Seeing is believing: investigating the influence of transparency on consumers’ product perceptions and attitude

References

• Ackermann, L., R. Mugge, and J. Schoormans. 2018. “Consumers’ Perspective on Product Care: An Exploratory Study of Motivators, Ability Factors, and Triggers.” Journal of Cleaner Production 183: 380–391.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ashby, M. F., and K. Johnson. 2002. Materials and Design: The Art and Science of Material Selection in Product Design. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann.
   Google Scholar
• Baayen, R. H., D. J. Davidson, and D. M. Bates. 2008. “Mixed-Effects Modeling with Crossed Random Effects for Subjects and Items.” Journal of Memory and Language 59 (4): 390–412.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Becker, L., T. J. van Rompay, H. N. Schifferstein, and M. Galetzka. 2011. “Tough Package, Strong Taste: The Influence of Packaging Design on Taste Impressions and Product Evaluations.” Food Quality and Preference 22 (1): 17–23.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Berkowitz, M. 1987. “Product Shape as a Design Innovation Strategy.” Journal of Product Innovation Management 4: 274–283.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Billeter, D., M. Zhu, and J. J. Inman. 2012. “Transparent Packaging and Consumer Purchase Decisions.” In When It’s What’s Outside that Matters: Recent Findings on Product and Packaging Design, edited by J. Sevilla. Paper presented at Association for consumer Research 2012 Conference; October 4, 2012; Vancouver, Canada, 308–312.
   Google Scholar
• Bloch, P. H., F. F. Brunel, and T. J. Arnold. 2003. “Individual Differences in the Centrality of Visual Product Aesthetics: Concept and Measurement.” Journal of Consumer Research 29 (4): 551–565.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Buhrmester, M., T. Kwang, and S. D. Gosling. 2016. “Amazon’s Mechanical Turk: A New Source of Inexpensive, Yet High-Quality Data?” Perspectives on Psychological Science 6 (1): 3–5.
   Google Scholar
• Burrows, J. 2013. “Visually Communicating ‘Honesty’: A Semiotic Analysis of Dorset Cereals’ Packaging.” Doctoral dissertation. Institute of Communications Studies, University of Leeds.
   Google Scholar
• Cheng, P., R. Mugge, and C. de Bont. 2018. “Transparency in Product Design: Investigating Design Intentions and Consumers’ Interpretations.” Journal of Engineering Design 29 (10): 539–568.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chowdhury, A., S. Karmakar, S. M. Reddy, S. Ghosh, and D. Chakrabarti. 2014. “Usability Is More Valuable Predictor Than Product Personality for Product Choice in Human-Product Physical Interaction.” International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 44 (5): 697–705.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Creusen, M. E. 2010. “The Importance of Product Aspects in Choice: The Influence of Demographic Characteristics.” Journal of Consumer Marketing 27 (1): 26–34.
   Google Scholar
• Creusen, M. E., and J. P. Schoormans. 2005. “The Different Roles of Product Appearance in Consumer Choice.” Journal of Product Innovation Management 22 (1): 63–81.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Creusen, M. E., R. W. Veryzer, and J. P. Schoormans. 2010. “Product Value Importance and Consumer Preference for Visual Complexity and Symmetry.” European Journal of Marketing 44 (9/10): 1437–1452.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Crilly, N., D. Good, D. Matravers, and P. J. Clarkson. 2008. “Design as Communication: Exploring the Validity and Utility of Relating Intention to Interpretation.” Design Studies 29 (5): 425–457.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Crilly, N., J. Moultrie, and P. J. Clarkson. 2004. “Seeing Things: Consumer Response to the Visual Domain in Product Design.” Design Studies 25 (6): 547–577.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Csikszentmihalyi, M., and R. E. Robinson. 1990. The Art of Seeing: An Interpretation of the Aesthetic Encounter. Malibu, CA: J.P. Getty Museum.
   Google Scholar
• Darby, M. R., and E. Karni. 1973. “Free Competition and the Optimal Amount of Fraud.” The Journal of Law and Economics 16 (1): 67–88.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dawar, N., and P. Parker. 1994. “Marketing Universals: Consumers’ Use of Brand Name, Price, Physical Appearance, and Retailer Reputation as Signals of Product Quality.” Journal of Marketing 58 (2): 81–95.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eckler, P., and P. Bolls. 2011. “Spreading the Virus: Emotional Tone of Viral Advertising and Its Effect on Forwarding Intentions and Attitudes.” Journal of Interactive Advertising 11 (2): 1–11.
