Development of a Conceptual Model of Product Emotion in the Pre-Purchase Context Rosemary R. Seva, Henry Been Lirn Duh, & Martin G. Helander Center for Human Factors and Ergonomics School of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering Nanyang Technological University, Singapore
[email protected],
[email protected],
[email protected]
Abstract A conceptual model of product emotion was developed considering the pre-purchase context. The main proposition of this model is that affect generated in the pre-purchase context is a result of product evaluation using consumergenerated criteria. The process starts when a consumer becomes interested in the distinctive, integrative and interactive features of a product. A survey was conducted to determine the criteria used by consumers when buying clothes, watches, and electronic products. A total of 34 criteria were identified in the process. These 34 criteria were analyzed using cluster analysis to discover how consumers group them. The criteria were grouped as follows: personality, aesthetics, design/fitting, function, brand, durability, quality, features, material and expected life. Affect in the pre-purchase context was determined by conducting a field survey where consumers were asked about the emotions they experienced before purchasing. Pre-purchase affect is dominated by positive feelings. Only 5 emotions can be classified as negative while the rest indicate cheerfulness, enthusiasm and hopefulness. The result of the multidimensional scaling showed that pre-purchase affect has several dimensions.
1
Introduction
Product manufacturers are beginning to realize the importance of consumers’ needs right at the beginning, when products are being conceptualized. This is evident in the development of many techniques that takes into account the input of customers, such as Quality Function Deployment (QFD) and Kansei Engineering (KE). Going a step further, consumers’ feelings are now recognized as essential input in product design (Nagamachi, 2002; Desmet, 2003a). Kansei Engineering integrates customers’ feelings into the design of the product by translating them into design elements (Matsubara & Nagamachi, 1997; Nagamachi, 2002). Companies in the automotive, construction and cosmetic industries have adopted this approach to please their customers. The application of Kansei Engineering resulted in increased customer satisfaction and improvement in sales performance (Nagamachi, 1995). Desmet (2003) asserts that product designers have the capability to make the product elicit emotion through aesthetics, function, behavior and semantics. When evaluating a product or a service, the decision to purchase is not based solely on price. The feelings of the consumer towards the product are also considered (Pham, 1998). According to Slovic et al. (2002) and MacGregor, Slovic, Dreman & Berry (2000) the affect attached to an image facilitates a person’s judgment. When a person sees a product, an evaluation is immediately made on the basis of feelings. The feelings are based on previous experiences of similar products, the recollection of related information or an evaluation based on several criteria. The images that form in the mind of the consumer translates into good or bad feelings that help in the evaluation process. Although it has been recognized that the product itself can trigger emotion during the purchase process, emotions elicited during the pre-purchase stage have not yet been thoroughly studied. Most studies focus on the emotions experienced during and after product use or a combination of pre-purchase and product use (Richins, 1997; Jordan, 1998).
2
Conceptual Model of Product Emotion
A conceptual model of product emotions in the pre-purchase context aims to explain how emotions develop before the decision is taken to buy a product. The main proposition of this model is that affect generated in the pre-purchase context are a result of product evaluation using consumer-generated criteria. The conceptual model is shown in Figure 1.
Figure 1: Pre-purchase Affect Model (PAM) The process starts when a consumer becomes interested in the distinctive, integrative and interactive features of a product. Distinctive features include color, size and shape which are evaluated independently while integrative features are those that are evaluated relative to the other features such as keypad layout. Interactive features, on the other hand, are usability features of the product or ease of manipulation. The product attributes are then evaluated according to different criteria that consumers find relevant depending on the situation.
2.1
Purchase criteria
A survey was conducted to determine the criteria used by consumers when buying hand phones. A total of 22 criteria were identified in the process. These 22 criteria were analyzed using cluster analysis to discover how consumers group them. Figure 2 shows the structure obtained from the cluster analysis. As can be seen from the dendogram, there are nine groups of criteria for hand phones, namely; personality, aesthetics, design, brand, popularity, expected life, features, quality and reliability.
