Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science

, Volume 40, Issue 1, pp 167–180 | Cite as

The role of aesthetic taste in consumer behavior

  • Wayne D. Hoyer
  • Nicola E. Stokburger-SauerEmail author


In light of the increasing interest in hedonic aspects of consumer behavior, it is clear that consumer taste plays a critical role in judgment and decision making, particularly for hedonic products and services. At the present time, however, our understanding of consumer aesthetic taste and its specific role for consumer behavior is limited. In this article, we review the literature from a variety of fields such as sociology, psychology, philosophy, and consumer behavior in order to develop a conceptual definition of consumer aesthetic taste. We then explore various issues related to taste and develop a conceptual framework for the relevance of expertise vs. taste in consumer decision-making. Finally, we present an agenda for future research on this important topic.


Aesthetic taste Hedonic consumption Consumer expertise 


  1. Ahuvia, A. C. (2005). Beyond the extended self: loved objects and consumers’ identity narratives. Journal of Consumer Research, 32, 171–184.Google Scholar
  2. Alba, J. W., & Hutchinson, W. J. (1987). Dimensions of consumer expertise. Journal of Consumer Research, 13, 411–454.Google Scholar
  3. Allen, M. W., Gupta, R., & Monnier, A. (2008). The interactive effect of cultural symbols and human values on taste evaluation. Journal of Consumer Research, 35, 294–308.Google Scholar
  4. Ammann, J.-C. (2007). Bei näherer Betrachtung: Zeitgenössische Kunst verstehen und deuten. Frankfurt am Main: Westend-Verlag.Google Scholar
  5. Augustin, D. M., & Leder, H. (2006). Art expertise: a study of concepts and conceptual spaces. Psychology Science, 48, 135–156.Google Scholar
  6. Babin, B. J., Darden, W. R., & Griffin, M. (1994). Work and/or fun: measuring hedonic and utilitarian shopping value. Journal of Consumer Research, 20, 644–656.Google Scholar
  7. Bamossy, G., Scammon, D. L., & Johnston, M. (1983). A preliminary investigation of the reliability and validity of an aesthetic judgment test. Advances in Consumer Research, 10, 685–690.Google Scholar
  8. Bamossy, G., Johnston, M., & Parsons, M. (1985). The assessment of aesthetic judgment ability. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 3, 63–79.Google Scholar
  9. Batra, R., & Ahtola, O. T. (1991). Measuring the hedonic and utilitarian sources of consumer attitudes. Marketing Letters, 2(2), 159–170.Google Scholar
  10. Beattie, A. E. (1983). Product expertise and advertising persuasiveness. Advances in Consumer Research, 10, 581–584.Google Scholar
  11. Becker, H. (1976). Is there a cosmopolitan information seeker. Journal of International Business Studies, 7(1), 77–89.Google Scholar
  12. Berlyne, D. E. (1971). Aesthetics and psychobiology. New York: Meredith Corporation.Google Scholar
  13. Berlyne, D. E. (1974a). Studies in the new experimental aesthetics: Steps toward and objective psychology of aesthetic appreciation. Washington: Hemisphere.Google Scholar
  14. Berlyne, D. E. (1974b). Verbal and exploratory responses to visual patterns varying in uncertainty and in redundancy. In D. E. Berlyne (Ed.), Studies in the new experimental aesthetics: Steps toward an objective psychology of aesthetic appreciation (pp. 121–158). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  15. Bettman, J. R., & Sujan, M. (1987). Effects of framing on evaluation of comparable and noncomparable alternatives by expert and novice consumers. Journal of Consumer Research, 7, 234–248.Google Scholar
  16. Bloch, P. H. (1995). Seeking the ideal form: product design and consumer response. Journal of Marketing, 59, 16–29.Google Scholar
  17. Bloch, P. H. (2011). Product design and marketing: reflections after fifteen years. The Journal of Product Innovation Management, 28, 378–380.Google Scholar
  18. Bloch, P. H., Brunel, F. F., & Arnold, T. J. (2003). Individual differences in the centrality of visual product aesthetics: concept and measurement. Journal of Consumer Research, 29, 551–565.Google Scholar
  19. Bosmans, A. (2006). Scents and sensibility: when do (in)congruent ambient scents influence product evaluations? Journal of Marketing, 70, 32–43.Google Scholar
  20. Bourdieu, P. (1984). Distinction: A social critique of the judgment of taste. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Charters, S. (2006). Aesthetic products and aesthetic consumption: a review. Consumption, Markets and Culture, 9, 235–255.Google Scholar
