolic dimen-
sions of product design positively influence WOM.
In addition to these direct effects, we also expect an
indirect effect of product design on purchase intention and
WOM through brand attitude. Product design positively
influences brand attitude and can help build a strong brand
identity. In particular, it can reflect brand values, create con-
sistency over the product range, and support the differentia-
tion of brands (Karjalainen and Snelders 2010; Schmitt and
Simonson 2009; Stompff 2003). Product design can serve
as a signal and, as such, help consumers to overcome uncer-
tainty such as doubt about the quality of a product. This line
of reasoning leads to the following hypothesis:
H3: The (a) aesthetic, (b) functional, and (c) symbolic dimen-
sions of product design positively influence brand attitude.
In addition, we assume that brand attitude influences the
dependent variables of purchase intention and WOM. When
consumers trust and positively think about a brand, they
increase their intention to purchase this brand (Herbst et al.
2012). Analogously, a positive brand attitude should influ-
ence purchase intention. Furthermore, a positive brand atti-
tude also positively influences WOM (Lovett, Peres, and
Shachar 2013). Thus,
H4: A positive brand attitude increases purchase intention.
H5: A positive brand attitude increases WOM.
Measures
To test our hypotheses, we relied on the U.S. consumer
sample used in Study 1. We measured product design with
the items of our product design scale. We assessed WOM
and brand attitude as single-item constructs: “I would tell
other people about that product” (1 = “strongly agree,” and
5 = “strongly disagree”), inspired by Chitturi, Raghunathan,
and Mahajan (2008), and “My attitude toward the brand is
very positive” (1 = “strongly agree,” and 5 = “strongly dis-
agree”), inspired by Ferraro, Kirmani, and Matherly (2013).
Participants indicated their purchase intention with two
items: “How do you feel about buying this product in the
near future?” (1 = “definitively would buy,” and 5 = “defin-
itively would not buy”) and “When would you be most
willing to buy this product?” (1 = “within the next 3
months,” and 10 = “never”; intermediate labels were also
shown), inspired by Coulter and Coulter (2005) and Herbst
et al. (2012).
 The use of single-item measures is subject to discussion
in marketing research because of potential reliability and
validity issues. We used single-item measures for three rea-
sons. First, this use was a restriction imposed by the market
research institute, which would not allow us to add more
items for the dependent variables. Second, previous
research in consumer behavior and product design has used
single-item measures for brand attitude and WOM
(Bergkvist and Rossiter 2007; Chitturi, Raghunathan, and
Mahajan 2008). Third, research has shown that single-item
measures can be highly reliable and valid (Bergkvist and
Rossiter 2007; Fuchs and Diamantopoulos 2009; Wanous,
Reichers, and Hudy 1997). In addition, our results are fairly
independent of the reliabilities of our single-item constructs
(e.g., whether we assign a value of 1 or .85; Jöreskog and
Sörbom 1982; Malhotra et al. 2012).
Results and Discussion
To check our hypotheses, we ran a structural equation
model (Figure 3) with bootstrapping (10,000 repetitions;
Preacher and Hayes 2008; details appear in Web Appendix
W11) and a reliability of .85 for our single-item measures,
which yielded excellent model fit2 (CFI = .97; TLI = .96;
2Chi-square is a direct function of the sample size. Given the
large sample of 6,418 consumers, this measure could not be used
meaningfully for judging the model’s fit to the data and is there-
fore not reported.
FIGURE 3
Analyzing Outcomes of Product Design
*p < .01.
Notes: All coefficients are standardized and appear near the associated path(s). Boldfaced arrows represent three paths: aesthetic (A), func-
tional (F), and symbolic (S).
SRMR = .04; RMSEA = .07). These fit indices are in line
with the established thresholds (Bagozzi and Yi 1988, 2012;
Hu and Bentler 1995). All indicator reliabilities were above
.4, all AVEs were above .5, and all construct reliabilities
were above .6. We found discriminant validity—checked
with the Fornell–Larcker criterion—for all factors.
All path coefficients were positive and significant at the
.01 level except the direct effect of the aesthetic dimension
on purchase intention, which was not significant. This result
means that the functional and symbolic dimensions influ-
ence purchase intention directly. Furthermore, all three
dimensions influence WOM directly and influence both
dependent variables indirectly through brand attitude. Thus,
apart from H1a, all hypotheses are confirmed. In the follow-
ing subsections, we elaborate on these effects.
