Consumer-Based Product Creativity, Product-Brand Fit, and Product-Category Fit: Which is More Influential in Consumer Responses?
Main Article Content
Abstract
This study examines the effects of consumer-based product creativity (i.e., novelty and meaningfulness dimensions), product-brand fit, and product-category fit on attitude toward the product and purchase intention. A total of 544 university students participated in a survey, in which respondents were exposed to a stimulus product image and then required to respond to a questionnaire. Structural equation modelling results show that novelty and meaningfulness and product-brand fit significantly influence attitude, subsequently increasing purchase intention. Notably, meaningfulness, rather than product-brand fit, is found to be more influential on both the attitude and purchase intention. The importance of meaningfulness can be even more highlighted for the products less fitted for their category. Theoretical and practical implications are further discussed.
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
References
Aaker, D. A. and K. L. Keller. 1990. Consumer evaluations of brand extensions. Journal of Marketing 54(1): 27–41. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224299005400102
Ajzen, I. et al. 2009. From intentions to behavior: Implementation intention, commitment, and conscientiousness. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 39(6): 1356–1372. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2009.00485.x
Andersson, T. 2016. Aesthetic flexibility: Modularity of visual form in product portfolios and branded products. Sweden: Linköping University Electronic Press. https://doi.org/10.3384/lic.diva-129551
Andrews, J. and D. C. Smith. 1996. In search of the marketing imagination: Factors affecting the creativity of marketing programs for mature products. Journal of Marketing Research 33(2): 174–187. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224379603300205
Besemer, S. and K. O’Quin. 1986. Analyzing creative products: Refinement and test of a judging instrument. The Journal of Creative Behavior 20(2): 115–126. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2162-6057.1986.tb00426.x
Blijlevens, J. et al. 2012. Aesthetic appraisal of product designs: Independent effects of typicality and arousal. British Journal of Psychology 103(1): 44–57. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8295.2011.02038.x
Bloch, P. H. 1995. Seeking the ideal form: Product design and consumer response. Journal of Marketing 59(3): 16–29. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224299505900302
Bruner, J. S. 1990. Acts of meaning. Vol. 3. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Christiaans, H. H. C. M. 2002. Creativity as a design criterion. Creativity Research Journal 14(1): 41–54. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326934CRJ1401_4
de Buisonjé, D. R. et al. 2017. Facilitating creative idea selection: The combined effects of self-affirmation, promotion focus and positive affect. Creativity Research Journal 29(2): 174–181. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2017.1303308
Dubey, R. and T. L. Griffiths. 2019. Reconciling novelty and complexity through a rational analysis of curiosity. Psychological Review 127(3): 455–476. https://doi.org/10.1037/rev0000175
Fenko, A. and T. J. L. van Rompay. 2018. Chapter 18 - Consumer-driven product design. In Methods in consumer research, Volume 2, eds. G. Ares and P. Varela. United Kingdom: Woodhead Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-101743-2.00018-2
Glasman, L. R. and D. Albarracín. 2006. Forming attitudes that predict future behavior: A meta-analysis of the attitude- behavior relation. Psychological Bulletin 132(5): 778–822. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.132.5.778
Goedertier, F. et al. 2015. Brand typicality and distant novel extension acceptance: How risk-reduction counters low category fit. Journal of Business Research 68(1): 157–165. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2014.04.005
Goh, Y. S., V. Chattaraman, and S. Forsythe. 2013. Brand and category design consistency in brand extensions. Journal of Product and Brand Management 22(4): 272–285. https://doi.org/10.1108/JPBM-03-2012-0109
———. 2014. Product design in brand extensions: The impact of brand and category fit on attitudes and purchase intentions via affective and cognitive routes. International Journal of Cultural and Creative Industries 1(2): 36–51.