   Google Scholar
• Fernqvist, F., A. Olsson, and S. Spendrup. 2015. “What’s in It for Me? Food Packaging and Consumer Responses, a Focus Group Study.” British Food Journal 117 (3): 1122–1135.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fitzsimons, G. J. 2008. “Death to Dichotomizing.” Journal of Consumer Research 35 (1): 5–8.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ford, G. T., D. B. Smith, and J. L. Swasy. 1990. “Consumer Skepticism of Advertising Claims: Testing Hypotheses from Economics of Information.” Journal of Consumer Research 16 (4): 433–441.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Garvin, D. A. 1988. Managing Quality. New York: The Free Press.
   Google Scholar
• Gemünden, H. G., S. Salomo, and A. Krieger. 2005. “The Influence of Project Autonomy on Project Success.” International Journal of Project Management 23 (5): 366–373.
   Google Scholar
• Giese, J. L., K. Malkewitz, U. R. Orth, and P. W. Henderson. 2014. “Advancing the Aesthetic Middle Principle: Trade-Offs in Design Attractiveness and Strength.” Journal of Business Research 67 (6): 1154–1161.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Green, S., M. B. Gavin, and L. Aiman-Smith. 1995. “Assessing a Multidimensional Measure of Radical Technological Innovation.” IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management 42 (3): 203–214.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hassenzahl, M. 2004. “The Interplay of Beauty, Goodness, and Usability in Interactive Products.” Human-Computer Interaction 19 (4): 319–349.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hekkert, P., D. Snelders, and P. C. Van Wieringen. 2003. “‘Most Advanced, Yet Acceptable’: Typicality and Novelty as Joint Predictors of Aesthetic Preference in Industrial Design.” British Journal of Psychology 94 (1): 111–124.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Henderson, P. W., and J. A. Cote. 1998. “Guidelines for Selecting or Modifying Logos.” Journal of Marketing 62 (2): 14–30.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Henderson, P. W., J. L. Giese, and J. A. Cote. 2004. “Impression Management Using Typeface Design.” Journal of Marketing 68 (4): 60–72.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hoegg, J., and J. W. Alba. 2011. “Seeing Is Believing (Too Much): The Influence of Product Form on Perceptions of Functional Performance.” Journal of Product Innovation Management 28 (3): 346–359.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Irwin, J. R., and G. McClelland. 2001. “Misleading Heuristics for Moderated Multiple Regression Models.” Journal of Marketing Research 38 (1): 100–109.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Judd, C. M., J. Westfall, and D. A. Kenny. 2012. “Treating Stimuli as a Random Factor in Social Psychology: A New and Comprehensive Solution to a Pervasive but Largely Ignored Problem.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 103 (1): 54–69.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Karana, E., P. Hekkert, and P. Kandachar. 2009. “Meanings of Materials Through Sensorial Properties and Manufacturing Processes.” Materials & Design 30 (7): 2778–2784.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Karjalainen, T. M. 2007. “It Looks Like a Toyota: Educational Approaches to Designing for Visual Brand Recognition.” International Journal of Design 1 (1): 67–81.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Karkun, P., A. Chowdhury, and D. Dhar. 2018. “Effect of Baby-Like Product Personality on Visually Perceived Pleasure: A Study on Coffeemakers.” In Ergonomics in Caring for People, edited by G. G. Ray, R. Iqbal, A. K. Ganguli, and V. Khanzode, 273–279. Singapore: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Lockton, D., D. Harrison, and N. A. Stanton. 2010. Design with Intent: 101 Patterns for Influencing Behaviour Through Design. Windsor: Equifine.