  22. Charters, S., & Pettigrew, S. F. (2003). I like it but how do I know if it’s any good? Quality and preference in wine consumption. Journal of Research for Consumers, 5, 1–22.Google Scholar
  23. Chi, M. T. H., Glaser, R., & Rees, E. (1982). Expertise in problem solving. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Advances in the psychology of human intelligence (pp. 7–76). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  24. Child, I. L. (1964). Observations on the meaning of some measures of esthetic sensitivity. Journal of Psychology, 57, 49–64.Google Scholar
  25. Cohen, T. (1998). Artistic taste. In E. Craig (Ed.), Routledge encyclopedia of philosophy (pp. 509–513). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  26. Creusen, M. E. H., & Schoormans, J. P. L. (2005). The different roles of product appearance in consumer choice. The Journal of Product Innovation Management, 2, 63–81.Google Scholar
  27. Csikszentmihalyi, M., & Robinson, R. E. (1990). The art of seeing. Malibu: The Getty Center for Education in the Arts.Google Scholar
  28. Dhar, R., & Wertenbroch, K. (2000). Consumer choice between hedonic and utilitarian goods. Journal of Marketing Research, 37(1), 60–71.Google Scholar
  29. DiMaggio, P. (1987). Classification in art. American Sociological Review, 52, 440–455.Google Scholar
  30. Eaton, M. (1998). Aesthetic concepts. In E. Craig (Ed.), Routledge encyclopedia of philosophy (pp. 55–59). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  31. Eertmans, A., Baeyens, F., & Van den Berg, O. (2001). Food likes and their relative importance in human eating behavior: review and preliminary suggestions for health promotion. Health Education Research: Theory and Practice, 16(4), 443–456.Google Scholar
  32. Ferry, L. (1993). Homo aestheticus. The invention of taste in the democratic age. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  33. Fiske, S. T., & Kinder, D. R. (1980). Involvement, expertise, and schema use: Evidence from political cognition. In N. Canter & J. Kihstrom (Eds.), Personality, cognition, and social interaction (pp. 171–190). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  34. Frith, C. D., & Nias, D. K. B. (1974). What determines aesthetic preferences? The Journal of General Psychology, 91, 163–173.Google Scholar
  35. Germov, J., & Williams, L. (1999). A sociology of food and nutrition. The social appetite. Melbourne: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  36. Goetz, K. O., Borisy, A. R., Lynn, R., & Eysenck, H. J. (1979). A new visual aesthetic sensitivity test: I construction and psychometric properties. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 49, 795–802.Google Scholar
  37. Grether, D., & Wilde, L. (1984). An analysis of conjunctive choice: theory and experiments. Journal of Consumer Research, 10, 373–385.Google Scholar
  38. Grewal, R., Mehta, R., & Kardes, F. R. (2004). The timing of repeat purchases of consumer durable goods: the role of functional bases of consumer attitudes. Journal of Marketing Research, 41, 101–115.Google Scholar
  39. Gronow, J. (1997). The sociology of taste. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  40. Hansen, F., Kenning, P., & Plassmann, H. (2010). Contributions to decision neuroscience. Journal of Economic Psychology, 31(5), 764–766.Google Scholar
  41. Hirschman, E. C., & Holbrook, M. B. (1982). Hedonic consumption: emerging concepts, methods and propositions. Journal of Marketing, 46, 92–101. Summer.Google Scholar
  42. Hoegg, J., & Alba, J. W. (2007). Taste perception: more than meets the tongue. Journal of Consumer Research, 33, 490–498.Google Scholar
  43. Holbrook, M. B. (1980). Some preliminary notes on research in consumer esthetics. Advances in Consumer Research, 7, 104–108.Google Scholar
  44. Holbrook, M. B. (1981). Integrating compositional and decompositional analyses to represent the intervening role of perceptions in evaluative judgments. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 13–28.Google Scholar
  45. Holbrook, M. B. (1982). Mapping the retail market for esthetic products: the case of jazz records. Journal of Retailing, 58, 114–129. Spring.Google Scholar
  46. Holbrook, M. B. (1983). Product imagery and the illusion of reality: some insights from consumer esthetics. Advances in Consumer Research, 10(1), 65–71.Google Scholar
  47. Holbrook, M. B. (1986). Aims, concepts, and methods for the representation of individual differences in esthetic responses to design features. Journal of Consumer Research, 13, 337–347.Google Scholar
  48. Holbrook, M. B. (1999). Popular appeal versus expert judgments of motion pictures. The Journal of Consumer Research, 26, 144–155.Google Scholar