Goodstein, R. C. 1993. Category-based applications and extensions in advertising: motivating more extensive ad processing. Journal of Consumer Research 20(1): 87–99. https://doi.org/10.1086/209335
Hair, J. F. et al. 2010. Multivariate data analysis, 7th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Heitmann, M. et al. 2020. Leveraging brand equity for effective visual product design. Journal of Marketing Research 57(2): 257–277. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022243720904004
Hekkert, P. and P. C. W. van Wieringen. 1990. Complexity and prototypicality as determinants of the appraisal of cubist paintings. British Journal of Psychology 81(4): 483–495. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8295.1990.tb02374.x
Hekkert, P., D. Snelders, and P. C. W. van Wieringen. 2003. ‘Most advanced, yet acceptable’: Typicality and novelty as joint predictors of aesthetic preference in industrial design. British Journal of Psychology 94(1): 111–124. https://doi.org/10.1348/000712603762842147
Horn, D. and G. Salvendy. 2009. Measuring consumer perception of product creativity: Impact on satisfaction and purchasability. Human Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing & Service Industries 19(3): 223–240. https://doi.org/10.1002/hfm.20150
Im, S. and J. P. Workman. 2004. Market orientation, creativity, and new product performance in high-technology firms. Journal of Marketing 68(2): 114–132. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.68.2.114.27788
Im, S., S. Bhat, and Y. Lee. 2015. Consumer perceptions of product creativity, coolness, value and attitude. Journal of Business Research 68(1): 166–172. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2014.03.014
Jackman, M. G., W. L. Leite, and D. J. Cochrane. 2011. Estimating latent variable interactions with the unconstrained approach: A comparison of methods to form product indicators for large, unequal numbers of items. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal 18(2): 274–288. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2011.557342
Jackson, T. and D. Shaw. 2000. Mastering fashion buying and merchandising management. London: Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-230-36514-8_11
Jhang, J. H., S. J. Grant, and M. C. Campbell. 2012. Get it? Got it. Good! enhancing new product acceptance by facilitating resolution of extreme incongruity. Journal of Marketing Research 49(2): 247–259. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmr.10.0428
Kalamas, M. et al. 2006. The critical role of congruency in prototypical brand extensions. Journal of Strategic Marketing 14(3): 193–210. https://doi.org/10.1080/09652540600825522
Karjalainen, T. M. and D. Snelders. 2010. Designing Visual recognition for the brand. Journal of Product Innovation Management 27(1): 6–22. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5885.2009.00696.x
Kumar, M., J. D. Townsend, and D. W. Vorhies. 2015. Enhancing consumers’ affection for a brand using product design. Journal of Product Innovation Management 32(5): 716–730. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpim.12245
Laroche, M., C. Kim, and L. Zhou. 1996. Brand familiarity and confidence as determinants of purchase intention: An empirical test in a multiple brand context. Journal of Business Research 37(2): 115–120. https://doi.org/10.1016/0148-2963(96)00056-2
Lee, S., J. Lee, and T. C. Garrett. 2013. A study of the attitude toward convergent products: A focus on the consumer perception of functionalities. Journal of Product Innovation Management 30(1): 123–135. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5885.2012.00991.x
Liu, Y. et al. 2017. The effects of products’ aesthetic design on demand and marketing-mix effectiveness: The role of segment prototypicality and brand consistency. Journal of Marketing 81(1): 83–102. https://doi.org/10.1509/jm.15.0315
Loewy, R. 1951. Never leave well enough alone. New York: Simon and Schuster.
Loken, B. and J. Ward. 1990. Alternative approaches to understanding the determinants of typicality. Journal of Consumer Research 17(2):111–126. https://doi.org/10.1086/208542
Loken, B. and D. R. John. 1993. Diluting brand beliefs: When do brand extensions have a negative impact? Journal of Marketing 57(3): 71–84. https://doi.org/10.2307/1251855
Loken, B., L. W. Barsalou, and C. Joiner. 2008. Categorization theory and research in consumer psychology: Category representation and category-based inference. In Handbook of Consumer Psychology, eds. C. P. Haugtvedt, P. M. Herr and F. R. Kardes. New York: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203809570
Mandler, G. 1982. The structure of value: Accounting for taste. In Affect and Cognition, eds. M. S. Clark and S. T. Fiske. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Marsh, H. W. et al. 2007. Unconstrained structural equation models of latent interactions: contrasting residual- and mean-centered approaches. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal 14(4): 570–580. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705510701303921
Marsh, H. W., Z. Wen, and K. T. Hau. 2004. Structural equation models of latent interactions: Evaluation of alternative estimation strategies and indicator construction. Psychological Methods 9(3): 275–300. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.9.3.275
Moreau, C. P., A. B. Markman, and D. R. Lehmann. 2001. “What is it?” Categorization flexibility and consumers’ responses to really new products. Journal of Consumer Research 27(4): 489–498. https://doi.org/10.1086/319623