Direct effects. Regarding the standardized direct effects
of product design on purchase intention, the effect of the
symbolic dimension (.25) was more than three times the
effect of the functional dimension (.08). This effect might
be due to consumers’ strong will to express themselves with
the help of products. This result and the insignificant effect
of aesthetics on purchase intention might also stem from the
influence of the product category, which we analyze subse-
quently. Regarding the direct effects of product design on
WOM, all three design dimensions showed positive and
significant coefficients with similar effect sizes (aesthetic:
.17; functional: .18; symbolic: .21).
New Product Design / 51
 Indirect and total effects. Aside from their direct effects,
the product design dimensions also had an effect on attitude
toward the brand, which in turn had positive effects on the
dependent variables. This effect is called an indirect effect,
and brand attitude is called a mediator. A mediator is a third
variable that “represents the generative mechanism through
which the focal independent variable is able to influence the
dependent variable of interest” (Baron and Kenny 1986,
p. 1173). If only the indirect effect is significant, full medi-
ation occurs. If both the direct and indirect paths are signifi-
cant, partial mediation occurs (Zhang, Wedel, and Pieters
2009). All indirect effects are positive and significant for
both dependent variables in our model. Regarding the sig-
nificant direct effects, we can state that brand attitude par-
tially mediates the effects of product design. Because the
indirect effect, but not the direct effect, of the aesthetic
dimension on purchase intention (.12) was significant, the
aesthetic dimension is fully mediated by brand attitude.
For the functional dimension, the indirect effect through
brand attitude on purchase intention was greater than the
direct effect (.10 vs. .08). The indirect effect of the sym-
bolic dimension was smaller than the direct effect (.05 vs.
.25) but is still positive. For the dependent variable WOM,
indirect effects were .10 (aesthetics), .09 (functionality),
and .05 (symbolism). As for purchase intention, the indirect
effect of the symbolic dimension was the smallest indirect
effect. Nevertheless, all three indirect paths on WOM
through brand attitude increase the total effect sizes of the
design dimensions.
Adding the direct and indirect effects together leads to
the total effects. The standardized total effects on purchase
intention are .12 (aesthetics), .18 (functionality), and .30
(symbolism) and on WOM are .27 (aesthetics), .27 (func-
tionality), and .26 (symbolism). Thus, all design dimensions
positively influence the dependent variables of our model.
Differences for product categories.3 Furthermore, to
analyze whether the product category exerts an influence,
we estimated the model shown in Figure 3 for multimedia
and household products separately. Notably, the effect of
aesthetics on purchase intention, which had previously been
insignificant, became significant (p < .05) for multimedia
products. This finding seems logical because aesthetics play
a larger role for multimedia products than for household
products. Furthermore, all other effects of the design
dimensions (including the effects on purchase intention,
WOM, and brand attitude) showed consistency across product
categories. Moreover, our results indicate that the pattern of
effect sizes also remains stable across the three models—
that is, including all products, household products only, and
multimedia products only. In particular, among the three
design dimensions, for all three models the symbolic
dimension constitutes the strongest driver of purchase
intention, followed by functionality and then aesthetics. The
three design dimensions influence WOM almost equally,
consistently across product categories. Finally, the aesthetic
dimension of product design always shows the strongest
3We thank an anonymous reviewer for this helpful suggestion.
52 / Journal of Marketing, May 2015
effect on brand attitude (followed by functionality and then
symbolism), irrespective of the product category. These
results further support the validity of our findings.
Post-hoc analysis with WTP.4 In addition, we investi-
gated WTP as an additional dependent variable. Therefore,
in the survey of the data collection for Study 3, we included
WTP with an open question: “How much would you be
willing to pay for this [product]?” (Miller et al. 2011). A
structural equation model with dummy variables for the
products (i.e., controlling for their different price levels);
the three design dimensions of aesthetics, functionality, and
symbolism as independent variables; and WTP as the
dependent variable showed adequate goodness of fit
(c2(48) = 101.51, p < .001; CFI = .98; TLI = .97; SRMR =
.03; RMSEA = .05). The standardized path coefficients of
the design dimensions on WTP were all positive and sig-
nificant (p < .05; aesthetic: .09, functional: .14, symbolic:
.11). The result that the functional dimension shows the
strongest effect on WTP is consistent with Okada’s (2005)
findings.
In summary, the three design dimensions of aesthetics,
functionality, and symbolism significantly influence three
relevant dependent variables of consumer behavior: pur-
chase intention, WOM, and WTP. The finding that the sym-
bolic dimension shows strong effects for all dependent
variables emphasizes the need for its inclusion as a dimen-
sion of product design.
