Research Papers

Impact of Product Design Representation on Customer Judgment

[+] Author and Article Information
Tahira N. Reid

School of Mechanical Engineering,
Purdue University,
West Lafayette, IN 47907
e-mail: tahira@purdue.edu

Erin F. MacDonald

e-mail: erinmacd@iastate.edu

Ping Du

e-mail: pdu@iastate.edu
Department of Mechanical Engineering,
Iowa State University,
Ames, IA 50011

Contributed by the Design Theory and Methodology Committee of ASME for publication in the Journal of Mechanical Design. Manuscript received August 4, 2012; final manuscript received May 16, 2013; published online July 15, 2013. Assoc. Editor: Jonathan Cagan.

J. Mech. Des 135(9), 091008 (Jul 15, 2013) (12 pages) Paper No: MD-12-1397; doi: 10.1115/1.4024724 History: Received August 04, 2012; Revised May 16, 2013

When researchers ask customers to judge product form during the design process, they often manipulate simplified product representations, such as silhouettes and sketches, to gather information on which designs customers prefer. Using simplified forms, as opposed to detailed realistic models, make the analysis of gathered information tractable and also allows the researcher to guide customer focus. The theory of constructed preferences from psychology suggests that the product form presented will influence customer judgments. This paper presents a study in which subjects were shown computer sketches, front/side view silhouettes, simplified renderings, and realistic renderings to test the extent to which a variety of judgments including opinions, objective evaluations, and inferences are affected by form presentation. Results show a variety of phenomena including preference inconsistencies and ordering effects that differed across type of judgment. For example, while inferences were consistent across form, opinions were not. An eye tracker identified differences in viewing strategies while making decisions. Associated data, such as fixation times and fixation counts, provide additional insight into findings.

Copyright © 2013 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.


