0
Research Papers

Understanding Consumer Tradeoffs Between Form and Function Through Metaconjoint and Cognitive Neuroscience Analyses

[+] Author and Article Information
Brian Sylcott

e-mail: sylcott@alumni.cmu.edu

Jonathan Cagan

e-mail: cagan@cmu.edu
Department of Mechanical Engineering,
Carnegie Mellon University,
Pittsburgh, PA 15213

Golnaz Tabibnia

Department of Social & Decision Sciences,
Carnegie Mellon University,
Pittsburgh, PA 15213
e-mail: tabibnia@uci.edu

Contributed by the Design Theory and Methodology Committee of ASME for publication in the Journal of Mechanical Design. Manuscript received April 5, 2012; final manuscript received June 28, 2013; published online August 7, 2013. Assoc. Editor: Wei Chen.

J. Mech. Des 135(10), 101002 (Aug 07, 2013) (13 pages) Paper No: MD-12-1194; doi: 10.1115/1.4024975 History: Received April 05, 2012; Revised June 28, 2013

This work investigates how consumers make preference judgments when taking into account both product form and function. In prior work, where aesthetic preference is quantified using visual conjoint methods, aesthetic preference and functional preference were handled separately. Here, we introduce a new methodology, metaconjoint analysis, for testing the hypothesis that when consumers make decisions taking into account both a product's form and its function they employ a more complex decision-making strategy than when basing their decisions on form or function alone. We anticipate that this strategy will involve both analytical and emotional processes. When compared with participant ratings of form and function combinations across 28 subjects, the metaconjoint model is shown to have a correlation that was not statistically different from an additive model of form and function. However, unlike the additive model, the metaconjoint model gave additional information about how participants make tradeoffs between form and function. Next, we developed a novel paradigm using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) to determine what parts of the brain are primarily involved with a given tradeoff between form and function. While in the scanner, study participants were asked to make decisions in trials where only form varied, where only function varied, and where both form and function varied. Results from 14 participants suggest that choices based on products that vary in both form and function involve some unique and some common brain networks as compared to choices based on form or function alone; notably, emotion-related regions are activated during these complex decisions where form and function are in conflict. These results are consistent with the inclusion of emotion in decision-making with regards to product choice and demonstrate the feasibility of using fMRI to address questions about the mental processes underlying consumer decisions. Studying preference decisions together with their accompanying neurological activity will give engineers and designers greater insight into the consumer decision-making process.

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

References

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Example vehicle design

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Screenshot of aesthetic preference trial

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Hood length preference example plot

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Screenshot of function preference trial

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Acceleration preference example plot

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Screenshot of combined preference trial

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Umform example plot

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

Umfunc example plot

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

Screenshot of combination rating task

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

Screenshot of Form-Function Control trials

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 11

Screenshot of follow-up question

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 12

Experimental design of fMRI trials

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 13

Additive, metaconjoint, and subject rating trend lines with respect to form

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 14

Additive, metaconjoint, and subject rating trend lines with respect to function

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 15

Neural activity during Form Only versus Control trials

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 16

Neural activity during Function Only versus Control trials

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 17

Neural activity during Form-Function Conflict versus Control trials

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 18

Difference in neural activity between Form-Function Conflict trials and Form Only and Function Only trials

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 19

Regions active in the conjunction of Form-Function Conflict and Form Only

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 20

Regions active in the conjunction of Form-Function Conflict and Function Only

Tables

Errata

Discussions

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