General Discussion
Theoretical Implications
Although product design is recognized as being important
for both research and practice, some gaps still exist with
regard to its conceptualization and operationalization as
well as for the investigation of product design outcomes. In
closing these gaps, we contribute to product design research
in several ways.
First, we have defined product design as a set of consti-
tutive elements of a product that consumers perceive and
organize as a multidimensional construct comprising the
three dimensions of aesthetics, functionality, and symbol-
ism. The definition of product design as comprising these
three dimensions builds on a large literature review and
extends the existing distinction between hedonic and utili-
tarian dimensions by adding a symbolic dimension.
Second, our investigation is the first to operationalize the
product design construct by developing a product category–
independent design scale along these three dimensions. The
scale is easy to administer and is adaptable to different
research contexts, and it thus advances research on the
effects and processes underlying product design. Most
importantly, we verified the scale’s applicability in three
studies using different products from different product cate-
gories in distinct cultural contexts. Moreover, the scale
demonstrated discriminant validity from the HED/UT scale.
4We thank an anonymous reviewer for this helpful suggestion.
 The results of this study have several theoretical impli-
cations. First, we develop a theoretically well-grounded and
easily applicable conceptualization and scale of product
design that provides researchers with an instrument for
product design research. Investigators can build on our
scale and deepen the understanding of product design in
marketing. Furthermore, a common operationalization
makes results comparable. Second, some previous studies
in product design research have used only the aesthetic
dimension or the hedonic and utilitarian dimensions to cap-
ture product design. In our model, the total effects on pur-
chase intention were greater for the functional (.18) and the
symbolic (.30) dimensions than for the aesthetic dimension
(.12). This result implies that understanding design solely in
terms of aesthetics restricts the full potential that product
design could have and also that a broad understanding
includes the functional and symbolic dimensions. Thus, an
important aspect of this article is the introduction of the
symbolic dimension and the evidence that all three dimen-
sions of product design have an impact on consumer behavior.
Third, we have shown that product design influences
the outcome variables on both direct and indirect paths.
This finding is especially relevant for further research on
product design, which should especially consider additional
mediators or moderators.
Limitations and Future Research Directions
Our conceptualization and operationalization of product
design lay the foundation for further research to better
understand how product design works. As with any study,
our work contains some limitations, which may provide a
starting point for further research.
First, although our product design definition refers to both
visual and nonvisual elements of a product, we employed
product images as stimuli for the scale-development
process. Despite our examination of strictly visual stimuli,
our scale and its items are also applicable to nonvisual stim-
uli. Consumers’ perceptions of product design can include
constitutive product elements that can be either visual or
nonvisual, and because the design dimensions are more
abstract representations of these constitutive elements, they
can refer to both visual and nonvisual stimuli. This refer-
ence is apparent through a closer examination of our items.
For example, the item “is likely to perform well” (F3 of the
functional dimension) or the item “would help me in estab-
lishing a distinctive image” (S4 of the symbolic dimension)
can also be answered through a haptic (instead of visual)
evaluation of a specific product design. With some slight
modifications of the items, such as “feels striking” instead
of “looks striking” (A3), the aesthetic dimension might also
work well for nonvisual stimuli. Further research might vali-
date this claim by employing our scale with, for example,
haptic stimuli.
Second, we demonstrate the generalizability of our
scale for 16 product categories. We note that these cate-
gories refer solely to consumer durables; therefore, we call
for further research to explore whether our product design
scale is readily transferrable to, for example, the package
design of fast-moving consumer goods. Future studies
could additionally test and, if necessary, adapt or develop a
new design scale for products in the service industries (e.g.,
software) or business-to-business industries. A related limi-
tation refers to the extent of newness of the product cate-
gories tested in our study. Specifically, although marketers
could certainly employ our scale to test new product proto-
types, we can only speculate on the degree to which our
scale is applicable to radical innovations that evoke the
development of a totally new product category.
Third, our results show that the pattern of effect sizes
remains stable for the three design dimensions irrespective
of product category. This finding requires deeper investiga-
tion, as one might expect the importance of the symbolic
dimension to vary across product categories. For example,
one could assume that consumers might find the symbolic
dimension to be more relevant for publicly consumed prod-
ucts than for privately consumed products. In a similar vein,
the importance of the design dimensions may vary across
purchase decisions, differing, for example, between buying
a product for oneself and purchasing a gift for someone
else. Further research might therefore explore when and
how the three product design dimensions vary in influenc-
ing distinct outcomes of consumer behavior.