  49. Holbrook, M. B. (2005). The role of ordinary evaluations in the market for popular culture: do consumers have “good taste”? Marketing Letters, 16, 75–86.Google Scholar
  50. Holt, D. B. (1997). Distinction in America? Recovering Bourdieu’s theory of tastes from its critics. Poetics, 25, 93–120.Google Scholar
  51. Holt, D. B. (1998). Does cultural capital structure American consumption? Journal of Consumer Research, 25, 1–25.Google Scholar
  52. Homburg, C., Koschate, N., & Hoyer, W. D. (2006). The role of cognition and affect in the formation of customer satisfaction - a dynamic perspective. Journal of Marketing, 70, 21–31.Google Scholar
  53. Homer, P. M. (2006). Relationships among ad-induced affect, beliefs, and attitudes: another look. Journal of Advertising, 35, 35–51. Spring.Google Scholar
  54. Hume, D. (1757, 1985). Of the standard of taste. In: E. F. Miller (Ed.), Essays moral political and literary (pp. 226–250). Indianapolis: Liberty Fund.Google Scholar
  55. Hutcheson, F. (1725, 2004). An inquiry into the original of our ideas of beauty and virtue. In W. Leidhold (Ed.), The collected works and correspondence of Francis Hutcheson (pp. 83–197). Indianapolis: Liberty Fund.Google Scholar
  56. Kant, I. (1790, 1987). In W. S. Pluhar (Ed.), The critique of judgment. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  57. Kates, S. M. (2001). Camp as cultural capital: Further elaboration of a consumption taste. In M. C. Gilly & J. Meyers-Levy (Eds.), Advances in consumer research, 28 (pp. 334–339). Voldosta, GA: Association for Consumer Research.Google Scholar
  58. Kleiser, S. B., & Mantel, S. P. (1994). The dimensions of consumer expertise: a scale development. AMA Summer Marketing Educators’ Conference Proceeding, 5, 20–26.Google Scholar
  59. Krishna, A., Elder, R. S., & Caldara, C. (2010). Feminine to smell but masculine to touch? Multisensory congruence and its effect on the aesthetic experience. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 20(4), 410–418.Google Scholar
  60. Laverie, D. A., Kleine, R. E., III, & Schultz Kleine, S. (2002). Reexamination and extension of Kleine, Kleine, and Kernan’s Social Identity Model of mundane consumption: the mediating role of the appraisal process. Journal of Consumer Research, 28, 659–669.Google Scholar
  61. Leder, H., Belke, B., Oeberst, A., & Augustin, D. (2004). A model of aesthetic appreciation and aesthetic judgments. British Journal of Psychology, 95, 489–508.Google Scholar
  62. Leidhold, W. (2004). Francis Hutcheson, an inquiry into the original of our ideas of beauty and virtue in two treatises. Indianapolis: Liberty Fund.Google Scholar
  63. Lerner, J. S., Han, S., & Keltner, D. (2007). Feelings and consumer decision making: extending the appraisal—tendency framework. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 17(3), 184–187.Google Scholar
  64. Luchs, M., & Swan, K. S. (2011). Perspective: the emergence of product design as a field of marketing inquiry. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 28, 327–345.Google Scholar
  65. Maheswaran, D., & Sternthal, B. (1990). The type of knowledge, motivation, and type of message on ad processing and product judgments. Journal of Consumer Research, 17, 66–73.Google Scholar
  66. Miller, E. F. (1985). David Hume: essays, moral, political, and literary. Indianapolis: Liberty Fund.Google Scholar
  67. Nodine, C., Locher, P., & Krupinski, E. (1993). The role of formal art training on the perception and aesthetic judgment of art compositions. Leonardo, 26, 219–227.Google Scholar
  68. Okada, E. M. (2005). Justification effects on consumer choice of hedonic and utilitarian goods. Journal of Marketing Research, 42, 43–53.Google Scholar
  69. Page, C., & Herr, P. M. (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.Google Scholar
  70. Patrick, V. M., & Peracchio, L. A. (2010). Curating the JCP special issue on aesthetics in consumer psychology: an introduction to the aesthetics issue. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 20, 393–397.Google Scholar
  71. Peck, J., & Childers, T. L. (2003). Individual differences in haptic information processing: on the development, validation, and use of the ‘need for touch’ scale. Journal of Consumer Research, 30, 430–442.Google Scholar
  72. Peterson, R., & DiMaggio, P. (1975). From region to class, the changing locus of country music: a test of the massification hypothesis. Social Forces, 53, 497–506.Google Scholar
  73. Pluhar, W. S. (1987). Translation of Kant, I. (1790). Critique of judgment. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  74. Ratchford, B. (1987). New insights about the FCB grid. Journal of Advertising Research, 12, 251–264.Google Scholar
