Advertisement

Electronic Commerce Research

, Volume 19, Issue 1, pp 211–229 | Cite as

The icon matters: how design instability affects download intention of mobile apps under prevention and promotion motivations

  • Chien-Huang Lin
  • Ming ChenEmail author
Article
  • 180 Downloads

Abstract

Over the past 5 years, with the popularization of smart phones, the mobile app market has developed rapidly. Understanding the factors that can influence consumers’ download intentions has become crucial to researchers, mobile app developers and publishers. Regulatory focuses, which can be classified into promotion focus and prevention focus, influence consumer behavior. This research discusses how design instability affects consumers’ intention to download mobile apps using descriptions manipulated by different regulatory focuses. The results of two studies demonstrated that consumers with more promotion focus (prevention focus) would have higher download intention for apps with unstable (stable) icons. Other elements, such as the salience of stability, the boundary condition, and consumer involvement, are also discussed in this research. Our findings not only provide app publishers with deep insights into consumers’ decision-making in app selection but also contribute to the literature on app icon visual design and the regulatory focus theory.

Keywords

Design instability App icon Download intention Regulatory focus 

References

  1. 1.
    AppBrain. (2017). Number of Android applications. Retrieved from http://www.appbrain.com/stats/number-of-android-apps. Accessed 20 June 2017.
  2. 2.
    App Annie. (2017). App Annie 2016 retrospective. Retrieved from https://www.appannie.com/en/insights/market-data/retail-apps-drive-downloads-revenue-2016/. Accessed 20 June 2017.
  3. 3.
    Avraham, T., Yeshurun, Y., & Lindenbaum, M. (2008). Predicting visual search performance by quantifying stimuli similarities. Journal of Vision, 8, 9.  https://doi.org/10.1167/8.4.9.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Blank, P., Massey, C., Gardner, H., & Winner, E. (1984). Perceiving what paintings express. Advances in Psychology, 19, 127–143.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0166-4115(08)62349-3.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Braverman, J. (2008). Testimonials versus informational persuasive messages: The moderating effect of delivery mode and personal involvement. Communication Research, 35(5), 666–694.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650208321785.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Burgers, C., Eden, A., de Jong, R., & Buningh, S. (2016). Rousing reviews and instigative images: The impact of online reviews and visual design characteristics on app downloads. Mobile Media & Communication, 4(3), 327–346.  https://doi.org/10.1177/2050157916639348.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Carrasco, M. (2011). Visual attention: The past 25 years. Vision Research, 51(13), 1484–1525.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.visres.2011.04.012.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Celsi, R. L., & Olson, J. C. (1988). The role of involvement in attention and comprehension processes. Journal of Consumer Research, 15(2), 210–224.  https://doi.org/10.1086/209158.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    César Machado, J., Vacas-de-Carvalho, L., Costa, P., & Lencastre, P. (2012). Brand mergers: Examining consumers’ responses to name and logo design. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 21(6), 418–427.  https://doi.org/10.1108/10610421211264900.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Cholewiak, S. A., Fleming, R. W., & Singh, M. (2015). Perception of physical stability and center of mass of 3-D objects. Journal of Vision, 15(2), 13.  https://doi.org/10.1167/15.2.13.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Crowe, E., & Higgins, E. T. (1997). Regulatory focus and strategic inclinations: Promotion and prevention in decision-making. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 69(2), 117–132.  https://doi.org/10.1006/obhd.1996.2675.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Creusen, M. E. H., Veryzer, R. W., & Schoormans, J. P. L. (2010). Product value importance and consumer preference for visual complexity and symmetry. European Journal of Marketing, 44(9/10), 1437–1452.  https://doi.org/10.1108/03090561011062916.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Deng, X., Hui, S. K., & Hutchinson, J. W. (2010). Consumer preferences for color combinations: An empirical analysis of similarity-based color relationships. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 20(4), 476–484.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcps.2010.07.005.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Fajardo, T. M., Zhang, J., & Tsiros, M. (2016). The contingent nature of the symbolic associations of visual design elements: The case of brand logo frames. Journal of Consumer Research, 43(4), 549–566.  https://doi.org/10.1093/jcr/ucw048.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Fenk, A. (1998). Symbols and icons in diagrammatic representation. Pragmatics & Cognition, 6(1), 301–334.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Forsythe, A., Sheehy, N., & Sawey, M. (2003). Measuring icon complexity: An automated analysis. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 35(2), 334–342.  https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03202562.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Gendel-Guterman, H., & Levy, S. (2013). Does consumers’ personal involvement have an influence on store brand buying proneness? Journal of Consumer Marketing, 30(7), 553–562.  https://doi.org/10.1108/JCM-06-2013-0582.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Hagtvedt, H. (2011). The impact of incomplete typeface logos on perceptions of the firm. Journal of Marketing, 75(4), 86–93.  https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.75.4.86.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Henderson, P. W., & Cote, J. A. (1998). Guidelines for selecting or modifying logos. Journal of Marketing, 62(2), 14–30.  https://doi.org/10.2307/1252158.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Higgins, E. T. (1997). Beyond pleasure and pain. American Psychologist, 52(12), 1280–1300.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.52.12.1280.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Hou, K. C., & Ho, C. H. (2013). A preliminary study on aesthetic of apps icon design. In Proceedings of 5th international congress of International Association of Societies of design research. Tokyo, Japan.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Jiang, Y., Gorn, G. J., Galli, M., & Chattopadhyay, A. (2016). Does your company have the right logo? How and why circular- and angular-logo shapes influence brand attribute judgments. Journal of Consumer Research, 42(5), 709–726.  