Managerial Implications
Practitioners also acknowledge the importance of product
design; therefore, generating new and helpful insights for
them is essential. Our research helps managers in four criti-
cal ways. First, a sound definition of product design offers
practitioners a common mental representation and under-
standing of what constitutes design. A clear definition could
help managers avoid getting lost in personal convictions or
subjective judgments of product design, and having a com-
mon definition also helps circumvent communication prob-
lems within companies.
Second, we conceptualize and operationalize product
design as comprising three dimensions: aesthetics, func-
tionality, and symbolism. This expanded conceptualization
might be contrary to what many managers have in mind
when they think about design, because design often is
restricted to the aesthetic dimension. However, our research
shows that this perspective is inadequate from both theo-
retical and empirical viewpoints. Although all three design
dimensions have a measureable impact on purchase inten-
tion, WOM, and WTP, the aesthetic dimension does not
have the strongest effect. Consequently, companies should
actively pay attention to all three dimensions. This finding
implies that product design can benefit from contributions
from interdisciplinary R&D or design teams consisting of,
for example, artists/designers (aesthetics), engineers (func-
tionality), and market researchers who know their cus-
tomers’ lifestyle (symbolism).
Third, we provide a scale to measure product design.
With the help of this scale, practitioners can let consumers
evaluate current or future products with respect to the three
design dimensions. Our scale items are easy to understand
and applicable to many product categories, and because the
scale consists of only nine items, it can be answered rela-
New Product Design / 53
tively quickly. In addition, because the scale requires nei-
ther product experience nor handling of the product, it can
be used in product tests for new products and in cases in
which only product images are shown. This aspect makes it
applicable to both field and online studies. Moreover, hav-
ing the ability to measure product design with our scale,
companies may consider and measure product design as a
performance indicator and as a sound criterion for evaluat-
ing the company’s design performance against the design
REFERENCES
Aaker, Jennifer L. (1999), “The Malleable Self: The Role of Self-
Expression in Persuasion,” Journal of Marketing Research, 36
(February), 45–57.
Akdeniz, M. Billur, Roger J. Calantone, and Clay M. Voorhees
(2013), “Signaling Quality: An Examination of the Effects of
Marketing- and Nonmarketing-Controlled Signals on Percep-
tions of Automotive Brand Quality,” Journal of Product Inno-
vation Management, 728–43.
Anderson, E.W. (1998), “Customer Satisfaction and Word of
Mouth,” Journal of Service Research, 1 (1), 5–17.
Babin, Barry J., William R. Darden, and Mitch Griffin (1994),
“Work and/or Fun: Measuring Hedonic and Utilitarian Shop-
ping Value,” Journal of Consumer Research, 20 (4), 644–56.
Bagozzi, Richard P. and Youjae Yi (1988), “On the Evaluation of
Structural Equation Models,” Journal of the Academy of Mar-
keting Science, 16 (1), 74–94.
——— and ——— (2012), “Specification, Evaluation, and Interpre-
tation of Structural Equation Models,” Journal of the Academy
of Marketing Science, 40 (1), 8–34.
Bao, Yongchuan, Yeqing Bao, and Shibin Sheng (2011), “Motivat-
ing Purchase of Private Brands: Effects of Store Image, Prod-
uct Signatureness, and Quality Variation,” Journal of Business
Research, 64 (2), 220–26.
Barge, Scott and Hunter Gehlbach (2012), “Using the Theory of
Satisficing to Evaluate the Quality of Survey Data,” Research
in Higher Education, 53 (2), 182–200.
Baron, Reuben M. and David A. Kenny (1986), “The Moderator–
Mediator Variable Distinction in Social Psychological Research:
Conceptual, Strategic, and Statistical Considerations,” Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 51 (6), 1173–82.
Batra, Rajeev and Olli T. Ahtola (1990), “Measuring the Hedonic
and Utilitarian Sources of Consumer Attitudes,” Marketing
Letters, 2 (2), 159–70.
———, Peter Lenk, and Michel Wedel (2010), “Brand Extension
Strategy Planning: Empirical Estimation of Brand–Category
Personality Fit and Atypicality,” Journal of Marketing
Research, 47 (April), 335–47.
Belk, Russell W. (1988), “Possessions and the Extended Self,”
Journal of Consumer Research, 15 (2), 139–68.
Bergkvist, Lars and John R. Rossiter (2007), “The Predictive
Validity of Multiple-Item Versus Single-Item Measures of the
Same Constructs,” Journal of Marketing Research, 44 (May),
175–84.
Bloch, Peter H. (1995), “Seeking the Ideal Form: Product Design
and Consumer Response,” Journal of Marketing, 59 (July),
16–29.
——— (2011), “Product Design and Marketing: Reflections After
Fifteen Years,” Journal of Product Innovation Management, 28
(3), 378–80.
———, Frédéric F. Brunel, and Todd J. Arnold (2003), “Individual
Differences in the Centrality of Visual Product Aesthetics:
Concept and Measurement,” Journal of Consumer Research,
29 (4), 551–65.
54 / Journal of Marketing, May 2015
performance of competitors. This evaluation may also help
justify product design expenditures.
Fourth, our model demonstrates that product design
influences purchase intention and WOM both directly and
indirectly through brand attitude. Thus, companies should
align their product design decisions with branding deci-
sions. Practically, this recommendation implies that the
R&D and marketing departments (especially all teams
responsible for branding) should work together closely.
Boztepe, Suzan (2007), “User Value: Competing Theories and
Models,” International Journal of Design, 1 (2), 55–63.
Brakus, J.J., Bernd H. Schmitt, and Lia Zarantonello (2009),
“Brand Experience: What Is It? How Is It Measured? Does It
Affect Loyalty?” Journal of Marketing, 73 (May), 52–68.
Campbell, Donald T. and Donald W. Fiske (1959), “Convergent
and Discriminant Validation by the Multitrait–Multimethod
Matrix,” Psychological Bulletin, 56 (2), 81–105.
Candi, Marina (2010), “Benefits of Aesthetic Design as an Ele-
ment of New Service Development,” Journal of Product Inno-
vation Management, 27 (7), 1047–64.
Chang, Tung-Zong and Albert R. Wildt (1994), “Price, Product
Information, and Purchase Intention: An Empirical Study,”
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 22 (1), 16–27.
Cheema, Amar and Andrew M. Kaikati (2010), “The Effect of
Need for Uniqueness on Word of Mouth,” Journal of Market-
ing Research, 47 (June), 553–63.
Chitturi, Ravindra, Rajagopal Raghunathan, and Vijay Mahajan
(2008), “Delight by Design: The Role of Hedonic Versus Utili-
tarian Benefits,” Journal of Marketing, 72 (May), 48–63.
Churchill, Gilbert A., Jr. (1979), “A Paradigm for Developing Bet-
ter Measures of Marketing Constructs,” Journal of Marketing
Research, 16 (February), 64–73.
Coulter, Keith S. and Robin A. Coulter (2005), “Size Does Matter:
The Effects of Magnitude Representation Congruency on Price
Perceptions and Purchase Likelihood,” Journal of Consumer
Psychology, 15 (1), 64–76.
Creusen, Mariëlle E.H. and Jan P.L. Schoormans (2005), “The
Different Roles of Product Appearance in Consumer Choice,”
Journal of Product Innovation Management, 22 (1), 63–81.
Dahl, Darren W. (2011), “Clarity in Defining Product Design:
Inspiring Research Opportunities for the Design Process,”
Journal of Product Innovation Management, 28 (3), 425–27.
Desmet, Pieter and Paul Hekkert (2007), “Framework of Product
Experience,” International Journal of Design, 1 (1), (accessed
March 12, 2015), [available at http://www.ijdesign.org/ojs/
index.php/IJDesign/article/view/66/15].
Dhar, Ravi and Klaus Wertenbroch (2000), “Consumer Choice
Between Hedonic and Utilitarian Goods,” Journal of Market-
ing Research, 37 (February), 60–71.
Di Benedetto, C.A. (2011), “From the Editor,” Journal of Product
Innovation Management, 28 (3), 320.
Erdem, Tülin, Joffre Swait, and Ana Valenzuela (2006), “Brands
as Signals: A Cross-Country Validation Study,” Journal of
Marketing, 70 (January), 34–49.
Ferraro, Rosellina, Amna Kirmani, and Ted Matherly (2013),
“Look at Me! Look at Me! Conspicuous Brand Usage, Self-
Brand Connection, and Dilution,” Journal of Marketing
Research, 50 (August), 477–88.
Fornell, Claes and David F. Larcker (1981), “Evaluating Structural
Equation Models with Unobservable Variables and Measure-
ment Error,” Journal of Marketing Research, 18 (February),
39–50.