  75. Ratchford, B. T., & Vaughn, R. (1989). On the relationship between motives and purchase decisions: some empirical approaches. Advances in Consumer Research, 16, 293–299.Google Scholar
  76. Richins, M. L. (1994). Valuing things: the public and private meaning of possessions. Journal of Consumer Research, 21, 504–521.Google Scholar
  77. Rindfleisch, A., Burroughs, J. E., & Wong, N. (2009). The safety of objects: materialism, existential insecurity, and brand connection. Journal of Consumer Research, 36, 1–16.Google Scholar
  78. Rossiter, J. R., Percy, L., & Donovan, R. J. (1991). A better advertising planning grid. Journal of Advertising Research, 31, 11–21.Google Scholar
  79. Rozin, P. (1999). Preadaption and the puzzles and properties of pleasure. In D. Kahneman, E. Diener, & N. Schwarz (Eds.), Well-being: The foundations of hedonic psychology (pp. 109–133). New York: Russell Sage.Google Scholar
  80. Schindler, R. M., Holbrook, M. B., & Greenleaf, E. A. (1989). Using connoisseurs to predict mass tastes. Marketing Letters, 1, 47–54.Google Scholar
  81. Schmitt, B., & Simonson, A. (1997). Marketing aesthetics. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  82. Selnes, F., & Troye, S. V. (1989). Buying expertise, information search, and problem solving. Journal of Economic Psychology, 10, 411–428.Google Scholar
  83. Sheppard, B. H., Hartwick, J., & Warshaw, P. R. (1988). The theory of reasoned action: a meta-analysis of past research with recommendations for modifications and future research. Journal of Consumer Research, 15, 325–342.Google Scholar
  84. Sibley, F. (1959). Aesthetic concepts. Philosophical Review, 68, 421–450.Google Scholar
  85. Silverstein, M. J., & Fiske, N. (2003). Luxury for the masses. Harvard Business Review, (April), 48–57.Google Scholar
  86. Sirgy, M. J. (1982). Self-concept in consumer behaviour: a critical review. Journal of Consumer Research, 9, 287–300.Google Scholar
  87. Solomon, M. R. (1983). The role of products as social stimuli: a symbolic interactionism perspective. Journal of Consumer Research, 10, 319–329.Google Scholar
  88. Solomon, M. R., Pruitt, D. J., & Insko, C. A. (1984). Taste versus fashion: the inferred objectivity of aesthetic judgments. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 2(2), 113–125.Google Scholar
  89. Steenkamp, J.-B. E. M., & Geyskens, I. (2006). How country characteristics affect the perceived value of web sites. Journal of Marketing, 70, 136–150.Google Scholar
  90. Stich, C. (2004). Development of scales for aesthetic research. Berlin: Free University of Berlin dissertation publishing.Google Scholar
  91. Sujan, M. (1985). Consumer knowledge: effects on evaluation strategies mediating consumer judgments. Journal of Consumer Research, 12, 31–46.Google Scholar
  92. Swan, K. S., & Luchs, M. (2011). From the special issue editors: product design research and practice: past, present and future. The Journal of Product Innovation Management, 28, 321–326.Google Scholar
  93. Townsend, D. (1997). An introduction to aesthetics. Malden: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  94. Veryzer, R. W., Jr., & Hutchinson, W. J. (1998). The influence of unity and prototypicality on aesthetic responses to new product designs. Journal of Consumer Research, 24, 374–394.Google Scholar
  95. Wilkie, W. L., & Pessemier, E. A. (1973). Issues in maraketing’s use of multiattribute models. Journal of Marketing Research, 10, 428–441.Google Scholar
  96. Winston, A. S., & Cupchik, G. C. (1992). The evaluation of high art and popular art by naive and experienced viewers. Visual Arts Research, 18(1), 1–14.Google Scholar
  97. Yale, L. J., & Gilly, M. C. (1995). Dyadic perceptions in personal source information search. Journal of Business Research, 32, 225–237.Google Scholar
  98. Yates, J. F. (2007). Emotional appraisal tendencies and carryover: how, why, and therefore? Journal of Consumer Psychology, 17(3), 179–183.Google Scholar
  99. Zajonc, R. B. (1968). The attitudinal effects of mere exposure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 9(2), 1–27.Google Scholar
  100. Zeithaml, V. A. (1988). Consumer perceptions of price, quality, and value: a means-end model and synthesis of evidence. Journal of Marketing, 52(3), 2–22.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Academy of Marketing Science 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Marketing, McCombs School of BusinessUniversity of Texas at AustinAustinUSA
  2. 2.Department of Strategic Management, Marketing and Tourism, School of ManagementUniversity of InnsbruckInnsbruckAustria

Personalised recommendations