   Google Scholar
• Mack, Z., and S. Sharples. 2009. “The Importance of Usability in Product Choice: A Mobile Phone Case Study.” Ergonomics 52 (12): 1514–1528.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McMeekin, A., and M. Tomlinson. 1998. “Diffusion with Distinction: The Diffusion of Household Durables in the U.K.” Futures 30 (9): 873–886.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Meyers-Levy, J., and A. M. Tybout. 1989. “Schema Congruity as a Basis for Product Evaluation.” Journal of Consumer Research 16 (1): 39–54.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mugge, R. 2011. “The Effect of a Business-Like Personality on the Perceived Performance Quality of Products.” International Journal of Design 5 (3): 67–76.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mugge, R., and D. W. Dahl. 2013. “Seeking the Ideal Level of Design Newness: Consumer Response to Radical and Incremental Product Design.” Journal of Product Innovation Management 30: 34–47.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mugge, R., D. W. Dahl, and J. P. Schoormans. 2018. ““What You See, Is What You Get?” Guidelines for Influencing Consumers’ Perceptions of Consumer Durables Through Product Appearance.” Journal of Product Innovation Management 35 (3): 309–329.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mugge, R., and J. P. Schoormans. 2012a. “Newer Is Better! The Influence of a Novel Appearance on the Perceived Performance Quality of Products.” Journal of Engineering Design 23 (6): 469–484.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mugge, R., and J. P. Schoormans. 2012b. “Product Design and Apparent Usability. The Influence of Novelty in Product Appearance.” Applied Ergonomics 43 (6): 1081–1088.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mukherjee, A., and W. D. Hoyer. 2001. “The Effect of Novel Attributes on Product Evaluation.” Journal of Consumer Research 28 (3): 462–472.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nelson, P. 1970. “Information and Consumer Behavior.” Journal of Political Economy 78 (2): 311–329.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nowlis, S. M., and I. Simonson. 1996. “The Effect of New Product Features on Brand Choice.” Journal of Marketing Research 33 (1): 36–46.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Orth, U. R., and K. Malkewitz. 2008. “Holistic Package Design and Consumer Brand Impressions.” Journal of Marketing 72 (3): 64–81.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Page, C., and P. M. Herr. 2002. “An Investigation of the Processes by Which Product Design and Brand Strength Interact to Determine Initial Affect and Quality Judgments.” Journal of Consumer Psychology 12 (2): 133–147.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Person, O., J. Schoormans, D. Snelders, and T.-M. Karjalainen. 2008. “Should New Products Look Similar or Different? The Influence of the Market Environment on Strategic Product Styling.” Design Studies 29 (1): 30–48.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Person, O., and D. Snelders. 2010. “Brand Styles in Commercial Design.” Design Issues 26 (1): 82–94.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Post, R. A. G., J. Blijlevens, and P. Hekkert. 2016. “‘To Preserve Unity While Almost Allowing for Chaos’: Testing the Aesthetic Principle of Unity-in-Variety in Product Design.” Acta Psychologica 163: 142–152.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schoormans, J. P., and H. S. Robben. 1997. “The Effect of New Package Design on Product Attention, Categorization and Evaluation.” Journal of Economic Psychology 18 (2-3): 271–287.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Seva, R. R., K. G. T. Gosiaco, M. C. E. D. Santos, and D. M. L. Pangilinan. 2011. “Product Design Enhancement Using Apparent Usability and Affective Quality.” Applied Ergonomics 42 (3): 511–517.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Simmonds, G., and C. Spence. 2017. “Thinking Inside the Box: How Seeing Products on, or Through, the Packaging Influences Consumer Perceptions and Purchase Behaviour.” Food Quality and Preference 62: 340–351.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Simmonds, G., A. T. Woods, and C. Spence. 2018. “‘Show Me the Goods’: Assessing the Effectiveness of Transparent Packaging vs. Product Imagery on Product Evaluation.” Food Quality and Preference 63: 18–27.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Simmonds, G., A. T. Woods, and C. Spence. 2019. “‘Shaping Perceptions’: Exploring How the Shape of Transparent Windows in Packaging Designs Affects Product Evaluation.” Food Quality and Preference 75: 15–22.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Snelders, D., R. Mugge, and M. Huinink. 2014. “Using Social Distinctions in Taste for Analyzing Design Styles Across Product Categories.” International Journal of Design 8 (3): 23–34.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sonderegger, A., and J. Sauer. 2011. “The Influence of Design Aesthetics in Usability Testing: Effects on User Performance and Perceived Usability.” Applied Ergonomics 41 (3): 403–410.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Spangenberg, E. R., B. Grohmann, and D. E. Sprott. 2005. “It’s Beginning to Smell (and Sound) a Lot Like Christmas: The Interactive Effects of Ambient Scent and Music in a Retail Setting.” Journal of Business Research 58 (11): 1583–1589.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thompson, D. V., and R. W. Hamilton. 2006. “The Effects of Information Processing Mode on Consumers’ Responses to Comparative Advertising.” Journal of Consumer Research 32 (4): 530–540.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Truong, Y., R. R. Klink, L. Fort-Rioche, and G. A. Athaide. 2014. “Consumer Response to Product Form in Technology-Based Industries.” Journal of Product Innovation Management 31 (4): 867–876.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Veryzer, R. W., and J. W. Hutchinson. 1998. “The Influence of Unity and Prototypicality on Aesthetic Responses to New Product Designs.” Journal of Consumer Research 24 (4): 374–385.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar