Differences in Consumers’ Evaluation of Product Design Values by Thinking Style

  • Jaehye Suk
  • Kee Ok Kim
Conference paper
Part of the Communications in Computer and Information Science book series (CCIS, volume 850)


This study examined the effects of consumers’ purchase thinking style on their evaluation of product design values in relation to two product types, refrigerators and dining tables. Data were collected from 300 Korean consumers aged in their 30s to 50s from December 7th to December 15th in 2017. SPSS 22.0 was used to conduct repeated measures ANOVA and regression analyses on the data. Consumer thinking styles were classified into rational and experiential, and product design values were classified into rational, kinesthetic, and emotional through exploratory factor analysis. The results were as follows. First, consumers’ concern for rational design value was slightly higher for refrigerators than for dining tables, while emotional design value was evaluated in the opposite direction. Second, adjusted R2s indicated that socioeconomic background and product design value explained consumers’ experiential thinking styles better than rational thinking styles. We found that consumers’ evaluations of product design values differed by their thinking style and product type. Understanding consumers’ thinking styles could enhance product designers’ knowledge on consumer purchasing preferences.


Dual-process theory Rational thinking style Experiential thinking style Situation Specific Thinking Style 


  1. 1.
    Novak, T.P., Hoffman, D.L.: The fit of thinking style and situation: new measures of situation-specific experiential and rational cognition. J. Consum. Res. 36(1), 56–72 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Epstein, S., Pacini, R.: Some Basic Issues Regarding Dual-Process Theories from the Perspective of Cognitive-Experiential Self-theory. Dual-Process Theories in Social Psychology. Guilford Press, New York City (1999)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ravasi, D., Stigliani, I.: Product design: a review and research agenda for management studies. Int. J. Manag. Rev. 14(4), 464–488 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Homburg, C., Schwemmle, M., Kuehnl, D.: New product design: concept, measurement, and consequences. J. Mark. 79(3), 41–56 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Sungkyunkwan UniversitySeoulSouth Korea

Personalised recommendations