Personality Aesthetics Design
Brand Popularity Exp Life Features Quality Reliability/ Durability
Figure 2: Clustering of Purchase Criteria A person who goes to a shop to buy a hand phone may be attracted to the displayed models that may or may not have the same price. This person examines each one, and decides to buy one particular model. While searching for a potential purchase, the consumer evaluates the product in terms of the factors mentioned above. Most of these purchase criteria whether individually or in combination with the others can engender affect and influence the decision of the consumer. In case of a consumer that already decided to make a purchase and with particular needs in mind, the products are eliminated if they do not meet the criteria they have in mind. This process is called “elimination by aspect”, proposed by Tversky (1972). However, for customers who are strolling in malls aimlessly, this decision heuristic may not apply. Attraction to products brought about by any of the above mentioned criteria can bring about positive affect and result in a purchase. Personality is a critical purchase criterion because customers feel close to products that reflect their personality. The technique Product Personality Profiling discussed by McDonagh, Bruseberg & Haslam (2002), links product characteristics to the personalities of potential clients. A teenager, for example, would like to project a cool personality and would buy products that enhance this image. A product’s personality, however, is not only acquired by design but also by the image projected by its brand name (Aaker, 1997). This is the reason why branded items, although more expensive are still preferred by many. Visual aesthetics, on the other hand, influence how a consumer perceives a product. Aesthetics deals with the expression of beauty through design. Aesthetics can create symbolic association that affect its evaluation (Bloch, Brunel, & Arnold, 2003). It has the potential to engender affect as it can incite interest, joy or disgust in conjunction with the design of the product.
The design of a product includes many aspects like form, texture, arrangement and style. The mixing of these attributes can make a product desirable or undesirable depending on the taste of the consumer. Beautiful products generally cause people to feel happy. Hekkert (2002, cited in Demirbelek & Sener, 2003) asserted that a product’s good design cause its users to be pleased and excited. Brand and popularity are two related concepts that are important in selling products. Brand marketing is all about exploiting the emotional connection between people and brand rather than emphasizing the benefits of the product (Woods, 2004). One reason for this emotional reaction to brands is the satisfaction derived by customers from using the product in the past. Yu and Dean (2001) explain that customers tend to become loyal to a brand that engendered positive emotion in the past. They also found out that emotion is better correlated with brand loyalty rather than cognition. In close relation to brand is reliability and durability, which is a characteristic that most people desire. Durability is different from expected life as durability is defined as the “ability to withstand wear and tear (dictionary.com)”. The expected life of a product may be short but during its expected life, the product should be able to endure customary tests of durability. A mobile phone, for example, must be able to sustain frequent drops from a reasonable height. A mobile phone that looks flimsy has the potential to incite worry and sadness from a potential customer. Aside from durability, products compete in terms of the number of features available. The increase in the number of features sustains interest in the product and the trend towards miniaturization in electronic products adds a sense of amazement, which enhances this interest. The Infotrends Research Group, estimated that the development of camera phones have boosted the decreasing trend in phone sales because people are excited to take and send pictures (O’Keefe, 2004). The excitement and happiness in using a product has the potential to increase its sales. Most of the criteria mentioned above belong to the larger concept of quality. Juran (1999) defines quality as product features that meet customer needs and provide customer satisfaction. Consumers have varying definitions of a quality product based on their capability to pay, taste, and expectation. The design of a product is also a quality aspect appraised by the customer. The overall architecture of the product, the use of aesthetic principles and usability are just some of the facets of design that customers value. A product with a good design may incite joy, interest and surprise. When a consumer purchases a product that is expensive s/he expects its life to be reasonably long. A refrigerator, for example, is expected to last more than 20 years while a car is expected to last more than 10 years. People do not like to invest in products that will not endure the test of time. The mere thought of the product breaking down in a few years time may bring about anxiety and sadness. Some consumers signified in an interview that they are hesitant to purchase some products that are expected to break down in a few years time and this is a cause of their pre-purchase worry. A product, however, may not be positively evaluated by a consumer in all these aspects in the pre-purchase stage. Some product characteristics may positively or negatively contribute to the evaluation criteria. It is hypothesized that a consumer only develops an emotion towards a product that is either positively evaluated in all nine aspects or only one aspect of that product is negatively evaluated. Otherwise, the consumer will automatically avoid the product and no emotion will be felt.
2.2
Product emotions in the pre-purchase context
In order to study product emotion, it is important to know its components, taxonomies and dimensions. Many theorists have conceptualized the components and structure of affect. There are two main frameworks. One asserts that emotions are discrete or categorical (Izard, 1977; Plutchik, 1980) while the other proposes a dimensional construct (Osgood, Suci & Tannenbaum, 1975; Russell & Mehrabian, 1977). Previous studies on affect and its structure, however, did not consider a specific situation such as the pre-purchase context. The taxonomy of affect devised by Izard, Russell and Plutchik considered all emotions that can possibly be experienced in different situations. Richins (1997) inquired whether these classifications are relevant in the consumption scenario.. Some of the basic emotions are too strong to be felt by a shopper while looking for a product to buy. In a related study, it was found that advertising brings about low intensity emotions that are limited in
nature. Richins (1997), therefore, found it necessary to identify emotions relevant to the different stages of consumption experience. As a result of his studies Richins (1997) proposed the Consumption Emotion Set (CES), which was derived from the analysis of three consumption situations, namely; automobile, recreational and sentimental. There were seventeen emotions, namely: anger, discontent, worry, sadness, fear, shame, envy, loneliness, romantic love, love, peacefulness, contentment, optimism, joy, excitement, surprise and others. Westbrook (1987), in a related study, also observed the experience of joy in the evaluation of a vehicle. However, this emotion set was constructed considering all facets of consumption from anticipation to actual use of the product. Therefore, this list is still very wide in scope and may not be relevant in the pre-purchase situation. Moreover, non-valenced emotions such as interest and surprise were not included in the analysis. Although other authors have questioned the inclusion of these two feelings, the experience of these in consumption should have been validated in Richin’s study. Desmet (2003b), on the other hand, classified emotional responses to five categories, namely: instrumental, aesthetic, social, surprise and interest. Instrumental emotion refers to the perception that the product can help the user achieve his/her objectives, whereas aesthetic emotion pertains to the capability of the product to appeal to the consumers. Social emotion results from the use of products that adhere to socially determined standards. Surprise emotion is brought about by the consumer’s perception that the design is new, while interest emotion is elicited by the combination of challenge and promise (Tan 2000 cited in Desmet, 2003b). Compared to the work of other researchers, Desmet’s study is more limited in the sense that he only classified emotions but did not enumerate them. This study could have been extended to identify emotions that may be classified under each heading through the use of factor or cluster analysis. However, his classification brought a new way of looking at the classification of emotion as not only positive or negative or pleasure and arousal. In this study the emotions in the pre-purchase context was determined by conducting a field survey where consumers were asked about the emotions they experienced before they bought the product they have decided to buy and upon examining other products they have considered before making a decision. The field study conducted in Singapore uncovered the following pre-purchase affect, see Table 1. Table 1: Pre-purchase affect
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.
Happy Excited Pleased Glad Good Interested
7. Concerned 8. Surprised 9. Optimistic 10. Worried 11. Satisfied 12. Funny
13. Sad 14. Bad 15. Beautiful 16. Disappointed 17. Need 18. Bored
19. Cheap 20. Comfortable 21. Lucky 22. Relaxed 23. Suitable
As can be observed from Table 1, pre-purchase affect is dominated by positive feelings. Only 6 emotions can be classified as negative, while the rest indicate cheerfulness, enthusiasm and hopefulness. One possible explanation for the dominance of positive feelings is the fact that people ignore products or situations that engender negative feelings - especially in the malls. People shop to have a good time and repair bad moods. Maxwell & Kover (2003) maintain that only 10% of shoppers are in a negative mood and they are interested and willing to try new products because of their need to improve their mood. The dimensionality of pre-purchase affect was determined using multidimensional scaling. This was done by asking subjects to rate the similarity of each possible pairings of pre-purchase emotions. A total of 253 word pairs were evaluated by 28 subjects who were students of Nanyang Technological University in Singapore. The similarity of the word pairs were rated using a seven point scale anchored at “totally different” (1) and “almost the same” (7). The result of the multidimensional scaling showed that, unlike the general affect presented by Russell (1980), prepurchase affect has several dimensions. Russell proposed that affective dimensions are not independent but are related in a systematic fashion. Russell based his hypothesis on the earlier work of Schlosberg (1952, cited in Russell, 1980) who posited that emotions are arranged in a circular manner.
2.3
Purchase intention and affect
Previous studies indicate that positive mood is generally associated with positive evaluation of a product or even brand extensions (Barone, Miniard & Romeo, 2000; Adaval, 2001; Norman, 2003). Positive mood is characterized by being happy or elated. Swinyard (1993) explains that people in a positive mood have the desire to sustain this mood state that leads to biased evaluations. This bias prompts shoppers to look at the good attributes of the product so as to sustain their positive feelings. However, the effect of mood is only evident if the subjects are unaware of their current mood state at the time of experiment. If they are made aware of their mood, then it does not affect their judgment (Gorn, Goldberg & Basu, 1993). In relation to this, Adaval (2003) contended that information that is similar in valence with the mood experienced at that time is given importance in product judgments. This means that if a person sees a pair of Levis jeans and notices that the price is quite unreasonable, s/he will give it a good evaluation because the hedonic goal is given more weight than considerations about price. The effect of mood on product evaluation, however, is not the main concern in our model. The main point of interest is the ability of products to engender affect upon thorough evaluation. The relationship of emotional intensity and purchase intention needs to be validated in the model presented. It is hypothesized that positive emotions in the prepurchase context are highly correlated with purchase intentions but this has not yet been investigated. Future work will focus on this aspect.
3
Conclusion
Consumers evaluate products considering personality, aesthetics, design/fitting, function, brand, durability, quality, features, material and expected life. The combination of these criteria elicits emotion that can potentially affect the decision of the consumer. Pre-purchase affect obtained from field analysis in Singapore were lesser in magnitude than the consumption affect collected in previous studies. The cluster analysis conducted to determine the dimension of pre-purchase affect showed that there were more than two dimensions, thereby negating Russel’s model. The results if this study does not coincide with the known structure of general affect. The independence of the emotions in the pre-purchase context needs to be validated and their relationship with emotions during/after purchase needs to be clarified.
