Enhancing Consumers’ Affection for a Brand Using ProductDesignMinu Kumar, Janell D. Townsend, and Douglas W. Vorhies

Product design is an integral component of a brand and an important driver of brand equity. For the brand, productdesign is an important tool for driving differentiation, creating value for both the consumer and the firm, drivingconsumer preferences, and creating a sustainable competitive advantage. At the firm level, the importance of investingin design has been substantiated by studies that suggest firms capable of creating innovative design and providingsuperior consumer value perform better in the marketplace. Thus, product design clearly presents an important areaof research for those studying and managing brands. In this context, the goal of this research is to explain thebrand-level affective outcomes that product-level design features can create.

This paper develops a conceptual framework and hypotheses that theoretically connect design-based values, at theproduct level, to affective brand-level relational outcomes with the brand. The drivers of product affection includesocial value, altruistic value, functional value, emotional value, and economic value. Analogous to “firm affection,” thepaper postulates a brand affection construct that is defined as the passion and pride that a consumer feels about owninga brand.

Using syndicated product-level data from the automotive industry collected from a national sample of consumers,712 useable consumer/product observations of 30 small vehicles are employed in the analysis. A confirmatory factoranalysis and structural equation model are developed to test the conceptual model.

This research finds that the social value and emotional value that a design provides to consumers have a greatereffect on brand affection than purely transactional values, such as functional value or economic value. This researchcontributes to the literature by providing evidence that product design-related values are multifaceted and cancontribute to relational outcomes, such as brand affection. It contributes to practice by highlighting the means by whichdesign can be used as a strategic tool to create a sustainable long-lasting relationship with the consumer, and providesmanagers with a framework to assess the impact of design-based values on long-term relationship-based outcomes. Theresults provide new insights about how consumers’ perceptions of the value of product design at the product level canhelp create enduring relationships with brands.

Introduction

P roduct design is an integral part of what makes abrand and is an important driver of brand equity(Keller, 1993). Product design is defined as the

discrete properties of a product’s form (i.e., the aestheticsof the tangible good and/or service) and its function (i.e.,its capabilities), together with the holistic propertiesof the integrated form and function (Luchs and Swan,2011). At the firm level, the importance of investing inproduct design has been substantiated by studies thatsuggest that firms capable of creating innovative designand providing superior consumer value perform better in

the marketplace (Hertenstein, Platt, and Veryzer, 2005;Perks, Cooper, and Jones, 2005). At the brand level, it isan important tool for driving differentiation, creatingvalue for both the consumer and the firm, driving con-sumer preference and product sales, and creating a sus-tainable competitive advantage (Bloch, 1995; Chitturi,Raghunathan, and Mahajan, 2008; Creusen andSchoormans, 2005; Kotler and Rath, 1984; Nussbaum,2004; Orth and Malkewitz, 2008; Veryzer and Borja deMozota, 2005; Woodruff, 1997). Product design, thus,clearly presents an important area of research for thosestudying, developing, marketing, and managing productsand brands.

Product design is often the first point of contactbetween consumers and the brand: in advertisements, inthe retail environment (brick-and-mortar stores or onlinestores), and in usage situations. It can be used to “delight”

Address correspondence to: Minu Kumar, College of Business, SanFrancisco State University, 1600 Holloway Avenue, San Francisco, CA94132. E-mail: mkumar@sfsu.edu. Tel: 415-405-2852.

J PROD INNOV MANAG 2014;••(••):••–••© 2014 Product Development & Management AssociationDOI: 10.1111/jpim.12245

consumers and spur them to develop enduring relation-ships with the product and eventually the brand (Chitturiet al., 2008; Nussbaum, 2004). Certainly designs of prod-ucts such as the Volkswagen Beetle, Apple computers,and Dyson vacuum cleaners have spawned a cult-likefollowing among their fans. Based on previous evidencethat shows that consumers have affective reactions to aproduct’s design (e.g., Norman, 2004, Veryzer andHutchinson, 1998), it is logical to expect that this emo-tional response may influence subsequent beliefs aboutthe value1 of the product, perceived relationship with theproduct, and eventually perceptions about the brand(Bloch, Brunel, and Arnold, 2003; Hollins and Pugh,1990). Although there is a mature stream of literature thathas investigated the connections between brands and con-

sumers’ relationships with them, it is only recently thatexperimental investigations on how product design caninfluence the relationships between consumers andbrands have been conducted and have yielded early butpromising results (e.g., Chitturi, 2009). Furthermore,empirical investigations based on market-based data thatlink consumer perceptions about product design withbrand-level relational outcomes have been limited. Manyleading researchers in the field of product design anddevelopment have called for empirical research to createsuch deeper understanding of the mechanisms linkingproduct design and brand-level outcomes.2

Motivated by this need for understanding, thisresearch specifically delves into the mechanisms behindhow brand-level attitudes can be influenced by product-level perceptions of product design (Keller and Lehmann,2006). In this context, the distinct goal of this research isto disentangle the diverse set of values that productdesign can create for the consumer, and explain andempirically test how these perceptions of values can dif-ferentially affect brand-level relational outcomes. Morespecifically, the question this research addresses is: whattypes of product-level values do design features and attri-butes create, and how do these value types affect down-stream brand-level outcomes, such as affection to thebrand.

In order to achieve the goal of this research, this paperbegins by reviewing prior literature and identifying thevarious types of values that product design can create forthe consumer while at the same time offers a better under-standing of these broad-based value types. Importantly,this paper develops a conceptual framework and hypoth-eses that theoretically connect these design-based valuesto affective brand-level relational outcomes and explainstheir differential effects. Next, the paper explains ourmethodology, including data collection and empiricalanalysis. Finally, it presents the results and discussesimportant theoretical and managerial implications thathighlight the facets of product design that can creategreater value-based perceptions from consumers and aremore likely to generate affective relational bonds with thebrand.

1 Here, the term value is used in the context of usefulness rather than asa belief system. Holbrook defined value as an interactive relativistic pref-erence experience. This view of value regards consumer value as if it werea cost-free benefit that might be represented by an input- or price-independent preference function.

2 In the several special sessions on design and aesthetics that have beenconducted in the past few years, a broad consensus has emerged that thereis a dire need for researchers to gain a better understanding of productdesign (once the sole domain of industrial designers), and how it is valuableto product developers and brand managers (e.g., see the conclusions of theAssociation of Consumer Research roundtable session on “Aesthetics andConsumption” held in San Francisco in 2009). Motivated by these calls forinvestigations, in this research this paper delves deeper into the mechanismsthat connect product-level perceptions of value in a design to brand-leveloutcomes.

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCHES

Dr. Minu Kumar is an associate professor of marketing at San FranciscoState University (SFSU). He earned his Ph.D. in marketing from theUniversity of Mississippi. Dr. Kumar also earned an M.B.A. (concen-tration in pharmaceutical marketing, 2002) from the University of Mis-sissippi, and a Bachelor of Science in Pharmacy from the GovernmentCollege of Pharmacy, Bangalore, India. Prior to his Ph.D., Dr. Kumarworked for companies such as Novo Nordisk, Schering Plough, andRanbaxy Pharmaceuticals, among others, in sales and product develop-ment management roles. His primary scholarly interest lies in the area ofnew product design and development. His research appears in journalssuch as Journal of Consumer Psychology, Journal of Product Innova-tion Management, and Business Horizons.

Dr. Janell D. Townsend is an associate professor of marketing andinternational business, and the Director of the Executive MBA programin the School of Business Administration at Oakland University. Sheearned her Ph.D. from Michigan State University in marketing andinternational business. Dr. Townsend’s research interests are broadlydefined by strategic and international marketing issues, and fall withinthe nexus of branding, innovation, and globalization of the firm. Herwork has appeared in top-tier business journals, such as Journal ofInternational Business Studies, Journal of Product Innovation Manage-ment, Journal of International Marketing, International MarketingReview, and Thunderbird International Business Review.

Dr. Douglas W. Vorhies is a professor of marketing, School of BusinessAdministration, University of Mississippi. Dr. Vorhies has published inJournal of Marketing, Strategic Management Journal, Journal of theAcademy Marketing Science, International Journal of Research inMarketing, Decision Sciences, Journal of Product Innovation Manage-ment, Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management, IndustrialMarketing Management, Journal of Business Research, and EuropeanJournal of Marketing. He serves on the editorial review board of Journalof the Academy of Marketing Science and Journal of StrategicMarketing.

