More to Form Than Meets the Eye? the Impact of Form and Functional Design on Attitude towards New Products

centrality of product design in marketing is well-established (Bloch, 1995; Luchs and Swan, 2011), and several empirical studies have examined how overall product design will affect consumers' perception towards product (Dahl et at., 1999; Page and Herr, 2002; Veryzer and Hutchinson, 1998) and consumers' intention to buy (Vieira, 2010). While design literature suggests that product design comprises of two intertwined dimensions: form and function (Norman, 1998, 2004), most marketing studies have only examined either form or function-based design in isolation (see Chitturi et at., 2007, for an exception). In his famous book, The Design of Everyday Things, Norman (1998) argues that a product's form design may be more critical to product success than its practical elements. Norman's (1998) viewpoint is well-taken. In today's competitive marketplace, where technology gaps between companies have become smaller, and products are similar in features, quality, and price (Veryzer, 1995), form design elements help companies stand out. Good product form design can attract consumers to a product, communicate to them, and add value to product by increasing quality of usage experience associated with using product (Bloch, 1995). For example, a company like Apple Inc. has successfully distinguished its various products with specific emphasis on form design (Crothers, 2009). visceral look of product is first cue that consumers see when they examine physical product. However, consumers also look for products that satisfy important functional needs. Therefore, ignoring either form-based or function-based design is tantamount to missing a critical piece of puzzle. Veryzer (1995) suggests that marketing researchers need to adopt a conceptualization of design that acknowledges both its exterior as well as functional components. Similarly, Page and Herr (2002) propose that two fundamental components of product design, exterior and function, must be studied to understand total impact of design. Finally, Luchs and Swan (2011) call for more empirical research simultaneously incorporating both dimensions of design to study their independent and joint effects. This paper examines both types of design (visceral form and functionality) in order to understand consumers' responses to product design in a holistic manner. Does good functionality compensate for poor form design? Or, does well-designed form compensate for lower functionality? In order to explore independent and joint impacts of form and functional design on consumer preferences, following research questions regarding form and function are examined: (1) For a given level of functionality, does form design matter in influencing consumers' attitude towards new products? and (2) How does form design interact with functional design in influencing consumers' attitude towards new products? CONCEPTUAL BACKGROUND AND HYPOTHESES Product Design: Form vs. Function Luchs and Swan define product design as the set of properties of an artifact consisting of discrete properties of form (i.e., aesthetics of tangible good and/or service) and function (i.e., its capabilities) together with holistic properties of integrated form and function. (20f 1: 338) This definition integrates two dimensions of design--form and function--that extant research has often either studied separately, or not incorporated into an integrated definition of design. A product's form represents a number of elements chosen and blended into a whole by design team to achieve particular sensory effects (Bloch, 1995; Lewalski, 1988). More specifically, form-based design is a physical form of a product and visual stimuli (appearance). Form-based design is detached from any direct practical value and develops instantaneously below level of consciousness (spontaneous) (Lewalski, 1988). …