References Aaker, J.L. (1997). Dimensions of brand personality, Journal of Marketing Research, 34, 347-356. Adaval, R. (2001). Sometimes it just feels right: the differential weighting of affect-consistent and affectinconsistent product information, Journal of Consumer Research, 28, 1-17. Barone, M.J., Miniard, P.W. & Romeo, J.B. (2000). The influence of positive mood on brand extension evaluations, Journal of Consumer Research, 26, 386-400. Bloch, P.H., Brunel, F.F., & Arnold, T.J. (2003). Individual differences in the centrality of visual product aesthetics: concept and measurement, Journal of Consumer Research, 29, 551-565. Campos, J.J., Mumme, D.L., Kermoian, R., & Campos, R.G. (1994). A functionalist perspective on the nature of emotion, Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 59, 284-303. Desmet, P. M. A. (2003a). From disgust to desire: how products elicit emotions, In P. Hekkert, D.C. McDonagh, & J. van Erp (Eds.), Proceedings of the third international conference Design and Emotion. In Press. Desmet, P.M.A. (2003b). A multilayered model of product emotions, The Design Journal, 6, 4-13. Demirbilek, O. & Sener, B. (2003). Product design, semantics and emotional response, Ergonomics, 46, 1346-1360. Gorn, G.J., Goldberg, M.E. & Basu, K. (1993). Mood, awareness, and product evaluation, Journal of Consumer Psychology, 2, 237-256. Izard, C. (1977). Human Emotions. New York:Plenum Press. Jordan, P.W. (1998). Human factors for pleasure in product use, Applied Ergonomics, 29, 25-33. Juran, J.M. (1999). How to think about quality, In J.M. Juran & A.B. Godfrey (eds), Juran’s Quality Handbook 5th Ed (2.1-2.18). New York: Mc Grawhill. MacGregor, D.G., Slovic, P., Dreman, D., & Berry, M. (2000). Imagery, affect, and financial judgment, The Journal of Psychology and Financial Markets, 1, 104-110.
Matsubara, Y. & Nagamachi, M. (1997). Hybrid Kansei engineering system and design support, International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 19, 81-92. Maxwell, S. & Kover, A. (2003). Negative affect: the dark side of retailing, Journal of Business Research, 56, 553559. McDonagh, D., Bruseberg, A. & Haslam, C. (2002). Visual product evaluation: exploring users’ emotional relationships with products, Applied Ergonomics, 33, 231-240 Nagamachi, M. (2002). Kansei engineering as a powerful consumer-oriented technology for product development, Applied Ergonomics, 33, 289-294. Nagamachi, M. (1995). Kansei Engineering: a new ergonomic consumer-oriented technology for product development, International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 15, 3-11. O’Keefe, M. (2004). Worldwide Camera Phone Sales to Reach Nearly 150 Million in 2004, Capturing 29 Billion Digital Images. Retrieved 11 February, 2005 from http://www.infotrendsrgi.com/home/Press/itPress/2004/3.11.04.html. Osgood, C.E., Suci, G. J. & Tannenbaum, P. H. (1975). The measurement of meaning. Chicago: University of Illinois Press. Pham, M. (1998). Representativeness, relevance, and the use of feelings in decision making, Journal of Consumer Research, 25, 144-155. Plutchik, R. (1980). Emotion: A Psychoevolutionary Synthesis. New York: Harper and Row. Richins, M. L. (1997). Measuring emotions in the consumption experience, Journal of Consumer Research, 24, 127146 Russell, J.A. & Mehrabian, A. (1977). Evidence for a three-factor theory of emotions, Journal of Research in Personality, 11, 273-294. Russell, J.A. (1980). A circumplex model of affect, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 1161-1178. Slovic, P., Finucane, M., Peters, E., & MacGregor, D. (2002). The affect heuristic, In T. Gilovich, D. Griffin, & D. Kahneman (Eds) Heuristics and Biases: The Psychology of Intuitive Judgment (pp. 397-420). London: Cambridge University Press. Swinyard, W.R. (1993). The effects of mood, involvement, and quality of store experience on shopping intentions, Journal of Consumer Research, 20, 271-280. Tversky, A. (1972). Elimination by aspects: A theory of choice. Psychological Review. 79, 281-299. Uniform and Textile Service Association, (2004). New Fabric Technologies Make Employees Happier, retrieved 24 February 2005 from http://www.uniforminfo.com/why_uniform.php?content=15. Westbrook, R. A. (1987). Product/consumption-based affective responses and post-purchase processes, Journal of Marketing Research, 24, 258-270. Woods, R. (2004).Exploring the emotional territory for brands, Journal of Consumer Behavior, 3,4, 388-403. Yu, Y. & Dean, A. (2001). The contribution of emotional satisfaction to consumer loyalty, International Journal of Service Industry Management, 12, 3/4, 234-250.
