Impact of Product Design Representation on Customer Judgment

When researchers ask customers to judge product form during the design process, they often manipulate simplified product representations, such as silhouettes and sketches, to gather information on which designs customers prefer. Using simplified forms, as opposed to detailed realistic models, make the analysis of gathered information tractable and also allows the researcher to guide customer focus. The theory of constructed preferences from psychology suggests that the product form presented will influence customer judgments. This paper presents a study in which subjects were shown computer sketches, front/side view silhouettes, simplified renderings, and realistic renderings to test the extent to which a variety of judgments including opinions, objective evaluations, and inferences are affected by form presentation. Results show a variety of phenomena including preference inconsistencies and ordering effects that differed across type of judgment. For example, while inferences were consistent across form, opinions were not. An eye tracker identified differences in viewing strategies while making decisions. Associated data, such as fixation times and fixation counts, provide additional insight into findings.

[1]  M. Just,et al.  Eye fixations and cognitive processes , 1976, Cognitive Psychology.

[2]  R. Nickerson Confirmation Bias: A Ubiquitous Phenomenon in Many Guises , 1998 .

[3]  Terri Gullickson,et al.  Thinking About Answers: The Application of Cognitive Processes to Survey Methodology. , 1997 .

[4]  Andrew T. Duchowski,et al.  Eye Tracking Methodology: Theory and Practice , 2003, Springer London.

[5]  Mariëlle E. H. Creusen,et al.  The Different Roles of Product Appearance in Consumer Choice , 2005 .

[6]  J. Kagel,et al.  Handbook of Experimental Economics , 1997 .

[7]  Jose Antonio Diego-Mas,et al.  Influence of the mode of graphical representation on the perception of product aesthetic and emotional features: An exploratory study , 2008 .

[8]  M. Just,et al.  The role of eye-fixation research in cognitive psychology , 1976 .

[9]  Mikael Söderman Virtual reality in product evaluations with potential customers: An exploratory study comparing virtual reality with conventional product representations , 2005 .

[10]  Yan Jin,et al.  Creative Stimulation in Conceptual Design , 2002 .

[11]  Hsin-Hsi Lai,et al.  A robust design approach for enhancing the feeling quality of a product: a car profile case study , 2005 .

[12]  Richard Gonzalez,et al.  The construction of preferences for crux and sentinel product attributes , 2007 .

[13]  Arthur F. Kramer,et al.  Information Extraction during Instrument Flight: An Evaluation of the Validity of the Eye-Mind Hypothesis , 1996 .

[14]  Klaus Opwis,et al.  THE WReSt HEURISTIC : THE ROLE OF RECALL AS WELL AS FEATURE-IMPORTANCE IN AND BEYOND THE CANCELLATION AND FOCUS MODEL , 2008 .

[15]  Jeremy J. Michalek,et al.  Linking Marketing and Engineering Product Design Decisions via Analytical Target Cascading , 2005 .

[16]  Klaus Opwis,et al.  Eye-tracking the cancellation and focus model for preference judgments , 2008 .

[17]  Maarten van Someren,et al.  The Think Aloud Method: A Practical Guide to Modelling Cognitive Processes , 1994 .

[18]  Panos Y. Papalambros,et al.  Incorporating user shape preference in engineering design optimisation , 2011 .

[19]  P. Slovic,et al.  The Construction of Preference: Index , 2006 .

[20]  R. Dhar,et al.  The Effect of Time Pressure on Consumer Choice Deferral , 1999 .

[21]  P. Clarkson,et al.  Seeing things: consumer response to the visual domain in product design , 2004 .

[22]  T. G. Chowdhury,et al.  The time-harried shopper: Exploring the differences between maximizers and satisficers , 2009 .

[23]  Jonathan Cagan,et al.  Understanding of Emotions and Reasoning During Consumer Tradeoff Between Function and Aesthetics in Product Design , 2011 .

[24]  Julie E. Boland,et al.  Cultural variation in eye movements during scene perception. , 2005, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[25]  Ravi Dhar,et al.  Comparison Effects on Preference Construction , 1999 .

[26]  A. Tversky,et al.  Judgments of and by Representativeness , 1981 .

[27]  Tommy Strandvall,et al.  Eye Tracking in Human-Computer Interaction and Usability Research , 2009, INTERACT.

[28]  G. Salvendy,et al.  Consumer‐based assessment of product creativity: A review and reappraisal , 2006 .

[29]  Agnieszka Bojko,et al.  Using eye tracking to compare web page designs: a case study , 2006 .

[30]  Wayne Citrin,et al.  Requirements for graphical front ends for visual languages , 1993, Proceedings 1993 IEEE Symposium on Visual Languages.

[31]  Jan Helge Bøhn,et al.  A Study to Understand Perceptual Discrepancies Using Visual Illusions and Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA) , 2007 .

