Impact of Product Design Representation on Customer Judgment

Reid, Tahira; MacDonald, Erin F.; Du, Ping

doi:10.1115/1.4024724

Cited by 51 publications

(44 citation statements)

References 48 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Reid et al [18] investigated design representation mode's effects on consumers' subjective, objective, and inference judgments of products. Eye-tracking was used as an investigation tool in addition to a survey instrument.…”

Section: Eye-trackingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Products' Shared Visual Features Do Not Cancel in Consumer Decisions

MacDonald

2015

Journal of Mechanical Design

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Consumers' product purchase decisions typically involve comparing competing products' visual features and functional attributes. Companies strive for “product differentiation” (Liu et al., 2013, “Product Family Design Through Ontology-Based Faceted Component Analysis, Selection, and Optimization,” ASME J. Mech. Des., 135(8), p. 081007; Thevenot and Simpson, 2009, “A Product Dissection-Based Methodology to Benchmark Product Family Design Alternatives,” ASME J. Mech. Des., 131(4), p. 041002; Kota et al., 2000, “A Metric for Evaluating Design Commonality in Product Families,” ASME J. Mech. Des., 122(4), pp. 403–410; Orfi et al. 2011, “Harnessing Product Complexity: Step 1—Establishing Product Complexity Dimensions and Indicators,” Eng. Econ., 56(1), pp. 59–79; and Shooter et al. 2005, “Toward a Multi-Agent Information Management Infrastructure for Product Family Planning and Mass Customisation,” Int. J. Mass Customisation, 1(1), pp. 134–155), which makes consumers' product comparisons fruitful but also sometimes challenging. Psychologists who study decision-making have created models of choice such as the cancellation-and-focus (C&F) model. C&F explains and predicts how people decide between choice alternatives with both shared and unique attributes: The shared attributes are “canceled” (ignored) while the unique ones have greater weight in decisions. However, this behavior has only been tested with text descriptions of choice alternatives. To be useful to designers, C&F must be tested with product visuals. This study tests C&F under six conditions defined by: The representation mode (text-only, image-only, and image-with-text) and presentation (sequentially or side-by-side) of choice alternatives. For the products tested, C&F holds for only limited situations. Survey and eye-tracking data suggest different cognitive responses to shared text attributes versus shared image features: In text-only, an attribute's repetition cancels its importance in decisions, while in images, repetition of a feature reinforces its importance. Generally, product differences prove to attract more attention than commonalities, demonstrating product differentiation's importance in forming consumer preferences.

show abstract

Section: Eye-trackingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Products' Shared Visual Features Do Not Cancel in Consumer Decisions

MacDonald

2015

Journal of Mechanical Design

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Artacho-Ramirez et al [34] found that as a representation mode became more sophisticated, the differences among how people perceived products decreased. Reid et al [35] presented a design as computer sketches, computer renderings, and silhouettes and noted variations in consistency of user assessments. S€ oderman [36] compared sketches, virtual reality, and an actual model, and found that the level of realism played a role in participants' certainty about attributes.…”

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

Connections Between the Design Tool, Design Attributes, and User Preferences in Early Stage Design

Häggman

Tsai

Elsen

et al. 2015

Journal of Mechanical Design

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Gathering user feedback on provisional design concepts early in the design process has the potential to reduce time-to-market and create more satisfying products. Among the parameters that shape user response to a product, this paper investigates how design experts use sketches, physical prototypes, and computer-aided design (CAD) to generate and represent ideas, as well as how these tools are linked to design attributes and multiple measures of design quality. Eighteen expert designers individually addressed a 2 hr design task using only sketches, foam prototypes, or CAD. It was found that prototyped designs were generated more quickly than those created using sketches or CAD. Analysis of 406 crowdsourced responses to the resulting designs showed that those created as prototypes were perceived as more novel, more aesthetically pleasing, and more comfortable to use. It was also found that designs perceived as more novel tended to fare poorly on all other measured qualities.

show abstract

“…Capturing and modelling preference is an active area of research in the engineering design community, and has seen significant growth over the past decade (Hoyle & Chen 2011;Kelly et al 2011;Petiot & Grognet 2006;Reid et al 2013;Sylcott et al 2013;Orsborn et al 2009;Tovares et al 2014). In particular, conjoint and discrete choice analyses (Train 2003) have been popular choices, due to the ability of these methods to allow for decomposition of a product into a set of discrete or continuous attributes, from which a mathematical model of preferences for these attributes can then be determined using a number of techniques.…”

Section: Modelling Preferencementioning

confidence: 99%

Impossible by design? Fairness, strategy, and Arrow’s impossibility theorem

McComb¹,

Cagan²,

Goucher-Lambert³

2018

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The design process often requires work by teams, rather than individuals. During teambased design it is likely that situations will arise in which individual members of the team have different opinions, yet a group decision must still be made. Unfortunately, Arrow's Impossibility Theorem indicates that there is no method for aggregating group preferences that will always satisfy a small number of "fair" conditions. This work seeks to identify methods of combining individual preferences that can come close to satisfying Arrow's conditions, enabling decisions that are fairer in practice. First, experiential conjoint analysis was used to obtain individual empirical utility functions for drinking mug designs. Each empirical utility function represented individual members who were part of a design team. Then, a number of functions for constructing group preference were analysed using both randomly generated preferences and empirical preferences derived from the experiential conjoint survey. The analysis involved checking each of Arrow's conditions, as well as assessing the potential impact of strategic voting.Based on the results, methods that should be used to aggregate group preference within a design team in practice were identified and recommended.2

show abstract

Impact of Product Design Representation on Customer Judgment

Cited by 51 publications

References 48 publications

Products' Shared Visual Features Do Not Cancel in Consumer Decisions

Products' Shared Visual Features Do Not Cancel in Consumer Decisions

Connections Between the Design Tool, Design Attributes, and User Preferences in Early Stage Design

Impossible by design? Fairness, strategy, and Arrow’s impossibility theorem

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About