https://doi.org/10.1093/jcr/ucv049.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Krüger, A., Tünnermann, J., & Scharlau, I. (2017). Measuring and modeling salience with the theory of visual attention. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 79(6), 1593–1614.  https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-017-1325-6.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Kruglanski, A. W., Chen, X., Pierro, A., Mannetti, L., Erb, H., & Spiegel, S. (2006). Persuasion according to the unimodel: Implications for cancer communication. Journal of Communication, 56(s1), 105–122.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2006.00285.x.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Larson, C. L., Aronoff, J., & Steuer, E. L. (2012). Simple geometric shapes are implicitly associated with affective value. Motivation and Emotion, 36(3), 404–413.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-011-9249-2.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Lavid Ben Lulu, D., & Kuflik, T. (2016). Wise mobile icons organization: Apps taxonomy classification using functionality mining to ease apps finding. Mobile Information Systems, 2016, 1–22.  https://doi.org/10.1155/2016/3083450.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Miquel, S., Caplliure, E. M., & Aldas-Manzano, J. (2002). The effect of personal involvement on the decision to buy store brands. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 11(1), 6–18.  https://doi.org/10.1108/10610420210419513.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Mogilner, C., Aaker, J., & Pennington, G. (2008). Time will tell: The distant appeal of promotion and imminent appeal of prevention. Journal of Consumer Research, 34(5), 670–681.  https://doi.org/10.1086/521901.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Mourali, M., Böckenholt, U., & Laroche, M. (2007). Compromise and attraction effects under prevention and promotion motivations. Journal of Consumer Research, 34(2), 234–247.  https://doi.org/10.1086/519151.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Orth, U. R., & Malkewitz, K. (2008). Holistic package design and consumer brand impressions. Journal of Marketing, 72(3), 64–81.  https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.72.3.64.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Pavlova, M., Sokolov, A., & Sokolov, A. (2005). Perceived dynamics of static images enables emotional attribution. Perception, 34(9), 1107–1116.  https://doi.org/10.1068/p5400.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Petsas, T., Papadogiannakis, A., Polychronakis, M., Markatos, E. P., & Karagiannis, T. (2013). Rise of the planet of the apps: A systematic study of the mobile app ecosystem. In Proceedings of the 2013 conference on internet measurement (pp. 277–290). New York, NY: ACM.  https://doi.org/10.1145/2504730.2504749.
  33. 33.
    Pittard, N., Ewing, M., & Jevons, C. (2007). Aesthetic theory and logo design: Examining consumer response to proportion across cultures. International Marketing Review, 24(4), 457–473.  https://doi.org/10.1108/02651330710761026.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Rahinel, R., & Nelson, N. M. (2016). When brand logos describe the environment: Design instability and the utility of safety-oriented products. Journal of Consumer Research, 43(3), 478–496.  https://doi.org/10.1093/jcr/ucw039.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Samuel, F., & Kerzel, D. (2011). Is this object balanced or unbalanced? Judgments are on the safe side. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 37(2), 529–538.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018732.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Schütz, A. C., Braun, D. I., & Gegenfurtner, K. R. (2011). Eye movements and perception: A selective review. Journal of Vision, 11(5), 9.  https://doi.org/10.1167/11.5.9.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Shu, W., & Lin, C. S. (2014). Icon design and game app adoption. In Proceedings of 20th Americas conference on information systems. Savannah, Georgia, USA.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Sundar, A., & Noseworthy, T. J. (2016). Too exciting to fail, too sincere to succeed: The effects of brand personality on sensory disconfirmation. Journal of Consumer Research, 43(1), 44–67.  https://doi.org/10.1093/jcr/ucw003.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Treue, S. (2003). Visual attention: The where, what, how and why of saliency. Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 13(4), 428–432.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0959-4388(03)00105-3.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Wan, E., Hong, J., & Sternthal, B. (2008; 2009). The effect of regulatory orientation and decision strategy on brand judgments. Journal of Consumer Research, 35(6), 1026–1038.  https://doi.org/10.1086/593949.
  41. 41.
    Wang, M., & Li, X. (2017). Effects of the aesthetic design of icons on app downloads: Evidence from an android market. Electronic Commerce Research, 17(1), 83–102.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10660-016-9245-4.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Wolfe, J. M., & Horowitz, T. S. (2004). What attributes guide the deployment of visual attention and how do they do it? Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 5(6), 495–501.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn1411.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Wolfe, J. M., Cave, K. R., & Franzel, S. L. (1989). Guided search: An alternative to the feature integration model for visual search. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 15(3), 419–433.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.15.3.419.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Zaichkowsky, J. L. (1985). Measuring the involvement construct. Journal of Consumer Research, 12(3), 341–352.  https://doi.org/10.1086/208520.Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Zhang, Y., Feick, L., & Price, L. J. (2006). The impact of self-construal on aesthetic preference for angular versus rounded shapes. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32(6), 794–805.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167206286626.Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Zhong, N., & Michahelles, F. (2013). Google Play is not a long tail market: An empirical analysis of app adoption on the Google Play app market. In Proceedings of the 28th annual ACM symposium on applied computing (pp. 499–504). New York, NY: ACM.Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Zhou, R., & Pham, M. (2004). Promotion and prevention across mental accounts: When financial products dictate consumers’ investment goals. Journal of Consumer Research, 31(1), 125–135.  https://doi.org/10.1086/383429.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Business AdministrationNational Central UniversityJhongli CityTaiwan

Personalised recommendations