Fuchs, Christoph and Adamantios Diamantopoulos (2009), “Using
Single-Item Measures for Construct Measurement in Manage-
ment Research: Conceptual Issues and Application Guide-
lines,” Die Betriebswirtschaft, 69 (2), 195–210.
Gatignon, Hubert and Thomas S. Robertson (1986), “An
Exchange Theory Model of Interpersonal Communication,” in
Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 13, Richard J. Lutz, ed.
Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research, 534–38.
Gemser, Gerda and Mark A.A.M. Leenders (2001), “How Inte-
grating Industrial Design in the Product Development Process
Impacts on Company Performance,” Journal of Product Inno-
vation Management, 18 (1), 28–38.
Gerbing, David W. and James C. Anderson (1988), “An Updated
Paradigm for Scale Development Incorporating Unidimension-
ality and Its Assessment,” Journal of Marketing Research, 25
(May), 186–92.
Herbst, Kenneth C., Eli J. Finkel, David Allan, and Gráinne M.
Fitzsimons (2012), “On the Dangers of Pulling a Fast One:
Advertisement Disclaimer Speed, Brand Trust, and Purchase
Intention,” Journal of Consumer Research, 38 (5), 909–919.
———, ———, and Robert W. Veryzer (2005), “The Impact of
Industrial Design Effectiveness on Corporate Financial Perfor-
mance,” Journal of Product Innovation Management, 22 (1),
3–21.
Hoegg, JoAndrea and Joseph W. Alba (2011), “Seeing Is Believ-
ing (Too Much): The Influence of Product Form on Perceptions
of Functional Performance,” Journal of Product Innovation
Management, 28 (3), 346–59.
———, ———, and Darren W. Dahl (2010), “The Good, the Bad,
and the Ugly: Influence of Aesthetics on Product Feature Judg-
ments,” Journal of Consumer Psychology, 20 (4), 419–30.
Hollins, Bill and Stuart Pugh (1990), Successful Product Design:
What to Do and When. London: Butterworth-Heinemann.
Holt, Douglas B. (1997), “Poststructuralist Lifestyle Analysis:
Conceptualizing the Social Patterning of Consumption in Post-
modernity,” Journal of Consumer Research, 23 (4), 326–50.
Homburg, Christian (1991), “Cross-Validation and Information
Criteria in Causal Modeling,” Journal of Marketing Research,
28 (May), 137–44.
Hu, Li-tse and Peter M. Bentler (1995), “Evaluating Model Fit,” in
Structural Equation Modeling: Concepts, Issues, and Applica-
tion, Rick H. Hoyle, ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publica-
tions, 76–99.
Jia, Jayson Shi, Baba Shiv, and Sanjay Rao (2014), “The Product-
Agnosia Effect: How More Visual Impressions Affect Product
Distinctiveness in Comparative Choice,” Journal of Consumer
Research, 41 (2), 342–60.
Jöreskog, Karl G. and Dag Sörbom (1982), “Recent Developments
in Structural Equation Modeling,” Journal of Marketing
Research, 19 (November), 404–416.
Karjalainen, Toni-Matti and Dirk Snelders (2010), “Designing
Visual Recognition for the Brand,” Journal of Product Innova-
tion Management, 27 (1), 6–22.
Keller, Kevin L. (2003), “Brand Synthesis: The Multidimensional-
ity of Brand Knowledge,” Journal of Consumer Research, 29
(4), 595–600.
——— and Donald R. Lehmann (2006), “Brands and Branding:
Research Findings and Future Priorities,” Marketing Science,
25 (6), 740–59.
Kleine, Robert E., Susan Schultz Kleine, and Jerome B. Kernan
(1993), “Mundane Consumption and the Self: A Social-Identity
Perspective,” Journal of Consumer Psychology, 2 (3), 209–
235.
Koffka, Kurt (1962), Principles of Gestalt Psychology. London:
Lund Humpheries.
Landwehr, Jan R., Daniel Wentzel, and Andreas Herrmann (2012),
“The Tipping Point of Design: How Product Design and
Brands Interact to Affect Consumers’ Preferences,” Psychology
and Marketing, 29 (6), 422–33.
———,———, and ——— (2013), “Product Design for the Long
Run: Consumer Responses to Typical and Atypical Designs at
Different Stages of Exposure,” Journal of Marketing, 77 (Sep-
tember), 92–107.
