0
Papers: Choice-based preference modeling and design

Products' Shared Visual Features Do Not Cancel in Consumer Decisions

[+] Author and Article Information
Ping Du

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

Erin F. MacDonald

Assistant Professor
Mechanical Engineering,
Stanford University,
Stanford, CA 94305
e-mail: erinmacd@stanford.edu

Contributed by the Design Automation Committee of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF MECHANICAL DESIGN. Manuscript received September 20, 2014; final manuscript received February 12, 2015; published online May 19, 2015. Assoc. Editor: Carolyn Seepersad.

J. Mech. Des 137(7), 071409 (Jul 01, 2015) (11 pages) Paper No: MD-14-1625; doi: 10.1115/1.4030162 History: Received September 20, 2014; Revised February 12, 2015; Online May 19, 2015

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.

FIGURES IN THIS ARTICLE
<>
Copyright © 2015 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Tversky, A., 1977, “Features of Similarity,” Psychol. Rev., 84(4), pp. 327–352. [CrossRef]
Houston, D. A., and Sherman, S. J., 1995, “Cancellation and Focus: The Role of Shared and Unique Features in the Choice Process,” J. Exp. Soc. Psychol., 31(4), pp. 357–378. [CrossRef]
Houston, D. A., Sherman, S. J., and Baker, S. M., 1989, “The Influence of Unique Features and Direction of Comparison on Preferences,” J. Exp. Soc. Psychol., 25(2), pp. 121–141. [CrossRef]
Houston, D. A., Sherman, S. J., and Baker, S. M., 1991, “Feature Matching, Unique Features, and the Dynamics of the Choice Process: Predecision Conflict and Postdecision Satisfaction,” J. Exp. Soc. Psychol., 27(5), pp. 411–430. [CrossRef]
Sütterlin, 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]
Sanbonmatsu, D. M., Kardes, F. R., and Gibson, B. D., 1991, “The Role of Attribute Knowledge and Overall Evaluations in Comparative Judgment,” Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Processes, 48(1), pp. 131–146. [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]
Brunner, T. A., and Wänke, M., 2006, “The Reduced and Enhanced Impact of Shared Features on Individual Brand Evaluations,” J. Consum. Psychol., 16(2), pp. 101–111. [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 Engineering Technical Conferences and Computers and Information in Engineering Conference, Washington, DC, Aug. 28–31, pp. 165–176.
Dagher, A., and Petiot, J.-F., 2007, “Study of the Correlations Between User Preferences and Design Factors: Application to Cars Front-End Design,” The International Conference on Engineering Design, ICED’07, Cité des Sciences et de l'Industrie, Paris, Aug. 28–31.
Orsborn, S., Cagan, J., and Boatwright, P., 2009, “Quantifying Aesthetic Form Preference in a Utility Function,” ASME J. Mech. Des., 131(6), p. 061001. [CrossRef]
MacDonald, E. F., Gonzalez, R., and Papalambros, P., 2009, “The Construction of Preferences for Crux and Sentinel Product Attributes,” J. Eng. Des., 20(6), pp. 609–626. [CrossRef]
Reisen, N., Hoffrage, U., and Mast, F. W., 2008, “Identifying Decision Strategies in a Consumer Choice Situation,” Judgment and Decis. Making, 3(8), pp. 641–658.
Dhar, R., and Sherman, S. J., 1996, “The Effect of Common and Unique Features in Consumer Choice,” J. Consum. Res., 23(3), pp. 193–203. [CrossRef]
Su, Y., Rao, L. L., Li, X. S., Wang, Y., and Li, S., 2012, “From Quality to Quantity: The Role of Common Features in Consumer Preference,” J. Econ. Psychol., 33(6), pp. 1043–1058. [CrossRef]
Just, M. A., and Carpenter, P. A., 1976, “Eye Fixations and Cognitive Processes,” Cognit. Psychol., 8(4), pp. 441–480. [CrossRef]
Duchowski, A. T., 2007, Eye Tracking Methodology: Theory and Practice, Springer, London. [CrossRef]
Reid, T., MacDonald, E., and Du, P., 2013, “Impact of Product Design Representation on Customer Judgment,” ASME J. Mech. Des., 135(9), p. 091008. [CrossRef]
Du, P., and MacDonald, E., 2014, “Eye-Tracking Data Predict Importance of Product Features and Saliency of Size Change,” ASME J. Mech. Des., 136(8), p. 081005. [CrossRef]
She, J., 2013, “Designing Features That Influence Decisions About Sustainable Products,” Ph.D. thesis, Iowa State University, Ames, IA.
Rayner, K., 1998, “Eye Movements in Reading and Information Processing: 20 Years of Research,” Psychol. Bull., 124(3), pp. 372–422. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Lohse, G. L., and Johnson, E. J., 1996, “A Comparison of Two Process Tracing Methods for Choice Tasks,” Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Processes, 68(1), pp. 28–43. [CrossRef]
Glaholt, M. G., and Reingold, E. M., 2011, “Eye Movement Monitoring as a Process Tracing Methodology in Decision Making Research,” J. Neurosci. Psychol. Econ., 4(2), pp. 125–146. [CrossRef]
Shimojo, S., Simion, C., Shimojo, E., and Scheier, C., 2003, “Gaze Bias Both Reflects and Influences Preference,” Nat. Neurosci., 6(12), pp. 1317–1322. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Russo, J. E., and Rosen, L. D., 1975, “Eye Fixation Analysis of Multialternative Choice,” Mem. Cognit., 3(3), pp. 267–276. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Russo, J. E., and Dosher, B. A., 1983, “Strategies for Multiattribute Binary Choice,” J. Exp. Psychol.: Learn. Mem. Cognit., 9(4), pp. 676–696. [CrossRef]
“Chevrolet,” Accessed Dec. 4, 2014, http://www.chevrolet.com/flash.html
“Global-Tradekey,” Accessed Apr. 21, 2013, http://www.global-tradekey.com/company/G02189/C64201.htm
“iMotions,” Accessed Dec. 4, 2014, http://imotionsglobal.com/
Pernice, K., and Nielsen, J., 2009, “How to Conduct Eyetracking Studies,” Nielsen Norman Group, Fremont, CA.

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

The original testing scenario for the C&F model (a) and an additional scenario tested here (b) that involves product designs shown as images, which had both shared and unique feature designs

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

The C&F model predicted preferences for text described alternatives. We tested if C&F held for product designs shown as images, as opposed to designer intuition, and also combinations of text and images.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Illustration of fixations. A circle represents a fixation; a larger circle indicates a longer fixation time; and more circles indicate a higher fixation count.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Three representation modes of the car stimuli: image-only, text-only, and image-with-text

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Sample stimuli in the ITSBS condition

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Design variants of features explicitly selected to be “good” and “bad” were verified with a t-test of desirability ratings

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Sample AOIs generated for the product attributes/features

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