2 J PROD INNOV MANAG M. KUMAR ET AL.2014;••(••):••–••

Conceptual Framework Development

Product development professionals imbue products withvalue by incorporating form and functional features intothe product design (Madhavan and Grover, 1998; Vargoand Lusch, 2004). It is well established that product fea-tures drive consumer perceptions of product benefits andvalue (Holbrook, 1999; Zeithaml, 1988).

Perceptions of value at the product level in turn areantecedents of consumers’ relationships with brands(Keller, 1993). The framework developed in thisresearch (see Figure 1) draws on this basic mechanismof building product–brand relationships, but attempts toisolate the values that consumers perceive from thedesign of the product and empirically investigatestheir effects on relational outcomes. Beyond servingas a road map for our theory development, this figureshows the different value perceptions created byproduct design, their influence on relational outcomessuch as affection for the brand, and identifies onecondition (loyalty intentions) that can moderate thisrelationship.

In the ensuing pages, this paper reviews past litera-ture to identify the broad-based values that productdesign can create for the consumer. Next, the concept ofbrand affection, the dependent variable in this research,is discussed, along with providing a basic understandingof how product design can influence brand affection.Next, this paper develops the hypotheses that arguefor the differential effects of the value types at theproduct level and how these can affect the brand-leveloutcome variable: brand affection. While this researchhypothesizes the differential impacts of the product-level value types, it also explains how perceptions of the

value3 types can be created from specific design (formor functional) elements. The aim of including variousdesign elements in this section is solely to inform thediscussion on how design elements can create differentvalue perceptions at the product level and not to intro-duce new empirically measurable variables into theresearch. In developing the theory for this research, thepaper brings together a wide range of past literaturefrom streams such as consumer value, consumer goals,product design, attribute trade-off, relationship market-ing, and consumer–company identification.

Product Design as a Vehicle to Communicate Value

Product design is often the first point of contact betweenthe consumer and product in retail aisles or on onlineretail websites, and often communicates value to the con-sumer (Noble and Kumar, 2010). The study of value iscalled axiology (αξια, the root word for axiology inGreek that means value, worth, or merits) and includesacademic work from philosophical fields ranging fromethics and aesthetics (Hart, 1971). Consumer-based per-ceptions of value have been studied extensively and havetheir own historical traditions and differing perspectives.Through an exhaustive study of axiology and the variousapproaches to studying value, Holbrook (1999) created atypology of value that is inclusive of the various perspec-tives of value found in the literature. Based on this work,he classified consumer perceptions of value, from prod-ucts as a whole, into three continuous dimensions (selfversus other-oriented, extrinsic versus intrinsic, and

3 Henceforth, the term value will refer to the value that a consumerperceives from product design.

Figure 1. Conceptual Framework

ENHANCING CONSUMERS’ AFFECTION FOR A BRAND USING PRODUCT DESIGN J PROD INNOV MANAG 32014;••(••):••–••

active versus reactive) that resulted in eight differentvalue types (cf. Holbrook, 1999).

In marketing literature, product design, which is butone part of the whole product, has often been confusedwith the mere aesthetics of the product (e.g., Hirschmanand Holbrook, 1982). Given this history, it is not surpris-ing that past research on product design has predomi-nantly investigated the emotional reactions of consumersto the aesthetics of the product (e.g., Kumar and Garg,2010; Orth and Malkewitz, 2008). As a result, it is wellestablished that product design is of affective value toconsumers. However, recent research suggests thatproduct design plays a broader role in consumers’ per-ception of the overall value derived from a product (cf.Creusen and Schoormans, 2005; Noble and Kumar,2010) because it encompasses form, function, and theholistic properties of form and function of the product(Luchs and Swan, 2011). These properties can engage theconsumer cognitively at various levels, such as the vis-ceral, behavioral, and reflective levels (Norman, 2004).The visceral-level reaction is primarily to the aestheticsof a product, the behavioral-level response is related tothe functionality of the product, and the reflective level isrelated to the perceptions of the users of the product andthe personal and social significance attached to the design(Crilly, Moultrie, and Clarkson, 2004).

Therefore, limiting the value discerned from productdesign to merely the aesthetic properties and the resultingaffective reactions from aesthetics is overly narrow.

Industrial design researchers have made more progresson this front. For example, Boztepe (2007a, 2007b) col-lapsed the active–reactive dimension of the Holbrooktypology (cf. Holbrook, 1999) into one dimension andreduced the value typology into four types of values that“users” discern from product design: social, spiritual,functional, and emotional. The collapse of the active–reactive dimension into one dimension is reflected in thelow to minimal physical activity needed by the consumerin discerning value from the design stimulus. Althoughvaluable, this typology has one limitation. Boztepe’s(2007a, 2007b) typology adapts from Holbrook’s (1999)view of value in that it does not take into account the“get-give” price-based conception of value. Therefore,Boztepe’s typology is price-independent because it drawson Holbrook’s definition of value. Holbrook’s definitionof value does not consider the economic worth of theproduct. As he states it, he views value as a “price-independent preference function” (cf. Holbrook, 1999, p.187). However, the traditional conceptualization of valueis rooted in the notion that consumers are purely rationaland evaluate products in terms of what they are “getting”

versus what they are “giving up” in the exchange process(Chandon, Wansink, and Laurent, 2000). This is the basisfor the vast majority of price-based operationalizations ofvalue (e.g., Bolton and Drew, 1991). Furthermore, con-sumers may make inferences about the prices of a productbased on the form and the quality of the materials used tomake the product (Bloch, 1995; Boztepe, 2007b). There-fore, a traditional “economic” conceptualization of valueis important to retain in assessing the value of design.

The basic framework of the value of product design tothe consumer that the paper proposes, thus, is motivatedby, and incorporates Holbrook’s (1999) and Boztepe’s(2007a), dimensions of value and their associated defini-tions. Social value in a product design is defined as itsability to help the consumer achieve his/her objectives ofincreasing perceived status or improving self-esteem.Altruistic value in a product design is defined as theproduct’s ability to help the consumer in assisting otherindividuals or the society at some cost to himself/herselfand without the expectation of a reward. Functional valuein a product’s design is defined as the way it helps meetthe practical needs of the consumer. Emotional value in aproduct’s design is defined as its ability to evoke favor-able feelings in a consumer. Economic value in a prod-uct’s design is the consumer’s assessment of the worth ofthe product based on cues from the design of the product.In summary, based on previous work, the paper positsthat design can create five different types of values forconsumers: social, altruistic, functional, emotional, andeconomical. How do the perceptions of these differentvalue types affect brand-level evaluations? Since, histori-cally, product design has been posited to evoke affectiveresponses from consumers, it is perhaps intuitive toexpect that it can drive affection for a brand.

Brand Affection

Consumers can develop strong affective attachments andrelationships to brands that fulfill their functional, expe-riential, and emotional needs, through features such asthe design of the product (Belk, 1988; Park, Jaworski, andMaclnnis, 1986). Product designs that better resonatewith consumers affectively are better able to transferthis relationship equity to the brands they embody(Bhattacharya and Sen, 2003). At the brand level, thedesign language4 of products from firms such as Harley

4 Design language is the use of consistent sensory elements (visual,tactile, or experiential) in different product offerings from the same brandthat cues the consumer about brand identity. For example, the Dyson branduses typical colors and design elements (the rocket engine-shaped cones)across many of its products.