[32]  Panos Y. Papalambros,et al.  Quantification of perceived environmental friendliness for vehicle silhouette design , 2010 .

[33]  A. Goor,et al.  A comparison of problem-solving processes of creative students and noncreative students. , 1975, Journal of educational psychology.

[34]  Panos Y. Papalambros,et al.  Preference Inconsistency in Multidisciplinary Design Decision Making , 2007, DAC 2007.

[35]  Howard R. Moskowitz,et al.  Extending rule developing experimentation to perception of food packages with eye tracking. , 2009 .

[36]  Panos Y. Papalambros,et al.  Perceptual Attributes in Product Design: Fuel Economy and Silhouette-Based Perceived Environmental Friendliness Tradeoffs in Automotive Vehicle Design , 2012 .

[37]  Jonathan Cagan,et al.  Quantifying Aesthetic Form Preference in a Utility Function , 2009 .

[38]  Eyal M. Reingold,et al.  Eye Movement Monitoring as a Process Tracing Methodology in Decision Making Research , 2011 .

[39]  A. Tversky,et al.  Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases , 1974, Science.

[40]  Jeremy J. Michalek Preference coordination in engineering design decision-making. , 2005 .

[41]  A. Tversky,et al.  Judgment under Uncertainty , 1982 .

[42]  N. Schwarz,et al.  Thinking About Answers: The Application of Cognitive Processes to Survey Methodology , 1995, Quality of Life Research.

[43]  Gerald L. Lohse,et al.  Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes a Comparison of Two Process Tracing Methods for Choice Tasks , 2022 .

[44]  Gerald L. Lohse,et al.  Consumer Eye Movement Patterns on Yellow Pages Advertising , 1997 .

[45]  Hideki Aoyama,et al.  System for 3D Form Generation and Impression Analysis Based on Emotional Words: “Kansei Words” , 2010 .

[46]  Joseph H. Goldberg,et al.  Computer interface evaluation using eye movements: methods and constructs , 1999 .

[47]  P. Slovic The Construction of Preference , 1995 .

[48]  A. Tversky Elimination by aspects: A theory of choice. , 1972 .

[49]  Jonathan Cagan,et al.  Multiagent Shape Grammar Implementation: Automatically Generating Form Concepts According to a Preference Function , 2009 .

[50]  Rik Pieters,et al.  Attention Capture and Transfer in Advertising: Brand, Pictorial, and Text-Size Effects , 2004 .

[51]  Timothy D. Wilson,et al.  Telling more than we can know: Verbal reports on mental processes. , 1977 .

[52]  L. H. Shu,et al.  Understanding the Use of Language Stimuli in Concept Generation , 2007 .

[53]  Herbert A. Simon,et al.  Problem Solving in Semantically Rich Domains: An Example from Engineering Thermodynamics , 1977, Cogn. Sci..

[54]  Jonathan Cagan,et al.  Form Function Fidelity , 2011 .

[55]  Eric J. Johnson,et al.  Adaptive Strategy Selection in Decision Making. , 1988 .

[56]  Peter H. Bloch Seeking the Ideal Form: Product Design and Consumer Response , 1995 .

[57]  Jakob Nielsen,et al.  Eyetracking Web Usability , 2009 .

[58]  Kimmo Koivunen,et al.  Towards Deeper Understanding of How People Perceive Design in Products , 2004 .

[59]  Petiot Jean-François,et al.  Study of the Correlations Between User Preferences and Design Factors: Application to Cars Front-End Design , 2007 .

[60]  P. Slovic,et al.  Reversals of preference between bids and choices in gambling decisions. , 1971 .

[61]  Benjamin B. Bederson,et al.  Does a Sketchy Appearance Influence Drawing Behavior , 1999 .

[62]  Panos Y. Papalambros,et al.  Product semantics and wine portfolio optimisation , 2009 .

[63]  David Wallace,et al.  Assessing the quality of ideas from prolific, early-stage product ideation , 2013 .

[64]  Thomas Strothotte,et al.  Assessing the effect of non-photorealistic rendered images in CAD , 1996, CHI '96.

[65]  Maria C. Yang,et al.  The Role of Sketch Finish and Style in User Responses to Early Stage Design Concepts , 2011 .

[66]  A. Agresti,et al.  Categorical Data Analysis , 1991, International Encyclopedia of Statistical Science.

[67]  J. W. Hutchinson,et al.  Unobserved Heterogeneity as an Alternative Explanation for 'Reversal' Effects in Behavioral Research , 2000 .

[68]  Yin Yin Wong Rough and ready prototypes: lessons from graphic design , 1992, CHI '92.

[69]  Yi Liu,et al.  The supremacy of singular subjectivity: Improving decision quality by removing objective specifications and direct comparisons , 2011 .