Consumer-Based Product Creativity, Product-Brand Fit, and Product-Category Fit: Which is More Influential in Consumer Responses?

Main Article Content

Soo In Shim
Yi Sheng Goh


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

How to Cite
Consumer-Based Product Creativity, Product-Brand Fit, and Product-Category Fit: Which is More Influential in Consumer Responses?. (2022). Wacana Seni Journal of Arts Discourse, 21, 45–57.
Original Articles


Aaker, D. A. and K. L. Keller. 1990. Consumer evaluations of brand extensions. Journal of Marketing 54(1): 27–41.

Ajzen, I. et al. 2009. From intentions to behavior: Implementation intention, commitment, and conscientiousness. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 39(6): 1356–1372.

Andersson, T. 2016. Aesthetic flexibility: Modularity of visual form in product portfolios and branded products. Sweden: Linköping University Electronic Press.

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.

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.

Blijlevens, J. et al. 2012. Aesthetic appraisal of product designs: Independent effects of typicality and arousal. British Journal of Psychology 103(1): 44–57.

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

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.

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.

Dubey, R. and T. L. Griffiths. 2019. Reconciling novelty and complexity through a rational analysis of curiosity. Psychological Review 127(3): 455–476.

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.

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.

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.

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.

———. 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Jackson, T. and D. Shaw. 2000. Mastering fashion buying and merchandising management. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

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.

Kalamas, M. et al. 2006. The critical role of congruency in prototypical brand extensions. Journal of Strategic Marketing 14(3): 193–210.

Karjalainen, T. M. and D. Snelders. 2010. Designing Visual recognition for the brand. Journal of Product Innovation Management 27(1): 6–22.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Person, O. et al. 2007. Complementing intuition: Insights on styling as a strategic tool. Journal of Marketing Management 23(9–10): 901–916.

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.

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.

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.

Sarkar, P. and A. Chakrabarti. 2011. Assessing design creativity. Design Studies 32(4): 348–383.

Schnurr, B. 2017. The impact of atypical product design on consumer product and brand perception. Journal of Brand Management 24: 609–621.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Verganti, R. 2008. Design, meanings, and radical innovation: A metamodel and a research agenda. Journal of Product Innovation Management 25(5): 436–456.

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.

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.

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.

Winkielman, P. et al. 2006. Prototypes are attractive because they are easy on the mind. Psychological Science 17(9): 799– 806.

Zaichkowsky, J. L. 1994. The personal involvement inventory: Reduction, revision, and application to advertising. Journal of Advertising 23(4): 59–70.