4 J PROD INNOV MANAG M. KUMAR ET AL.2014;••(••):••–••

Davidson motorcycles, Dyson vacuum cleaners, and theVolkswagen Beetle have helped these brands create verystrong relationships with their target consumers, andthese relationships are a key ingredient in creating long-term sustainable competitive advantages. Developingrelationships with consumers is an important componentof contemporary marketing for a number of reasons, notleast of which is the drive toward achieving a sustainablecompetitive advantage (Berry, 1983, 1995; Berry andParasuraman, 1991). The cornerstone of relationship-based marketing has been described as the formation ofaffective “bonds” between the company/brand/productand the customer (Roberts, Varki, and Brodie, 2003). Atthe more fundamental level, the designs of these productsare able to arouse affection for the products that translateinto a brand-level bond (Oliver, Rust, and Varki, 1997).Designs that are able to delight and create these types ofbonds can expect to achieve positive relational outcomessuch as loyalty, and even passion, about the product(Chitturi et al., 2008; Hennig-Thurau, Gwinner, andGremler, 2002; McEwen, 2005). Analogous to “firmaffection” (Yim, Tse, and Chan, 2008), the paper postu-lates a brand affection construct that is defined as thepassion and pride that a consumer feels about owning abrand. Thomson, MacInnis, and Park (2005) postulatethat passion plays a central role in forming affectiontoward a product and the brands associated with them.Passion along with the pride that the consumer feels inowning a product can determine the affection that con-sumers feel toward a brand (McEwen, 2005).

As the discussion in the previous section shows,product design can create perceptions of social, altruistic,functional, emotional, and economic value to the con-sumer. Perceptions of value at the product level can drivethe relationships that consumers have with brands (Aaker,1996; Berry and Parasuraman, 1991; Fournier, 1998;Zeithaml, 1988). Further, authors have suggested thatperceptions of value of product design can driverelationship-based outcomes, such as affection to thebrand (Noble and Kumar, 2008). Therefore, a directlyproportional relationship between the various types ofembedded design value and brand affection is expected.In other words:

H1: Increasing levels of perceived social, altruistic, func-tional, emotional, and economic values in a productdesign will lead to increasing affection toward the brand.

Although these main effects are expected, the papernow discusses how the different value types can differen-tially affect brand affection using literature from researchstreams such as consumer value, consumer goals, product

design, attribute trade-off, and consumer–companyidentification.

Differential Effects of Design-Driven ValuePerceptions on Brand Affection: Emotional Valueversus Functional and Economic Value

Product design has historically been associated with emo-tional value that consumers attach to it (Hirschman andHolbrook, 1982; Norman, 2004). Product design cancreate emotional responses in two different ways: aesthet-ics and symbolism (Boztepe, 2007a). At the viscerallevel, the aesthetic properties of product form along itstypicality can elicit a “gut” emotional reaction in theconsumer (Coates, 2003; Norman, 2004; Ramachandranand Hirstein, 1999). Consumers can have a visceral initialreaction to the Dyson vacuum cleaner design or the SmartFor Two car design based on the elements that make itsform, its size, and how different it looks from the typicalproduct in its category. At the reflective level, the mean-ings and symbolism associated with the holistic proper-ties of a design can create an emotional reaction (Crillyet al., 2004; Verganti, 2008). For example, when the PTCruiser was introduced in 2001, its design tapped into azeitgeist that had special symbolic meanings for consum-ers from an earlier generation. The emotional value real-ized here is primarily intrinsic and self-oriented in thatthe value perception is an end in itself. In other words, inthe appraisal of the recipient of value, the consumer doesnot consider anyone other than himself/herself (Boztepe,2007b; Holbrook, 1999). The affective connectionscreated at the consumer-product level will more readilybe transferred to the consumer-brand level as consumerslink the properties of the product to the capabilities of thebrand that created the product (Bhattacharya and Sen,2003).

Functional value is primarily composed of two ele-ments: efficiency and excellence (Boztepe, 2007a). Theshape and the materials with which the product is madecan affect perceptions of effectiveness, reliability, dura-bility, safety, maintainability, multifunctionality, andfunctional compatibility (cf. Noble and Kumar, 2010).While each one of them is self-explanatory, the paperprovides a few examples of how these perceptions canemerge from the design of the product. A larger hair dryeris seen to be more effective and durable than a smallerone. The geometric design of a Hummer H2 makes it looksturdier and more masculine than a curvier, softer lookingVolkswagen Beetle. Ergonomic factors can make theexperience of using the product intuitive as consumerswill process the usability information at the more

ENHANCING CONSUMERS’ AFFECTION FOR A BRAND USING PRODUCT DESIGN J PROD INNOV MANAG 52014;••(••):••–••

behavioral level (Crilly et al., 2004; Norman, 2004) andattribute ease of use (an efficiency feature) as the valueassociated with the product. As this discussion shows, thefunctional value discerned is extrinsic in nature in that itresults from the active use (behavioral level in Norman,2004) of a product as a means to achieve some self-oriented practical end.

The design of a product can cue the consumer aboutthe economic worth of the product (Bloch, 1995; Chitturi,Chitturi, and Raghavarao, 2010; Mathwick, Malhotra,and Rigdon, 2001; Yamamoto and Lambert, 1994). Con-sumers tend to attribute higher prices to products thatthey find to be more aesthetically appealing (Bloch et al.,2003). For example, one of the reasons why consumersare willing to pay a price premium for Apple products,such as the iPhone, is due to their simple but sophisticateddesign that many consider has been inspired by theBauhaus school principles of design. Also, the traditionalrole of industrial designers has been to add value into thedesign by including design elements that signal a highereconomic worth. For example, brands such as Dodge,Porsche, Mini Cooper, Mercedes Benz, and even Kiahave used the elliptical headlights albeit with varyingdegrees of success. The economic value of products orfeatures of products has historically been associated withcognitive processing, and the value realized from it isextrinsic and self-oriented (Friedman, 1968; Grewal,Monroe, and Krishnan, 1996) and less at the visceralemotional level. Therefore, the evaluation of this type ofvalue of the design of the product is expected to have alow impact on the brand-level construct brand affection.

Product design is often used to try to convey functionaldifferentiation and competitive advantages, as in the caseof Microsoft’s development of the Microsoft Zune andMicrosoft Surface as competitors to Apple’s iPod andiPad, respectively. Although they both offer several func-tional and price advantages to Apple Inc.’s products whenthey were introduced using Microsoft’s marketingmuscle, they were never able to meaningfully competewith the simple, intuitive to use, and yet sophisticatedlooking Apple designs, which is famous for its passionatefollowing. In fact, in one of the recent advertisements forthe Microsoft Surface, Microsoft uses Siri’s voice todemonstrate and explain all the form and functionaladvantages of the Surface over the iPad, and rhetoricallyasks “do you still think I am pretty?” Such examples ofproducts that pack a multitude of features and yet failabound in the marketplace. In fact, recent research hashighlighted that consumers consider products as possess-ing “bundles of attributes” whose value can be commu-nicated through the design of the product (Thompson,

Hamilton, and Rust, 2005). So, while sometimes power-ful in differentiating, focusing on communicating func-tional value alone is clearly not sufficient in all cases tocreate relationships with brands.

Functional value is primarily instrumental, utilitarian,rational, and cognitive in nature, and represents customervalue as the means to an end (Chandon et al., 2000;Chitturi et al., 2008). Functional value and economicvalue primarily serve prevention-oriented goals of con-sumers (Higgins, 1997; Luchs, Brower, and Chitturi,2012) and have relatively lesser (as compared with emo-tional value) potential to build relationships with consum-ers. Therefore, differentiating the design based onfunctional and economic value alone can lead to transac-tional outcomes, such as trial, choice, preference, satis-faction, and meeting expectations, but has a lower effecton relational outcomes, such as delighting and creatingaffection toward the product and eventually the brand(Chaudhuri and Holbrook, 2001; Chitturi, Raghunathan,and Mahajan, 2007; Chitturi et al., 2008; Noble andKumar, 2008). The paper posits that the inherently extrin-sic, cognitive, and prevention-oriented appeal of func-tional and economic value perceived in a product is lesslikely to be transferred to affective outcomes, such asbrand affection at the brand level. On the other hand, thedesigns that make an emotional connection at the productlevel are more likely to transfer the affect to brand-leveloutcomes, such as brand affection (Leclerc, Schmitt, andDubÈ, 1994). Based on this discussion, it is hypothesizedthat:

H2: Design value perceptions that are more intrinsic andself-oriented will have a greater effect on brand affectionthan value perceptions that create extrinsic and practicalbenefits.

H2a: The effect of emotional value on brand affectionwill be greater than the effect of functional value onbrand affection.

H2b: The effect of emotional value on brand affectionwill be greater than the effect of economic value onbrand affection.