Leder, Helmut, Benno Belke, Andries Oeberst, and Dorothee
Augustin (2004), “A Model of Aesthetic Appreciation and Aes-
thetic Judgments,” British Journal of Psychology (95), 489–
508.
Lovett, Mitchell J., Renana Peres, and Ron Shachar (2013), “On
Brands and Word of Mouth,” Journal of Marketing Research,
50 (November), 427–44.
Luchs, Michael and K.S. Swan (2011), “Perspective: The Emer-
gence of Product Design as a Field of Marketing Inquiry,”
Journal of Product Innovation Management, 28 (3), 327–45.
MacInnis, Deborah J. and C.W. Park (1991), “The Differential Role
of Characteristics of Music on High- and Low-Involvement
Consumers’ Processing of Ads,” Journal of Consumer Research,
18 (2), 161–73.
Malhotra, Naresh K., Soumya Mukhopadhyay, Xiaoyan Liu, and
Satyabhusan Dash (2012), “One, Few or Many? An Integrated
Framework for Identifying the Items in Measurement Scales,”
International Journal of Market Research, 54 (6), 835–62.
Marketing Science Institute (2010), 2010–2012 Research Priori-
ties. Cambridge, MA: Marketing Science Institute.
——— (2012), 2012–2014 Research Priorities. Cambridge, MA:
Marketing Science Institute.
McCracken, Grant (1986), “Culture and Consumption: A Theoreti-
cal Account of the Structure and Movement of the Cultural
Meaning of Consumer Goods,” Journal of Consumer
Research, 13 (1), 71–84.
Miller, Klaus M., Reto Hofstetter, Harley Krohmer, and Z.J.
Zhang (2011), “How Should Consumers’ Willingness to Pay
Be Measured? An Empirical Comparison of State-of-the-Art
Approaches,” Journal of Marketing Research, 48 (February),
172–84.
Mueller, Charles W. (2004), “Conceptualization, Operationaliza-
tion, and Measurement,” in The Sage Encyclopedia of Social
Science Research Methods, Michael S. Lewis-Beck, Alan Bry-
man, and Tim F. Liao, eds. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publica-
tions, 162–66.
Mugge, Ruth and Darren W. Dahl (2013), “Seeking the Ideal
Level of Design Newness: Consumer Response to Radical and
Incremental Product Design,” Journal of Product Innovation
Management, 30 (S1), 34–47.
Noble, Charles H. and Minu Kumar (2010), “Exploring the Appeal
of Product Design: A Grounded, Value-Based Model of Key
Design Elements and Relationships,” Journal of Product Inno-
vation Management, 27 (5), 640–57.
Okada, Erica M. (2005), “Justification Effects on Consumer
Choice of Hedonic and Utilitarian Goods,” Journal of Market-
ing Research, 42 (February), 43–53.
Orth, Ulrich R. and Keven Malkewitz (2008), “Holistic Package
Design and Consumer Brand Impressions,” Journal of Market-
ing, 72 (May), 64–81.
Park, C. Whan, Deborah J. MacInnis, Joseph Priester, Andreas B.
Eisingerich, and Dawn Iacobucci (2010), “Brand Attachment
and Brand Attitude Strength: Conceptual and Empirical Differ-
entiation of Two Critical Brand Equity Drivers,” Journal of
Marketing, 74 (November), 1–17.
Peck, Joann and Terry L. Childers (2003), “Individual Differences
in Haptic Information Processing: The ‘Need for Touch’
Scale,” Journal of Consumer Research, 30 (3), 430–42.
Peters, Thomas J. (2005), Design: Tom Peters Essentials. London:
Dorling Kindersley.
New Product Design / 55
Preacher, Kristopher J. and Andrew F. Hayes (2008), “Asymptotic
and Resampling Strategies for Assessing and Comparing Indi-
rect Effects in Multiple Mediator Models,” Behavior Research
Methods, 40 (3), 879–91.
Radford, Scott K. and Peter H. Bloch (2011), “Linking Innovation
to Design: Consumer Responses to Visual Product Newness,”
Journal of Product Innovation Management, 28 (S1), 208–220.
Raghubir, Priya and Eric A. Greenleaf (2006), “Ratios in Propor-
tion: What Should the Shape of the Package Be?” Journal of
Marketing, 70 (April), 95–107.
Ramani, Girish and V. Kumar (2008), “Interaction Orientation and
Firm Performance,” Journal of Marketing, 72 (January), 27–
45.