Bloch, P. H., 1995, “Seeking the Ideal Form—Product Design and Consumer Response,” J. Mark., 59, pp. 16–29. [CrossRef]
Crilly, N., MoultrieJ., and Clarkson, P. J., 2004, “Seeing Things: Consumer Response to the Visual Domain in Product Design,” Des. Stud., 25(6), pp. 547–577. [CrossRef]
Creusen, M. E. H., and Schoormans, J. P. L., 2005, “The Different Roles of Product Appearance in Consumer Choice,” J. Prod. Innovation Manage., 22(1), pp. 63–81. [CrossRef]
MacDonald, E. F., Lubensky, A., Sohns, B., and Papalambros, P. Y., 2009, “Product Semantics in Wine Portfolio Optimization,” Int. J. Prod. Dev., 7(1/2), pp. 73–98. [CrossRef]
Reid, T. N., Frischknecht, B. D., and Papalambros, P. Y., 2012, “Perceptual Attributes in Product Design: Fuel Economy and Silhouette-Based Perceived Environmental Friendliness Tradeoffs in Automotive Vehicle Design,” J. Mech. Des., 134(4), p. 041006. [CrossRef]
Kelly, J. C., Maheut, P., Petiot, J. F., and Papalambros, P. Y., 2011, “Incorporating User Shape Preference in Engineering Design Optimisation,” J. Eng. Des., 22(9), pp. 627–650. [CrossRef]
Orsborn, S., and Cagan, J. C., 2009, “Multiagent Shape Grammar Implementation: Automatically Generating Form Concepts According to a Preference Function,” J. Mech. Des., 131(12), p. 121007. [CrossRef]
Michalek, J. J., Feinberg, F. M., and Papalambros, P. Y., 2005, “Linking Marketing and Engineering Product Design Decisions Via Analytical Target Cascading,” J. Prod. Innovation Manage., 22, pp. 42–62. [CrossRef]
MacDonald, E. F., Gonzalez, R., and Papalambros, P.Y., 2008, “The Construction of Preferences for Crux and Sentinel Product Attributes,” J. Eng. Des., 20(6), pp. 609–626. [CrossRef]
MacDonald, E. F., Gonzalez, R., and Papalambros, P. Y., 2009, “Preference Inconsistency in Multidisciplinary Design Decision Making,” J. Mech. Des., 131(3), p. 031009. [CrossRef]
Sylcott, B., Cagan, J., and Tabibnia, G., 2011, “Understanding of Emotions and Reasoning During Consumer Tradeoff Between Function and Aesthetics in Product Design,” Proceedings of the ASME 2011 International Design and Engineering Technical Conference and Computers and Information in Engineering Conference, Washington, DC, DETC2011-48173.
Dagher, A. and Petiot, J.-F., 2007, “Study of the Correlation Between User Preferences and Design Factors: Application to Cars Front-End Design,” ICED’07/526, International Conference on Engineering Design, Paris, France.
Orsborn, S., Cagan, J., and Boatwright, P. C., 2009, “Quantifying Aesthetic Form Preference in a Utility Function,” J. Mech. Des., 131(6), p. 061001. [CrossRef]
Macomber, B., and YangM., 2011, “The Role of Sketch Finish and Style in User Responses to Early Stage Design Concepts,” Proceedings of the ASME 2011 International Design and Engineering Technical Conference and Computers and Information in Engineering Conference, Washington, DC, DETC2011-48714.
Kudrowitz, B. M., and Wallace, D. R., 2010, “Assessing the Quality of Ideas From Prolific, Early-Stage Product Ideation,” Proceedings of the ASME 2010 International Design and Engineering Technical Conference and Computers and Information in Engineering Conference, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, DETC2010-28991.
Lai, H. H., Chang, Y. M., and Chang, H. C., 2005, “A Robust Design Approach for Enhancing the Feeling Quality of a Product: A Car Profile Case Study,” Int. J. Ind. Ergon., 35(5), pp. 445–460. [CrossRef]
Reid, T. N., Gonzalez, R. D., and Papalambros, P. Y., 2010, “Quantification of Perceived Environmental Friendliness for Vehicle Silhouette Design,” J. Mech. Des., 132(10), p. 101010. [CrossRef]
Tseng, I., Cagan, J., and Kotovsky, K., 2011, “Form Function Fidelity,” Proceedings of the ASME 2011 International Design and Engineering Technical Conference and Computers and Information in Engineering Conference, Washington, DC, DETC2011-48325.
Sahin, A., Boe, M., Terpenny, J., and Bohn, J. H., 2007, “A Study to Understand Perceptual Discrepancies Using Visual Illusions and Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA),” J. Mech. Des., 129(7), pp. 744–752. [CrossRef]