Differential Effects of Design-Driven ValuePerceptions on Brand Affection: Emotional Valueversus Social and Altruistic Value

Product design can provide consumers a sense of socialstatus. They often use words such as advanced, sophisti-cated, classy, and distinctive to describe these products(Chitturi et al., 2008). For example, in his description ofthe 2002 Jaguar XJ, the director of design for Jaguar

6 J PROD INNOV MANAG M. KUMAR ET AL.2014;••(••):••–••

describes how the elements of the car design can signalstatus to consumers:

The new XJ is a luxury car with a true sense of gravitas.The proportions, stance and obvious dynamic qualityclearly display that all-important Jaguar DNA and giveit real presence on the road.5

While it is difficult to point to one element of productdesign that would universally convey high status andesteem, recent qualitative studies have shown that certaindesign elements and their combinations can create agestalt impression connotative of “high design” (Nobleand Kumar, 2010). In the case of the Jaguar XJ, perhapsspecific form elements, holistic properties of the form,high utilitarian value, materials used to make the product(such as the leather interiors), and symbolic value (sym-bolizing the jaguar) provide a “high design” look to theproduct. These designs, when used in social settings, areperceived to increase the social status of consumers in thecommunity (Holbrook, 1999). Social value is primarilyother-oriented and intrinsic in nature in that the value isdiscerned from contemplating how others view the con-sumer and is autotelic (Boztepe, 2007a; Holbrook, 1999).Although affective in content, the paper posits that socialvalue from a product is less transferable to a brand thanemotional value (a more self-oriented and intrinsic valuetype) because emotional value will make a stronger con-nection to the consumer’s self-identity than the other-oriented social value (Escalas and Bettman, 2005).

Product design can also create perceptions of altruisticvalue (Boztepe, 2007a; Holbrook, 1999). Consumersmay value and buy biodegradable or fuel-efficient cardesign to feel that they are doing good for others and thesociety in general. For example, the specific design lan-guage of a Toyota Prius or a Honda Insight can cue theconsumer to believe that the product is low gasoline-consuming and environment-friendly. The altruistic ben-efits that a product design provides primarily serves asprevention-focused goals, is other-oriented, and extrinsicin that the consumption is prized mainly for its functionof preventing a harm (to self and others), benefitingothers, or in promoting altruistic behaviors to others.Even in cases where consumers consider the prevention-oriented benefits of a design so that they can promotethemselves, they cognitively consider the benefits to otherpeople. The paper posits here that consumers, in thegeneral population, will less readily transfer altruisticvalue from a product to a brand and identify with it at the

same time than emotional value because emotional valueis more self-oriented and intrinsic (Escalas and Bettman,2005). In this way, perceptions of altruistic value at theproduct level will have a lower impact on brand affectionthan perceptions of emotional value.

H3: Design value perceptions that are more intrinsic andself-oriented benefits will have a greater effect on brandaffection than value perceptions that provide other-oriented benefits.

H3a: The effect of emotional value on brand affectionwill be greater than the effect of social value on brandaffection.

H3b: The effect of emotional value on brand affectionwill be greater than the effect of altruistic value on brandaffection.

The Moderating Effect of Intended Loyalty

Brand loyalty is a relationship marketing construct thathas been extensively investigated in the marketing litera-ture. It has been postulated that brand loyalty results frombrand-specific knowledge and increases with the degreeof (positive) experience a consumer has with a brand(Ratchford, 2001). Historically, brand loyalty has beenconceptualized as having an attitudinal and a behavioralcomponent in terms of repeat purchase (Jacoby andKyner, 1973). More recently, Oliver (1999) suggestedthat access to consumers’ beliefs about the brand, theiroverall affective impression, and their repurchase inten-tions in the attitude-behavior development determineswhether they will remain loyal to the brand. Previousstudies have shown that, through the successful creationof such affective bonds and emotional value, firms aremore likely to generate long-term relational outcomes,such as loyalty, commitment, and even passion for thebrand. For example, relationship marketing has beenshown to play an important role in changing the focus offirms from attracting short-term, discrete transactionalcustomers to retaining long-lasting, intimate customerrelationships and creating outcomes such as long-termloyalty (Hennig-Thurau et al., 2002). Shimp and Madden(1988) posited that consumers who are loyal to brandsexhibit stronger feelings of liking, yearning, and commit-ment to the features associated with the brand. The impli-cation is that once a bond has been formed andconsumers’ intention to be loyal to a brand or product istriggered, there will be a difference in the way they per-ceive design-based values. Therefore, our conceptualframework incorporates loyalty as a boundary conditionof the relationship between design values and bondedrelational outcomes, such as brand affection.5 From http://www.cardesignnews.com.

ENHANCING CONSUMERS’ AFFECTION FOR A BRAND USING PRODUCT DESIGN J PROD INNOV MANAG 72014;••(••):••–••

Brand loyalty has been defined as the commitment torepurchase a preferred product or service consistently inthe future, regardless of situational context or competi-tors’ marketing efforts (Oliver et al., 1997). Although truefidelity is a high standard, consumers have been found tobe loyal to brands to a lesser and greater degree(Chaudhuri and Holbrook, 2001). Many facets of market-ing strategy are focused on retaining previous buyersbecause a secure base from which to draw future profitsmitigates uncertainty. It has been postulated that brandloyalty results from brand-specific familiarity andincreases with the degree of positive experiences a con-sumer has with a product (Ratchford, 2001). Loyalconsumers feel more affection toward the brand thandisloyal consumers (Yim et al., 2008). Therefore, thedirect effects of the social, altruistic, functional, eco-nomic, and emotional design values on brand affectionare expected to be different for loyal customers whencompared with consumers who intend to switch products.

H4: Intended loyalty will moderate the relationshipsbetween social, altruistic, functional, emotional, andeconomic values and brand affection such that the effectsnoted in H1, H2, and H3 will be greater for loyal con-sumers than for consumers who intend to switch.

The paper now explains the methodology employed intesting the hypotheses.

Method

Data

The data set employed in this study has been provided byGfK Automotive, LLC, a member of the GfK Group, aleading supplier of syndicated prepurchase marketresearch to the automotive industry. GfK Automotive,LLC maintains the largest database of prepurchase auto-motive information available in the U.S. market. In thisstudy, our research questions are best served by a singleindustry/segment sample drawn from a cross-sectionalrepresentation of the consumer population.

The respondents are randomly selected from a nationalpanel of intended purchasers, which is demographicallyrepresentative of the U.S. population. An initial surveymeasures the expected timing of the next household pur-chase of an automobile and the make/model intended tobe purchased. This is important because buying a car isone of the more involved purchases that consumers make,and they are therefore expected to have a higher degree ofknowledge about the various brands and their features. Afollow-up study is conducted semi-annually among new

vehicle intenders of a specific product segment, with eachrespondent rating multiple products within that segment.The standard for this syndicated data set is for all modelsin a segment to be rated with questionnaires that arecollected until at least a minimum ending sample size ofn = 300 per model is achieved; depending on the numberof vehicles in the segment, a greater number of totalobservations may be collected. This research employs the“small entry vehicle segment” collected in December of2008. A continuous sample was terminated at 593responses for 33 vehicles comprising this segment; eachrespondent rates all vehicles for consideration, and thenup to 16 vehicles on each of their attributes. This resultsin 19,569 total possible consumer–product dyads.However, the total viable sample is reduced from thisnumber, since each respondent only rates up to 16vehicles on the attributes, and then may not respond forall attributes on all the vehicles. Therefore, the data aresorted, and those observations with missing responses,consistent responses (i.e., the same for all attributes mea-sured), and responses with lack of familiarity with theproduct are deleted. Those who are unfamiliar aredeleted, since they are unable to have a valid opinion of aproduct or brand with which they are not familiar. Thisdata-pruning approach allows for only valid responses tobe included in the final analysis. The end result after all ofthe cases indicated are deleted is 712 useable consumer–product observations of 30 small vehicles that the paperemploys in the subsequent analysis.