Reber, Rolf, Norbert Schwarz, and Piotr Winkielman (2004),
“Processing Fluency and Aesthetic Pleasure: Is Beauty in the
Perceiver’s Processing Experience?” Personality & Social Psy-
chology Review, 8 (4), 364–82.
Reimann, Martin, Judith Zaichkowsky, Carolin Neuhaus, Thomas
Bender, and Bernd Weber (2010), “Aesthetic Package Design:
A Behavioral, Neural, and Psychological Investigation,” Jour-
nal of Consumer Psychology, 20 (4), 431–41.
Richardson, Paul S., Alan S. Dick, and Arun K. Jain (1994),
“Extrinsic and Intrinsic Cue Effects on Perceptions of Store
Brand Quality,” Journal of Marketing, 58 (October), 28–36.
Rindova, Violina P. and Antoaneta P. Petkova (2007), “When Is a
New Thing a Good Thing? Technological Change, Product
Form Design, and Perceptions of Value for Product Innova-
tions,” Organization Science, 18 (2), 217–32.
Rossiter, John R. (2002), “The C-OAR-SE Procedure for Scale
Development in Marketing,” International Journal of Research
in Marketing, 19 (4), 305–335.
Schmitt, Bernd (2012), “The Consumer Psychology of Brands,”
Brand Insights from Psychological and Neurophysiological
Perspectives, 22 (1), 7–17.
——— and Alex Simonson (2009), Marketing Aesthetics. New
York: The Free Press.
Sirgy, M. Joseph (1982), “Self-Concept in Consumer Behavior: A
Critical Review,” Journal of Consumer Research, 9 (3), 287–
300.
Spears, Nancy and Atefeh Yazdanparast (2014), “Revealing
Obstacles to the Consumer Imagination,” Journal of Consumer
Psychology, 24 (3), 363–72.
56 / Journal of Marketing, May 2015
Sprott, David, Sandor Czellar, and Eric Spangenberg (2009), “The
Importance of a General Measure of Brand Engagement on
Market Behavior: Development and Validation of a Scale,”
Journal of Marketing Research, 46 (February), 92–104.
Srinivasan, Raji, Gary L. Lilien, Arvind Rangaswamy, Gina M.
Pingitore, and Daniel Seldin (2012), “The Total Product
Design Concept and an Application to the Auto Market,” Jour-
nal of Product Innovation Management, 29 (S1), 3–20.
Stompff, Guido (2003), “The Forgotten Bond: Brand Identity and
Product Design,” Design Management Journal, 14 (1), 26–32.
Strauss, Anselm L. and Juliet M. Corbin (1998), Basics of Qualita-
tive Research: Grounded Theory Procedures and Techniques.
Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
Tian, Kelly T., William O. Bearden, and Gary L. Hunter (2001),
“Consumers’ Need for Uniqueness: Scale Development and
Validation,” Journal of Consumer Research, 28 (1), 50–66.
Verganti, Roberto (2008), “Design, Meanings, and Radical Inno-
vation: A Metamodel and a Research Agenda,” Journal of
Product Innovation Management, 25 (5), 436–56.
Veryzer, Robert W. (1995), “The Place of Product Design and Aes-
thetics in Consumer Research,” in Advances in Consumer
Research, Vol. 22, Frank R. Kardes and Mita Sujan, eds. Provo,
UT: Association for Consumer Research, 641–45.
Voss, Kevin E., Eric R. Spangenberg, and Bianca Grohmann
(2003), “Measuring the Hedonic and Utilitarian Dimensions of
Consumer Attitude,” Journal of Marketing Research, 40
(August), 310–20.
Wanous, John P., Arnon E. Reichers, and Michael J. Hudy (1997),
“Overall Job Satisfaction: How Good Are Single-Item Mea-
sures?” Journal of Applied Psychology, 82 (2), 247–52.
Wertheimer, Max (1938), “Über Gestalttheorie,” in A Source Book
of Gestalt Psychology, Willis D. Ellis, ed. New York: Harcourt,
Brace and Co.
Yeung, Catherine W. and Robert S. Wyer (2005), “Does Loving a
Brand Mean Loving Its Products? The Role of Brand-Elicited
Affect in Brand Extension Evaluations,” Journal of Marketing
Research, 42 (November), 495–506.
Zhang, Jie, Michel Wedel, and Rik Pieters (2009), “Sales Effects
of Attention to Feature Advertisements: A Bayesian Mediation
Analysis,” Journal of Marketing Research, 46 (October), 669–
81.