Artacho-Ramirez, M. A., Diego-Mas, J. A., and Alcaide-Marzal, J., 2008, “Influence of the Mode of Graphical Representation on the Perception of Product Aesthetic and Emotional Features: An Exploratory Study,” Int. J. Ind. Ergon., 38, pp. 942–952. [CrossRef]
Soderman, M., 2005, “Virtual Reality in Product Evaluations With Potential Customers: An Exploratory Study Comparing Virtual Reality With Conventional Product Representations,” J. Eng. Des., 16, pp. 311–328. [CrossRef]
Slovic, P., 1995, “The Construction of Preference,” Am. Psychol., 50(5), pp. 364–371. [CrossRef]
Tversky, A., and Kahneman, D., 1974, “Judgment Under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases,” Science, 185, pp. 1124–1131. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Tversky, A., and Kahneman, D., 1981, “Judgments of and by Representativeness,” Judgment Under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases, D.Kahneman, P.Slovic, and A.Tversky, eds., Cambridge University, Cambridge, England.
Nisbett, R. E., and Wilson, T. D., 1977, “Telling More Than we Can Know—Verbal Reports on Mental Processes,” Psychol. Rev., 84(3), pp. 231–259. [CrossRef]
Goldberg, J. H., and Kotval, X. P., 1999, “Computer Interface Evaluation Using Eye Movements: Methods and Constructs,” Int. J. Ind. Ergon., 24(6), pp. 631–645. [CrossRef]
Duchowski, A. T., 2007, Eye Tracking Methodology: Theory and Practice, Springer, London, England.
Just, M. A., and Carpenter, P. A., 1984, “Using Eye Fixations to Study Reading Comprehension,” New Methods in Reading Comprehension Research, D. E.Kieras and M. A.Just, eds., Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, pp. 151–182.
Just, M. A., and Carpenter, P. A., 1976, “Eye Fixations and Cognitive Processes,” Cognit. Psychol., 8(4), pp. 441–480. [CrossRef]
Fox, J., Merwin, D., Marsh, R., McConkie, G., and Kramer, A., 1996, “Information Extraction during Instrument Flight: An Evaluation of the Validity of the Eye-Mind Hypothesis,” Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, Urbana, IL, pp. 77–81.
Nielsen, J., and Pernice, K., 2010, Eyetracking Web Usability, New Riders, Berkeley, CA.
Bojko, A., 2006, “Using Eye Tracking to Compare Web Page Designs: A Case Study,” J. Usability Stud., 1(3), pp. 112–120.
Jacob, R. J. K., and Karn, K. S., 2003, “Eye Tracking in Human-Computer Interaction and Usability Research: Ready to Deliver the Promises,” The Mind's Eye: Cognitive and Applied Aspects of Eye Movement Research, J.Hyona, R.Radach, and I.Duebel, eds., Elsevier Science BV, Oxford, England, pp. 573–605.
Lohse, G. L., 1997, “Consumer Eye Movement Patterns on Yellow Pages Advertising,” J. Advertising, 26(1), pp. 61–73. [CrossRef]
Pieters, R., and Wedel, M., 2004, “Attention Capture and Transfer in Advertising: Brand, Pictorial, and Text-Size Effects,” J. Marketing, 68(2), pp. 36–50. [CrossRef]
Wedel, M., and Pieters, R., 2007, “A Review of Eyetracking Research in Marketing,” Review of Marketing Research, N.Malhotra, ed., M. E. Sharpe Inc., New York, pp. 123–147.
Just, M. A., and Carpenter, P. A., 1976, “The Role of Eye-Fixation Research in Cognitive Psychology,” Behav. Res. Methods Instrum., 8(2), pp. 139–143. [CrossRef]
Chua, H. F., Boland, J. E., and Nisbett, R. E., 2005, “Cultural Variation in Eye Movements During Scene Perception,” Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A., 102, pp. 12629–12633. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Sutterlin, B., Brunner, T. A., and Opwis, K., 2008, “Eye Tracking the Cancellation and Focus Model for Preference Judgments,” J. Exp. Soc. Psychol., 44(3), pp. 904–911. [CrossRef]
Gofman, A., Moskowitz, H. R., Fyrbjork, J., Moskowitz, D., and Mets, T., 2009, “Extending Rule Developing Experimentation to Perception of Food Packages With Eye Tracking,” Open Food Science Journal, 3, pp. 66–78. [CrossRef]
Lohse, G. L., and Johnson, E. J., 1996, “A Comparison of Two Process Tracing Methods for Choice Tasks,” Org. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process, 68, pp. 28–43. [CrossRef]
Payne, J. W., Bettman, J. R., and Johnson, E. J., 1988, “Adaptive Strategy Selection in Decision Making,” J. Exp. Psychol. Learn. Mem. Cogn., 14(3), pp. 534–552. [CrossRef]