Factor Development and Analysis

The factors and related measures employed in this studyare motivated from a review of the relevant literature.Each of the measures is based on a 1–5 Likert-type scale;the respondents are asked to indicate the extent to whicha statement would apply or not apply to the car model,anchored by 1 = definitely does not apply, to 5 = defi-nitely applies. Based on industry preferences for a10-point scale, we transformed the 5-point scale toa 10-point scale; the paper maintains this scale in ouranalysis in order to avoid any potential for error in trans-lation. Social value is operationalized with a three-itemscale based on measures that include “makes me feelsuccessful,” “sophisticated,” and “distinctive styling”(see Table 1 and Figure 2 for more details). Altruisticvalue has two measures derived from issues that are cur-rently very relevant to the auto industry: “environmen-tally friendly” and “excellent gas mileage and depletesfewer finite resources.” Functional value has five mea-sures related to performance, namely “has a thoughtful

8 J PROD INNOV MANAG M. KUMAR ET AL.2014;••(••):••–••

interior,” “excellent workmanship,” “excellent safety,”“excellent ride,” and “lasts a long time.” Emotional valueis based on measures that reflect experiences that evokeemotions, like “this car is fun to drive,” “this model isgood looking,” and “this model is exciting.” Economicvalue is operationalized by two measures: “reasonablypriced” and “value for money.” Finally, brand affection ismeasured with two items derived from the literature pre-sented in the concept development: the measures are “forpeople passionate about vehicles” and “proud to own.”The validity and reliability of the measures are assessedusing an approach similar to that outlined by Churchill(1979) and Anderson (1987). The Cronbach’s (1951)alpha coefficients are computed in order to assess thereliability of each scale and generally meet the criteria setforth in the literature; that is, they are above the minimum.70 level recommended by Nunnally (1978). Please referto Table 1 for details.

After assessing the ampleness of the correlationsbetween the factors (please refer to Table 2), a confirma-

tory factor analysis (CFA) is conducted to assess theconvergent and discriminant validity of the constructs.The measurement model is fitted by the robust ellipticalreweighted least squares (ERLS) procedure of the EQSprogram (Bentler, 1995, p. 47). Elliptical distributions arenot constrained by normality assumptions, and their useis recommended when these assumptions are not met androbust models account for relatively large samples(Browne, 1984). ERLS performs as well as maximumlikelihood (ML) estimation with normal data, and betterthan ML with nonnormal data (Sharma, Durvasula, andDillon, 1989). The results of the analysis are presented inTable 1, and indicate a good model fit with a chi-squaredstatistic of 454.64 based on 104 degrees of freedom(p < .0001, χ2/df = 4.3). The normed fit index (NFI),comparative fit index (CFI), and the root mean squarederror of approximation (RMSEA) are equal to .968, .976,and .069, respectively. The robust fit statistics are alsosatisfactory, with an NFI = .955, a CFI = .966, and anRMSEA = .067. Therefore, the fit statistics indicate that

Table 1. Loadings, Reliabilities, and Internal Consistency Statistics for Consumer Value Measures

Std. Loadinga α CR AVE

Social value .81 .76 .52This model makes me feel successful. .73This model is sophisticated. .72This model has distinctive styling. .71

Altruistic value .84 .85 .73This model has excellent gas mileage and depletes fewer finite resources. .79This model is environmentally friendly. .92

Functional value .88 .88 .59This model has a thoughtful interior. .72This model has excellent workmanship. .83This model provides excellent safety. .69This model provides an excellent ride. .82This model can last a long time. .76

Emotional value .81 .82 .6This car is fun to drive. .79This model is good-looking. .76This model is exciting. .77

Economic value .74 .76 .62This model is reasonably priced. .65This model is a good value for money. .91

Brand affection .76 .76 .79 .65This brand is for people passionate about cars.I would feel proud to own this brand. .85

Fit statistics: χ2 = 454.64 (104 df) Robust fit statistics: χ2 = 439.77 (104 df)NFI = .968 NFI = .955CFI = .976 CFI = .966RMSEA = .069 RMSEA = .067

a All loadings are statistically significant at the .05 confidence level.All items were measured one a 5-point Likert scale response to the extent to which a statement would apply or not apply to the car model. Anchors:1 = definitely does not apply, 2 = probably does not apply, 3 = might apply, 4 = probably applies, and 5 = definitely applies. AVE, average variance extracted;CFI, comparative fit index; CR, construct reliability; NFI, normed fit index; RMSEA, root mean squared error of approximation.

ENHANCING CONSUMERS’ AFFECTION FOR A BRAND USING PRODUCT DESIGN J PROD INNOV MANAG 92014;••(••):••–••

the measurement model fits the data well. The itemloadings are all statistically significant, positive, and highin magnitude, indicating that the scales possess conver-gent validity. All the standardized loadings are above the.5 cutoff, ranging from .65 to .92, and are significant at a.01 confidence level (Anderson and Gerbing, 1988). Theaverage variance extracted (AVE), construct reliabilities,and Cronbach’s alpha were examined to evaluate conver-gent validity for the resulting measurement model(Anderson and Gerbing, 1988). As the table shows, themeasures converged into their respective latent variablesacceptably.

Discriminant validity is established through the vari-ance extracted test proposed by Fornell and Larcker

(1981). The AVE for each factor is more than thesquared correlations between each of the factors. Thecorrelations among all the factors are less than unity; itindicates that the measures possess discriminant validityin the context of this study. Since the data were col-lected using one survey instrument, it is appropriate toassess the possibility of common method bias. Har-mon’s single-factor post hoc tests for common methodsvariance (Podsakoff and Organ, 1986) were performedon the factor analytic models. When a common factorwas regressed on all the items, the chi-square and fitindexes were significantly worse than the chi-square andfit indices obtained in the CFAs. These observationsindicated that there was no “same source” factor for the

Figure 2. Empirical Model for Enhancing Consumers’ Affection to a Brand Using Product Design

Table 2. Factor Correlation Matrix

Construct Mean Standard Deviation

Correlations

1 2 3 4 5 6

1 Social value 6.82 1.82 1.002 Altruistic value 6.01 1.52 .320* 1.003 Functional value 5.44 1.31 .775* .411* 1.004 Emotional value 5.23 1.39 .758* .306* .729* 1.005 Economic value 5.64 1.45 .407* .509* .526* .473* 1.006 Brand affection 4.79 1.59 .836* .242* .689* .766* .321* 1.00

* Correlation is significant at the .01 level (two-tailed), n = 712.

10 J PROD INNOV MANAG M. KUMAR ET AL.2014;••(••):••–••

data used in the study, and common method bias is notan issue.

Path model and moderation effects. Consistent withAnderson and Gerbing (1988), this paper employs a two-step approach utilizing the factors derived in the fullmodel to test the path model based on the hypothesizedrelationships between variables. The pooled data are splitinto two groups based on those who intend to repurchasethe same model vehicle (n = 193) and those who do notintend to repurchase the same model vehicle (n = 519).The path models are constrained to be equal across thetwo groups (Baumgartner and Steenkamp, 2006). Inorder to identify the differences between factor loadingson the dependent variable, the constraints that signifi-cantly affect the model fit are identified using theLagrange multiplier test and released sequentially, start-ing with the ones that have the greatest impact on theoverall model fit (Bentler and Wu, 1995). A release offour of the equality constraints yields a total decrease of

1981.938 in the χ2 statistic, from 1983.35 to 1.37(p = .24258, 1 df). According to the fit indices, the modelhas a satisfactory fit to the data (CFI = 1.0; std. root meanresidual [RMR] = .053; RMSEA = .023) after the con-straints are released.

Standardized coefficients serve as the basis for assess-ing the relative influence of one factor over another; thestandardized coefficients indicate the mean response instandard deviation units of the dependent variable, givena one standard deviation change in an independent vari-able when all other variables are held constant (Bollen,1989, p. 349). The standardized estimated parameters andtheir t-values are presented in Table 3.

The strength of the path coefficients of all the inde-pendent variables (IVs) to the dependent variable (DV) inthe intended loyal group was not all greater than theirrespective path coefficients in the intended switchersgroup. Social value has a positive and significant impacton brand affection for both consumers who intend loyaltyto the product and those who intend to switch to a differ-ent product (γ1, γ6, = .335, t = 17.36). However, unex-pectedly, altruistic value is negative and significant forloyal intenders (γ2 = −.185, t = −3.40), and slightly posi-tive but insignificant for switchers (γ7 = .014, t = .55).Functional value is positive and significant for consumerswho intend to be loyal (γ5 = .123, t = 3.58), but positiveand insignificant for switchers (γ8 = .017, t = .96). There-fore, H1 was partially supported. Loyal intenders have apositive and significant effect from economic value(γ5 = .106, t = 2.31), which is lower than the effects onthe social and emotional value constructs, but higher thanthe effects of altruistic value. Intended switchers, on theother hand, exhibit a negative and significant effect fromeconomic value on brand affection (γ10 = −.176,t = −5,53), as hypothesized. Table 4 shows the hypoth-eses that were supported (H2a, H2b, and H3b), partiallysupported (H1 and H4), and not supported (H3a).