Mulder-Nijkamp, M. 2020. Bridging the gap between design and behavioral research: (Re)searching the optimum design strategy for brands and new product innovations. Creativity and Innovation Management 29(S1): 11–26. https://doi.org/10.1111/caim.12393
Nakata, C. et al. 2017. New product creativity antecedents and consequences: Evidence from South Korea, Japan, and China. Journal of Product Innovation Management 35(6): 939–959. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpim.12436
Nørskov, S., P. Chrysochou, and M. Milenkova. 2015. The impact of product innovation attributes on brand equity. Journal of Consumer Marketing 32(4): 245–254. https://doi.org/10.1108/JCM-10-2014-1198
Noseworthy, T. J., F. D. Muro, and K. B. Murray. 2014. The role of arousal in congruity-based product evaluation. Journal of Consumer Research 41(4): 1108–1126. https://doi.org/10.1086/678301
Page, C. and P. M. Herr. 2002. An investigation of the processes by which product design and brand strength interact to determine initial affect and quality judgments. Journal of Consumer Psychology 12(2): 133–147. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327663JCP1202_06
Park, C. W., S. Milberg, and R. Lawson. 1991. Evaluation of brand extensions: The role of product feature similarity and brand concept consistency. Journal of Consumer Research 18(2): 185–193. https://doi.org/10.1086/209251
Person, O. et al. 2007. Complementing intuition: Insights on styling as a strategic tool. Journal of Marketing Management 23(9–10): 901–916. https://doi.org/10.1362/026725707X250386
Proulx, T. and M. Inzlicht. 2012. The five “A”s of meaning maintenance: Finding meaning in the theories of sense-making. Psychological Inquiry 23(4): 317–335. https://doi.org/10.1080/1047840X.2012.702372
Ranscombe, C. et al. 2012. Visually decomposing vehicle images: Exploring the influence of different aesthetic features on consumer perception of brand. Design Studies 33(4): 319–341. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2011.06.006
Rubera, G., A. Ordanini, and D. A. Griffith. 2011. Incorporating cultural values for understanding the influence of perceived product creativity on intention to buy: An examination in Italy and the US. Journal of International Business Studies 42(4): 459–476. https://doi.org/10.1057/jibs.2011.3
Sarkar, P. and A. Chakrabarti. 2011. Assessing design creativity. Design Studies 32(4): 348–383. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2011.01.002
Schnurr, B. 2017. The impact of atypical product design on consumer product and brand perception. Journal of Brand Management 24: 609–621. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41262-017-0059-z
Seifert, C. and V. Chattaraman. 2020. A picture is worth a thousand words! How visual storytelling transforms the aesthetic experience of novel designs. Journal of Product and Brand Management 29(7): 913–926. https://doi.org/10.1108/JPBM-01-2019-2194
Seifert, C., T. Cui, and V. Chattaraman. 2019. Can brands deviate from their brand aesthetic? Brand luxury status as a moderator. Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management 23(2): 176–192. https://doi.org/10.1108/JFMM-05-2018-0072
Smallbone, D., J. Kitching, and R. Athayde. 2010. Ethnic diversity, entrepreneurship and competitiveness in a global city. International Small Business Journal 28(2): 174–190. https://doi.org/10.1177/0266242609355856
Spears, N. and S. N. Singh. 2004. Measuring attitude toward the brand and purchase intentions. Journal of Current Issues and Research in Advertising 26(2): 53–66. https://doi.org/10.1080/10641734.2004.10505164
Talke, K. et al. 2009. What about design newness? Investigating the relevance of a neglected dimension of product innovativeness. Journal of Product Innovation Management 26(6): 601–615. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5885.2009.00686.x
Taylor, N. and T. J. Noseworthy. 2020. Compensating for innovation: Extreme product incongruity encourages consumers to affirm unrelated consumption schemas. Journal of Consumer Psychology 30(1): 77–95. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcpy.1127
Verganti, R. 2008. Design, meanings, and radical innovation: A metamodel and a research agenda. Journal of Product Innovation Management 25(5): 436–456. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5885.2008.00313.x
Veryzer, R. W. and J. W. Hutchinson. 1998. The influence of unity and prototypicality on aesthetic responses to new product designs. Journal of Consumer Research 24(4): 374–394. https://doi.org/10.1086/209516
Vogel, T., M. Ingendahl, and P. Winkielman. 2021. The architecture of prototype preferences: Typicality, fluency, and valence. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 150(1):187–194. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000798
Whitfield, T. W. A. and P. E. Slatter. 1979. The effects of categorization and prototypicality on aesthetic choice in a furniture selection task. British Journal of Psychology 70(1): 65–75. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8295.1979.tb02144.x
Winkielman, P. et al. 2006. Prototypes are attractive because they are easy on the mind. Psychological Science 17(9): 799– 806. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01785.x
Zaichkowsky, J. L. 1994. The personal involvement inventory: Reduction, revision, and application to advertising. Journal of Advertising 23(4): 59–70. https://doi.org/10.1080/00913367.1943.10673459