Symbolic Meaning Integration in Design and its Influence on Product and Brand Evaluation

Previous research and theorizing in product design and consumer psychology testifies to the importance of congruence among symbolic meanings connoted through elements in visual communications such as advertisements, product appearance, and product packaging. However, understanding of the processes whereby meaning congruence impacts consumer response is limited. In this paper, we propose a framework for understanding congruence effects in design based on recent studies addressing processing fluency. Based on these findings, the authors propose that incongruence thwarts impression formation of product and brand by inducing ambiguity, thereby negatively affecting attitude formation. However, research indicates that congruence effects may vary across consumers. Hence, in the experimental study presented, effects of ‘advertising slogan-product shape’ (in)congruence were studied as a function of consumers’ tolerance for information ambiguity. Results from this study indicate that incongruencies are particularity distressing for consumers with a low tolerance for ambiguity in everyday life. Theoretical and practical implications are discussed.

[1]  A. Pruyn,et al.  When Visual Product Features Speak the Same Language: Effects of Shape-Typeface Congruence on Brand Perception and Price Expectations* , 2011 .

[2]  P. Hekkert.  Design aesthetics: principles of pleasure in design , 2006 .

[3]  N. Schwarz,et al.  Processing Fluency and Aesthetic Pleasure: Is Beauty in the Perceiver's Processing Experience? , 2004, Personality and social psychology review : an official journal of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, Inc.

[4]  Terry L. Childers,et al.  The Role of Expectancy and Relevancy in Memory for Verbal and Visual Information: What Is Incongruency? , 1992 .

[5]  J. M. Kittross.  The measurement of meaning , 1959 .

[6]  Robert W. Veryzer.  Aesthetic Response and the Influence of Design Principles on Product Preferences , 1993 .

[7]  Laura A. Peracchio,et al.  Using Stylistic Properties of Ad Pictures to Communicate with Consumers , 2005 .

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

[9]  Daniel Saakes,et al.  Grounding abstract object characteristics in embodied interactions. , 2005, Acta psychologica.

[10]  Ellen Winner,et al.  Perceiving What Paintings Express , 1984 .

[11]  J. Cacioppo,et al.  The need for cognition. , 1982 .

[12]  Lydia J. Price,et al.  The Impact of Self-Construal on Aesthetic Preference for Angular Versus Rounded Shapes , 2006, Personality & social psychology bulletin.

[13]  Paul Hekkert,et al.  Beauty in the eye of expert and nonexpert beholders : A study in the appraisal of art , 1996 .

[14]  M. Bullock,et al.  Interpreting contradictory communications: Age and context effects , 1990 .

[15]  Geke D.S. Ludden,et al.  Surprise As a Design Strategy , 2008, Design Issues.

[16]  R. Belk.  Possessions and the Extended Self , 1988 .

[17]  S. Chaiken,et al.  Promoting systematic processing in low-motivation settings: effect of incongruent information on processing and judgment. , 1991, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[18]  R. Arnheim.  Art and Visual Perception, a Psychology of the Creative Eye , 1967 .

[19]  Bernd H. Schmitt,et al.  Language and Brand Attitudes: Impact of Script and Sound Matching in Chinese and English , 1996 .

[20]  M. Bar,et al.  Humans Prefer Curved Visual Objects , 2006, Psychological science.

[21]  Angela Y. Lee,et al.  The Effect of Conceptual and Perceptual Fluency on Brand Evaluation , 2004 .

[22]  Paul J. Silvia,et al.  What Is Interesting , 2006 .

[23]  Charlotte H. Mason,et al.  Responses to Information Incongruency in Advertising: The Role of Expectancy, Relevancy, and Humor , 1999 .

[24]  H. Leder,et al.  A model of aesthetic appreciation and aesthetic judgments. , 2004, British journal of psychology.

[25]  J. Aaker,et al.  Dimensions of Brand Personality , 1997 .

[26]  Mary T. Curren,et al.  How Does the Congruity of Brand Names Affect Evaluations of Brand Name Extensions , 1994 .

[27]  Steven L. Neuberg,et al.  Personal Need for Structure: Individual Differences in the Desire for Simple Structure , 1993 .

[28]  T. V. Rompay,et al.  Product expression : Bridging the gap between the symbolic and the concrete , 2008 .

[29]  R. Zajonc.  Attitudinal effects of mere exposure. , 1968 .

[30]  J. Cacioppo,et al.  Mind at ease puts a smile on the face: psychophysiological evidence that processing facilitation elicits positive affect. , 2001, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[31]  P. Silvia.  What is interesting? Exploring the appraisal structure of interest. , 2005, Emotion.

[32]  Toni-Matti Karjalainen,et al.  Educational Approaches to Designing for Visual Brand Recognition , 2007 .

[33]  Antony J. Chapman,et al.  Cognitive processes in the perception of art , 1984 .

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

[35]  Claus-Christian Carbon,et al.  Entitling art: Influence of title information on understanding and appreciation of paintings. , 2006, Acta psychologica.

[36]  Terry L. Childers,et al.  All Dressed Up With Something to Say: Effects of Typeface Semantic Associations on Brand Perceptions and Consumer Memory , 2002 .

[37]  F. Nuessel.  More Than Cool Reason: A Field Guide to Poetic Metaphor , 1990 .