Table 3. Standardized Path Coefficients

Design Value Intended Loyal Consumers Intended Switchers

Social value .335 .335(17.36) (17.36)

Altruistic value −.185 .014(−3.40) (.55)

Functional value .123 .017(3.58) (.96)

Emotional value .156 .257(3.48) (9.51)

Economic value .106 −.176(2.31) (−5.53)

Bold indicates significance at the .05 confidence level. Fit statistics (withconstraints released): χ2 = 1.366 (1 df, p = .242). NNFI = .996, CFI = 1.0,RMSEA = .032 (.000, .149). CFI, comparative fit index; NNFI, non-normed fit index; RMSEA, root mean squared error of approximation.

Table 4. Hypothesized Effects and Results

HypothesisSupported/Not

Supported

H1: Increasing levels of perceived social, altruistic, functional, emotional, and economic values in a product design willlead to increasing affection toward the brand.

Partially supported

H2a: The effect of emotional value on brand affection will be greater than the effect of functional value on brand affection. Fully supportedH2b: The effect of emotional value on brand affection will be greater than the effect of economic value on brand affection. Fully supportedH3a: The effect of emotional value on brand affection will be greater than the effect of social value on brand affection. Not supportedH3b: The effect of emotional value on brand affection will be greater than the effect of altruistic value on brand affection. Fully supportedH4: Intended loyalty will moderate the relationships between social, altruistic, functional, emotional, and economic values

and brand affection such that the effects noted in H1, H2, and H3 will be greater for loyal consumers than forconsumers who intend to switch.

Partially supported

ENHANCING CONSUMERS’ AFFECTION FOR A BRAND USING PRODUCT DESIGN J PROD INNOV MANAG 112014;••(••):••–••

Discussion, Implications, and FutureResearch Directions

Product design can have a pervasive effect on the per-ceived value of a product, its desirability, its fit with theparent brand, and eventually the satisfaction that consum-ers derive from its use (Noble and Kumar, 2008). Despitebeing an inherent equity-building part of a brand, productdesign’s impact on brand-level outcomes is not wellunderstood. This study is distinct in that it contributes tothe product design, marketing, and branding literature byproviding evidence using real-world data that productdesign-related values (at the product level) are multifac-eted and can contribute differentially to relational out-comes, such as brand affection (at the brand level).Beyond providing an understanding of the types of valuesthat product design can create for the consumer, it con-tributes to practice by providing the product developmentprofessional an understanding of how form and functionfeatures at the product level can affect a consumer’s rela-tionship with a brand. It also highlights that differentvalue perceptions at the product level can have a differ-ential impact at the brand-level relationship consumershave with brands.

Consistent with our hypotheses (H2a and H2b), thefindings suggest that emotional value at the product levelhas a significant and higher impact on brand affectionthan altruistic, functional, and economic value. Thisfinding underscores the importance of designing productswith aesthetic appeal and positive meanings so that therelationship equity of the product offering can be trans-ferred to consumer–brand relationships at the brand level.Although one would expect economic value to be ofutmost importance in this segment of automobiles (smallentry-level cars), we find that social value and emotionalvalue take priority over economic value in creating anaffective bond with the brand. This underscores theimportance of embedding these types of value into thedesign of a publicly used product even if the product istargeted toward a segment that is price-sensitive. Therecent design successes of products such as the HyundaiSonata and Kia Optima and what they have done to theirrespective brand perceptions underscore the need for“delighting” the consumer using superior aesthetics andlooking “sophisticated.”

Social value perceived at the product level had thestrongest effect on brand affection, a result inconsistentwith H3a. In this study, we used data from the car indus-try, and this result can be an artifact of the type ofproduct used in this research. Cars are used in the publicarena and are often considered as a status symbol that

satisfies consumers’ social needs and perhaps weighsheavily on consumers’ consideration of why they value abrand. One avenue of future research would be toinvestigate the patterns of changes to the differentialeffects of value perceptions on brand affection in publicversus privately used products. The relative strengthof the betas leads us to believe that NPD managersshould perhaps place a greater focus on styling andmaking the product look more “sophisticated” whenthey develop products that are more likely to be used inpublic view. As an extension of this argument, marketersof brands known primarily for functional benefits asopposed to prestige (such as Honda or Toyota) shouldperhaps emphasize the social value embedded in theirproduct designs while communicating the benefits ofpublicly used products to increase affection toward thebrand. An interesting topic for future research would beto investigate the relationship between the extent ofpublic use and the need for embedded social value in thedesign of a product. In a related vein, future researchcould ascertain the incremental benefit of embeddingand communicating more social and emotional valuetypes in purely functional products. Developers ofpurely functional products, such as a hammer or powerdrill, can increase consumers’ affection toward theirbrands by embedding social value (such as making itlook cool or sophisticated) or emotional value (such asmaking it aesthetically appealing), and can help increaseconsumers’ affection toward their brands (Chitturi,2009).

Although in H1 we hypothesized the direct effects ofall value types on brand affection and found that to betrue for social and emotional value, the direct effects ofother types of values on brand affection were mixed.Notably, altruistic value was not a significant predictor ofbrand affection and had a lower effect on the dependentvariable than economic value. The Lifestyles of Healthand Sustainability segment (segment of consumers whowould have a greater preference for altruistic value) is asmall segment of the national population (Ray andAnderson, 2000). Given the fact that our data involve abroad-based national sample, the consumers in our dataset may not consider altruistic needs as a significantlyimportant factor for building brand affection; however, itwould be interesting to revisit this study with a morerecent data set to see if this has changed since the eco-nomic crisis and increasing concerns about globalwarming. Also, the small car segment has traditionallybeen targeted to consumers of lower socioeconomicstatus (SES) in the United States, who may not see altru-ism as an important need (as opposed to other parts of the

12 J PROD INNOV MANAG M. KUMAR ET AL.2014;••(••):••–••

world, where small cars often have greater luxurycontent). Finally, while the small car segment consumerswould be expected to be geared toward saving costs, oftenthere are additional costs associated with being environ-mentally friendly or getting good gas mileage. Forexample, hybrid vehicles are inherently more expensiveto purchase and maintain than internal combustionengines. Therefore, it is possible that other product seg-ments may exhibit different results. Future research caninvestigate if embedded altruistic values in the design ofa product are more readily communicated to people witha higher SES, or if there are regional differences in theimportance of altruistic value and how it affects brandperceptions.

Although the effect of functional value on brand affec-tion is not significant for intended switchers and signifi-cant for loyal customers, it is important to note that theseeffects are lower than the effects of social and emotionalvalue on brand affection. This is an important resultbecause it suggests that, once all functional expectationsare met, brand managers should focus less on increasingfunctional value perceptions in the design, and focusmore on increasing the perceptions related to social andemotional values (Chitturi, 2009). This finding addsanother layer in the form versus function debate byimplying that it is not only important to make the productemotionally appealing but it is perhaps more important toassess peer perceptions of the design of the product.Unexpectedly, altruistic value has a lesser effect on brandaffection than functional value. We believe that thereasons for this may be similar to the reasons we outlinedon why altruistic value has a lesser impact than economicvalue.

Finally, our findings are consistent with previousstudies in that they suggest that loyal consumers feelmore affection toward the product than disloyal consum-ers. The direct effects of the social value are the same forboth loyal consumers and intended switchers, but thedesign-derived values are significantly different for allthe other constructs considered in this study. Loyal cus-tomers tend to derive greater value from the functionalvalue and economic value factors in particular, which isan interesting finding that suggests creating more affec-tive appeal in new designs may help gain new customersfor future offerings based on the stronger brand-basedrelationships. It needs to be reiterated that we do notcapture loyalty as an actual behavior but as a plannedbehavior. This is among the limitations of our secondarydata source.