Dhar, R., and Nowlis, S. M., 1999, “The Effect of Time Pressure on Consumer Choice Deferral,” J. Consum. Res., 25, pp. 369–384. [CrossRef]
Dhar, R., Nowlis, S. M., and Sherman, S. J., 1999, “Comparison Effects on Preference Construction,” J. Consum. Res., 26, pp. 293–306. [CrossRef]
Brunner, T. A., and Opwis, K., 2008, “The WReSt Heuristic: The Role of Recall as Well as Feature-Importance in and Beyond the Cancellation and Focus Model,” Soc. Cognit., 26(1), pp. 25–43. [CrossRef]
Glaholt, M. G., and Reingold, E. M., 2011, “Eye Movement Monitoring as a Process Tracing Methodology in Decision Making Research,” J. Neurosci. Psychol. Econom., 4, pp. 125–146. [CrossRef]
Hammer, N., and Lengyel, S., 1991, “Identifying Semantic Markers in Design Products: The Use of Eye-Movement Recordings in Industrial Design,” Oculomotor Control and Cognitive Processes: Normal and Pathological Aspects, R.Schmid, and D.Zambarbieri, eds., Elsevier Science Publishers, North Holland LA–English, pp. 445–455.
Koivunen, K., Kukkonen, S., Lahtinen, S., Rantala, H., and Sharmin, S., 2004, “Towards Deeper Understanding of How People Perceive Design in Products,” CADE2004 Web Proceedings of Computers in Art and Design Education Conference, M. A.Eriksen, L.Malmborg, and J.Nielsen, eds., Sweden.
Pernice, K., and Nielsen, J., 2009, “Eyetracking Methodology: How to Conduct and Evaluate Usability Studies Using Eyetracking,” Nielsen Norman Group Technical Report.
Lichtenstein, S., and Slovic, P., 1971, “Reversals of Preference Between Bids and Choices in Gambling Decisions,” J. Exp. Psychol., 89, pp. 46–55. [CrossRef]
Kagel, J., and Roth, A., eds., 1995, The Handbook of Experimental Economics, Princeton University, Princeton, New Jersey.
Sudman, S., Bradburn, N., and Schwarz, N., 2010, Thinking About Answers: The Application of Cognitive Processes to Survey Methodology, Jossey-Bass Publishers, San Francisco.
Agresti, A., 2002, Categorical Data Analysis (Wiley Series in Probability and Statistics), John Wiley and Sons, Hoboken, NJ.
Chowdhury, T. G., Ratneshwar, S., and Mohanty, P., 2009, “The Time-Harried Shopper: Exploring the Differences Between Maximizers and Satisficers,” Mark. Lett., 20(2), pp. 155–167. [CrossRef]
Nickerson, R. S., 1998, “Confirmation Bias: A Ubiquitous Phenomenon in Many Guises,” Rev. Gen. Psychol., 2(2), pp. 175–220. [CrossRef]
Tversky, A., 1972, “Elimination by Aspects: A Theory of Choice,” Psychol. Rev., 79(4), pp. 281–299. [CrossRef]
Yang, A. X., Hsee, C. K., Liu, Y., and Zhang, L., 2011, “The Supremacy of Singular Subjectivity: Improving Decision Quality by Removing Objective Specifications and Direct Comparisons,” J Consu. Psychol., 21, pp. 393–404. [CrossRef]


Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Sample product pairs shown in each group

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Example objective evaluation questions of coffee carafe for each survey version

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Sample paired question showing scan path data

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Comparison of mean fixation times for preference evaluations, coffee carafe computer sketches. Carafe shown on left in Survey is Displayed left

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Comparison of mean fixation times for preference evaluations, cars simple renderings. Car shown on Left in Survey is Displayed left

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Realistic renderings (left) and computer sketches (right) of coffee carafes, manipulated dimensions noted as “height” and “width”

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

Simple renderings (top) and FSV silhouettes (bottom) of cars used in the study

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Judgment categorization used in experimental design

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

Three levels for headlight vertical position

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

Three levels for curvature of bumper

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 11

Dimensions for overall width (a), distance between cowl and tire center (b), and overall length (c).




Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In