Another limitation of using secondary data and usingstructural equation modeling for the empirical analysis is

that indicators do not exhaustively capture the entiredomain of the latent variables. However, the results ofconfirmatory factor analyses along with the AVE suggestthat we comfortably meet standards established in litera-ture for discriminant and convergent validity. Secondarydata for similar single segment samples have also beenemployed in published studies (e.g., DeSarbo, Grewal,and Scott, 2008), supporting the relevance of secondarydata for use in this type of research. Nevertheless, wethink that any replications of this study should use bothexperimental and secondary data sources combined so asto increase both the internal and external validity of thefindings.

Overall, our results suggest that design elements thatcreate the lesser used and lesser emphasized values (socialvalue and emotional value) in a product have the potentialfor creating deeper relational outcomes at the brand level.Our analysis also demonstrates that the potential to createbrand affection through embedding social and emotionalvalue in the design is greater for loyal consumers than inconsumers who plan to switch to a different brand. Theresults also suggest that despite the emphasis on the socialand emotional elements of the design of the product, thereis clearly a symbiosis between these value groups. It seemshighly unlikely that a product that does not possess at leastadequate functional characteristics or economic value canengender deep brand affection (Chitturi et al., 2007).Although it is not directly demonstrated in our results, itcan be inferred that the more impactful design elementsthat can be infused within a product, the more positiveoutcomes it should achieve, both transactional and rela-tional (Noble and Kumar, 2008). Apple Inc.’s productdesigns would be a prime example of products creatingsuch positive relational outcomes with its target consum-ers. It is also important to note that although the model inFigure 1 is a broad generalization, it does offer a structurefor thinking about design from a managerial perspectivethat has been missing from the literature. To our knowl-edge, this research is the first in product development andmarketing that empirically parses out the value that designprovides to consumers and investigates their effect onbrand-level relational outcomes.

Future research can also perhaps study the variouselements in the design and how they can affect the cre-ation of a bond between the consumer and the brand. Inthis realm, aesthetics is a particularly rich avenue forfuture research. Concinnity (Coates, 2003), an overallmeasure of the aesthetic merit of a product, may haveparticular promise for novel work in expanding ourknowledge of affective value. The frequently cited“visceral reactions” to many design-intensive products

ENHANCING CONSUMERS’ AFFECTION FOR A BRAND USING PRODUCT DESIGN J PROD INNOV MANAG 132014;••(••):••–••

provide support for this view (Norman, 2004). Furtherresearch can also explore the interplay among the designvalue dimensions, individual difference factors, and thetype of product (hedonic/utilitarian and public/private).

Designers, developers, and senior managers can usethe value framework from this research to better assessthe value of their designs and enhance quality. In designpractice, designers are often unable to explain and tangi-bly quantify how their work adds value. This frameworkcan offer them the means to assess the direct effects ofvarious design elements on consumers’ attitudes towardthe product designs they create and how to impact per-ceptions of their brand.

Conclusion

This study responds to the need to gain greater insightsand understanding of the different types of values thatproduct design can create for the consumer. It also delin-eates the differential impact of these design values onimportant relational outcomes with the brand. Severalvaluable and intriguing findings have emerged. Throughtheory development, we illustrate how product design cancreate social, altruistic, functional, emotional, and eco-nomic values for the consumer. Further using data fromthe automotive industry, we empirically demonstrate thatsocial and emotional values in particular play a criticalrole in creating affective bonds between consumers andproducts and brands. This study highlights and advancesour knowledge by explaining the role played by design increating value for the consumer and by illustrating howsome of these values are more important in the formationof strong affective bonds between the consumer and thebrand.

References

Aaker, D. A. 1996. Building strong brands. New York: Free Press.Anderson, J. C. 1987. An approach for confirmatory measurement and

structural equation modeling of organizational properties. ManagementScience 33 (4): 525–41.

Anderson, J. C., and D. W. Gerbing. 1988. Structural equation modeling inpractice: A review and recommended two-step approach. PsychologicalBulletin 103 (3): 411–23.

Baumgartner, H., and J.-B. E. M. Steenkamp. 2006. An extended paradigmfor measurement analysis of marketing constructs applicable to paneldata. Journal of Marketing Research 43 (3): 431–42.

Belk, R. W. 1988. Possessions and the extended self. Journal of ConsumerResearch 15 (September): 139–68.

Bentler, P. M. 1995. EQS structural equations program manual. LosAngeles, CA: Multivariate Software, Inc.

Bentler, P. M., and E. J. C. Wu. 1995. EQS/Windows user’s guide. LosAngeles, CA: BMDP Statistical Software.

Berry, L. L. 1983. Relationship marketing. In Emerging perspectives onservices marketing, ed. L. L. Berry, G. L. Shostack, and G. D. Upah,25–28. Chicago, IL: American Marketing Association.

Berry, L. L. 1995. Relationship marketing of services—Growing interest,emerging perspectives. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science23 (4): 236–45.

Berry, L. L., and A. Parasuraman. 1991. Marketing services: Competingthrough quality. New York: The Free Press.

Bhattacharya, C. B., and S. Sen. 2003. Consumer-company identification:A framework for understanding consumers’ relationships with compa-nies. Journal of Marketing 67 (April): 76–88.

Bloch, P. H. 1995. Seeking the ideal form: Product design and consumerresponse. Journal of Marketing 59 (3): 16–29.

Bloch, P. H., F. F. Brunel, and T. J. Arnold. 2003. Individual differences inthe centrality of visual product aesthetics: Concept and measurement.Journal of Consumer Research 29 (4): 551–65.

Bollen, K. A. 1989. Structural equations with latent variables. New York:Wiley.

Bolton, R. N., and J. H. Drew. 1991. A multistage model of customers’assessments of service quality and value. Journal of ConsumerResearch 17: 375–84.

Boztepe, S. 2007a. User value: Competing theories and models. Interna-tional Journal of Design 1 (2): 55–63.

Boztepe, S. 2007b. Toward a framework of product development for globalmarkets: A user-value-based approach. Design Studies 28 (5): 513–33.

Browne, M. W. 1984. Asymptotically distribution-free methods for theanalysis of covariance structures. British Journal of Mathematical andStatistical Psychology 37 (1): 62–83.

Chandon, P., B. Wansink, and G. Laurent. 2000. A benefit congruencyframework of sales promotion effectiveness. Journal of Marketing 64(4): 65–81.

Chaudhuri, A., and M. B. Holbrook. 2001. The chain of effects from brandtrust and brand affect to brand performance: The role of brand loyalty.Journal of Marketing 65 (2): 81–93.

Chitturi, R. 2009. Emotions by design: A consumer perspective. Interna-tional Journal of Design 3 (2): 7–17.

Chitturi, R., P. Chitturi, and D. Raghavarao. 2010. Design for synergy withbrand or price information. Psychology & Marketing 27 (7): 679–97.

Chitturi, R., R. Raghunathan, and V. Mahajan. 2007. Form versus function:How the intensities of specific emotions evoked in functional versushedonic trade-offs mediate product preferences. Journal of MarketingResearch 44 (November): 702–14.

Chitturi, R., R. Raghunathan, and V. Mahajan. 2008. Delight by design: Therole of hedonic versus utilitarian benefits. Journal of Marketing 72 (3):48–63. doi:10.1509/jmkg.72.3.48.

Churchill, G. A. 1979. A paradigm for developing better measures ofmarketing constructs. Journal of Marketing Research 16 (1): 64–73.

Coates, D. 2003. Watches tell more than time: Product design, informationand the quest for elegance. London: McGraw-Hill.

Creusen, M. E. H., and J. P. L. Schoormans. 2005. The different roles ofproduct appearance in consumer choice. Journal of Product InnovationManagement 22 (January): 63–81.

Crilly, N., J. Moultrie, and J. P. Clarkson. 2004. Seeing things: Consumerresponse to the visual domain. Design Studies 25: 547–77.

Cronbach, L. J. 1951. Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests.Psychometrika 16: 297–334.

DeSarbo, W. S., R. Grewal, and C. J. Scott. 2008. A clusterwise bilinearmultidimensional scaling methodology for simultaneous segmentationand positioning analyses. Journal of Marketing Research 45 (June):280–92.

Escalas, J. E., and J. R. Bettman. 2005. Self-construal, reference groups,and brand meaning. Journal of Consumer Research 32 (3): 378–89.

Fornell, C., and D. F. Larcker. 1981. Evaluating structural equation modelswith unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Mar-keting Research 18 (February): 39–50.

14 J PROD INNOV MANAG M. KUMAR ET AL.2014;••(••):••–••

Fournier, S. 1998. Consumers and their brands: Developing relationshiptheory in consumer research. Journal of Consumer Research 24(March): 342–73.

Friedman, M. 1968. The role of monetary policy. American EconomicReview 58 (1): 1–17.

Grewal, D., K. B. Monroe, and R. Krishnan. 1996. The effects of price-comparisons advertising on buyers’ perceptions of acquisition valueand transaction value. Cambridge, MA: Marketing Science Institute.

Hart, S. L. 1971. Axiology-theory of values. Philosophy and Phenomeno-logical Research 32 (September): 29–41.

Hennig-Thurau, T., K. P. Gwinner, and D. D. Gremler. 2002. Understand-ing relationship marketing outcomes: An integration of relational ben-efits a relationship quality. Journal of Service Research 4 (3): 230–47.

Hertenstein, J. H., M. B. Platt, and R. W. Veryzer. 2005. The impact ofindustrial design effectiveness on corporate financial performance.Journal of Product Innovation Management 22: 3–21.

Higgins, E. T. 1997. Beyond pleasure and pain. American Psychologist 52(12): 1280–300.

Hirschman, E., and M. Holbrook. 1982. Hedonic consumption: Emergingconcepts, methods, and propositions. Journal of Marketing 46(Summer): 92–101.

Holbrook, M. 1999. Consumer value: A framework for analysis andresearch. New York: Routledge.

Hollins, B., and S. Pugh. 1990. Successful product design. London:Butterworths.

Jacoby, J., and D. Kyner. 1973. Brand loyalty vs. repeat purchasing behav-ior. Journal of Marketing Research 10: 1–9.

Keller, K. L. 1993. Conceptualizing, measuring, and managing customer-based brand equity. The Journal of Marketing 57 (1): 1–22.

Keller, K. L., and D. R. Lehmann. 2006. Brands and branding: Researchfindings and future priorities. Marketing Science 25 (6): 740–59.

Kotler, P., and G. A. Rath. 1984. Design: A powerful but neglected strategictool. Journal of Business Strategy 5 (2): 16–21.

Kumar, M., and N. Garg. 2010. Aesthetic principles and cognitive emotionappraisals: How much of the beauty lies in the eye of the beholder?Journal of Consumer Psychology 20 (4): 12–25.

Leclerc, F., B. H. Schmitt, and L. DubÈ. 1994. Foreign branding and itseffects on product perceptions and attitudes. Journal of MarketingResearch 31 (2): 263–70.

Luchs, M., and K. S. Swan. 2011. Perspective: The emergence of productdesign as a field of marketing inquiry. Journal of Product InnovationManagement 28 (3): 327–45.

Luchs, M. G., J. Brower, and R. Chitturi. 2012. Product choice and theimportance of aesthetic design given the emotion-laden trade-offbetween sustainability and functional performance product choice andthe importance of aesthetic design given the emotion-laden trade-offbetween sustainability. Journal of Product Innovation Management 29(6): 903–16.

Madhavan, R., and R. Grover. 1998. From embedded knowledge to embod-ied knowledge: New product development as knowledge management.Journal of Marketing 62 (4): 1–12.

Mathwick, C., N. Malhotra, and E. Rigdon. 2001. Experiential value: Con-ceptualization, measurement and application in the catalog and Internetshopping environment. Journal of Retailing 77 (1): 39–56.

McEwen, W. J. 2005. Married to the brand: Why consumers bond withsome brands for life. Princeton, NJ: Gallup Press.

Noble, C. H., and M. Kumar. 2008. Using product design strategically tocreate deeper consumer connections. Business Horizons 51 (5): 441–50.

Noble, C. H., and M. Kumar. 2010. Exploring the appeal of product design:A grounded, value-based model of key design elements and relation-ships. Journal of Product Innovation Management 27: 640–57.

Norman, D. A. 2004. Emotional design: Why we love (or hate) everydaythings. New York: Basic Books.

Nunnally, J. C. 1978. Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Nussbaum, B. 2004. The power of design. Business Week, May 17.

Oliver, R. L. 1999. Whence consumer loyalty? Journal of Marketing 63(SI): 33–44.

Oliver, R. L., R. T. Rust, and S. Varki. 1997. Customer delight: Foundations,findings and managerial insight. Journal of Retailing 73 (3): 311–36.

Orth, U. R., and K. Malkewitz. 2008. Holistic package design and con-sumer brand impressions. Journal of Marketing 72 (May): 64–81.

Park, C. W., B. J. Jaworski, and D. J. Maclnnis. 1986. Strategic brandconcept-image management. Journal of Marketing 50 (4): 135–45.

Perks, H., R. Cooper, and C. Jones. 2005. Characterizing the role of designin new product development: An empirically derived taxonomy.Journal of Product Innovation Management 22: 111–27.

Podsakoff, P. M., and D. W. Organ. 1986. Self reports in organizationalresearch: Problems and prospects. Journal of Management 12 (Decem-ber): 531–44.

Ramachandran, V. S., and W. Hirstein. 1999. The science of art: A neuro-logical theory of aesthetic experience. Journal of ConsciousnessStudies 6: 15–51.

Ratchford, B. T. 2001. The economics of consumer knowledge. Journal ofConsumer Research 27: 397–411.

Ray, P. H., and S. R. Anderson. 2000. The cultural creatives. New York:Harmony Books.

Roberts, K., S. Varki, and R. Brodie. 2003. Measuring the quality ofrelationships in consumer services: An empirical study. EuropeanJournal of Marketing 37 (1/2): 169–96.

Sharma, S., S. Durvasula, and W. R. Dillon. 1989. Some results on thebehavior of alternate covariance structure estimation procedures in thepresence of non-normal data. Journal of Marketing Research 26 (2):214–21.

Shimp, T. A., and T. J. Madden. 1988. Consumer-object relations: A con-ceptual framework based analogously on Sternberg’s triangular theoryof love. Advances in Consumer Research 15 (1): 163–68.

Thompson, D. V., R. W. Hamilton, and R. T. Rust. 2005. Feature fatigue:When product capabilities become too much of a good thing. Journalof Marketing Research 42 (4): 431–42.

Thomson, M., D. MacInnis, and C. W. Park. 2005. The ties that bind:Measuring the strength of consumers’ emotional attachments to brands.Journal of Consumer Psychology 24 (March): 374–94.

Vargo, S. L., and R. F. Lusch. 2004. Evolving to a new dominant logic formarketing. Journal of Marketing 68 (1): 1–17.

Verganti, R. 2008. Design, meanings, and radical innovation: A metamodeland a research agenda. Journal of Product Innovation Management 25(5): 436–56.

Veryzer, R. W., and B. Borja de Mozota. 2005. The impact of user-orienteddesign on new product development: An examination of fundamentalrelationships. Journal of Product Innovation Management 22: 128–43.

Veryzer, R. W., and W. J. Hutchinson. 1998. The influence of unity andprototypicality on aesthetic responses to new product designs. Journalof Consumer Research 24 (March): 374–94.

Woodruff, R. B. 1997. Customer value: The next source for competitiveadvantage. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 25 (2): 139–53.

Yamamoto, M., and D. R. Lambert. 1994. The impact of product aestheticson the evaluation of industrial products. Journal of Product InnovationManagement 11 (4): 309–24.

Yim, C. K. B., D. K. Tse, and K. W. Chan. 2008. Strengthening customerloyalty through intimacy and passion: Roles of customer-firm affectionand customer-staff relationships in services. Journal of MarketingResearch 45 (6): 741–56.

Zeithaml, V. A. 1988. Consumer perceptions of price, quality, and value: Ameans-end model and synthesis of evidence. Journal of Marketing 52(July): 2–22.

ENHANCING CONSUMERS’ AFFECTION FOR A BRAND USING PRODUCT DESIGN J PROD INNOV MANAG 152014;••(••):••–••