Mip 12 2015 0230

Marketing Intelligence & Planning
The importance of aesthetics on customers’ intentions to purchase smartphones

Samrand Toufani John Philip Stanton Tendai Chikweche
Article information:
To cite this document:
Samrand Toufani John Philip Stanton Tendai Chikweche , (2017)," The importance of aesthetics on customers’ intentions to
purchase smartphones ", Marketing Intelligence & Planning, Vol. 35 Iss 3 pp. -
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/MIP-12-2015-0230
Downloaded on: 19 March 2017, At: 12:27 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 0 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 18 times since 2017*
Downloaded by State University of New York at Binghamton At 12:27 19 March 2017 (PT)
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:

(2017),"The influence of cultural values on green purchase behaviour", Marketing Intelligence & Planning, Vol. 35 Iss 3
pp. -
(2017),"Experiential value: a review and future research directions", Marketing Intelligence & Planning, Vol. 35 Iss 3 pp.
-
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:203677 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service
information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please
visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of
more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online
products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication
Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

The importance of aesthetics on customers’ intentions to purchase
smartphones
1. Purpose- This study examines how potential purchasers of a personal information,

communication and entertainment device such as a smartphone, perceive the
aesthetics of such a product. It then examines whether appreciation of the product’s
aesthetics influences their purchase intention through different dimensions of
perceived value drawn from perceptions of the product’s aesthetics, or whether there
is a direct relationship from aesthetics to purchase intention.
2. Methodology- Mixed methods consisting of two focus groups, a pilot and large online
surveys were used for instrument confirmation and data collection. Data were
analysed and hypotheses tested using partial least squares structural equation
modelling techniques.
3. Findings- Aesthetics’ primary effect on purchase intention is not direct, but rather
indirect through perceived social and to a lesser extent, perceived emotional value
while the importance of aesthetics on perceived functional value is far less. There was
also support for a formative approach in the construction of an aesthetics scale with
the identification of four different latent factors of aesthetics.
4. Research limitations: This study is product specific but should be extendable to the
product category. The possibility of other variables affecting the aesthetic
appreciation of a product also needs consideration.
5. Practical -The study provides managers with insights on how aesthetics can be used to
strengthen purchase intention in terms of both product development and promotional
strategies. Aesthetics’ appeal to social and emotional perceived values, rather than
functional value, provides guidance on how to use aesthetics in promotional
campaigns.
6. Value- Despite the richness of the aesthetics literature only a limited number of
studies have researched the factors influencing aesthetic appreciation of personal
digital products and how this appreciation can influence purchase intention. This
1
research expands knowledge in the area thereby providing new insights on the
influence of aesthetics on marketing.
7. Type of paper-Research
8. Keywords: Aesthetics, Consumer behaviour, Perceived Value, Purchase Intention,
Partial Least Square

2
Introduction
Aesthetic principles often are used in the design of personal information
communication, entertainment, technology products (Swilley, 2012; Charters, 2006);

however, the aesthetic elements of such products and, whether and how appreciation of the
aesthetics of that product may lead to purchase intention by personal (as opposed to business)
purchasers, are unclear. While there are studies that have researched the factors influencing
aesthetic appreciation of a product (Hoyer and Stokburger-Sauer, 2012) there are fewer
studies on how aesthetics can influence purchase decisions (Turel et al., 2010).
This study examines how potential purchasers’ perceptions of the aesthetics of a
smartphone influence their purchase intentions. Described as an interactive, hedonic
technology (Lin and Bhattacherjee, 2010), smartphones have been described as “a cultural
artifact and an extension of their users’ social status” (Shin, 2012, p.566). As such, it is
arguable that perceived enjoyment and social usage are becoming more important than
perceived usefulness in influencing purchase intention (Lin and Bhattacherjee, 2010).
Consistent with the argument that aesthetic factors stimulate behavioural reactions
(Wang et al., 2013), and using a smartphone as an example of a fairly standardized,
technology product which has both utilitarian and hedonistic attractions, this paper addresses
three related issues: (a) For this type of product, what are the most suitable dimensions that
should be considered within an aesthetics scale? (b) Does aesthetics influence purchase
intention directly? (c) Or, does it influence purchase intention indirectly through various
dimensions of perceived value drawn from the aesthetics.
3
Addressing these questions can contribute to a better understanding of the dimensions
of aesthetics that are perceived important for this type of product in terms of evoking
purchase intention. By examining possible links between aesthetics and purchase intention,
especially in terms of the kinds of perceived values that may be evoked and their relative
importance, the interplay of hedonic attraction versus usefulness can be better assessed,
leading to improved product and promotional strategies better tailored to these perceived
values.
These issues are investigated using a sample of Australian smartphone owners. An
Australian sample can be justified by the very high level of smartphone ownership (90%) and
usage by global comparisons, the availability of nearly all global smartphone brands in an
open market (AMTA, 2015), as well as high per capita income levels allowing high level
discretionary spending (Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, 2015;
Economist Intelligence Unit, 2013). The embrace of mobile technology and the rapid shift to
smartphones is reflected in the statistic that, between 2005 - 2015 57% of the Australian
population replaced their mobile phone four or more times. Over this decade, the importance
of technology as a reason for replacement varied in importance as smartphones emerged
within the mobile market. The reason “wanting the latest technology/smartphone” peaked
between 2011 and 2014 at 33%, but fell to 20% in 2015 (AMTA, 2015; p.19), suggesting
both the acceptance of smartphone technology and use, and the growing importance of other
sources of perceived value influencing the phone replacement decision.
The paper proceeds by developing a scale that seeks to capture dimensions of
consumers’ perceptions of the aesthetics of a technology product and how this appreciation
may influence different factors of perceived value as well as purchase intention. Hypotheses
are drawn and a conceptual model proposed and tested using Partial Least Square (PLS)
4
based structural equation modeling (SEM). The study concludes with a discussion of the
findings and their implications. To ensure a strong focus on the aesthetics and purchase
intention relationship, the study was framed to exclude other potential mediating variables
such as the influence of brand, bundled services and pricing considerations. Respondents may
differ in their visual product aesthetic preferences (Brunel and Swain, 2008), but the effects
of this potential heterogeneity are also excluded.

Literature Review
Aesthetics
How the aesthetics of an object influences consumer decision making is the subject of
ongoing research (Wang et al.,2013) with different approaches and definitions of aesthetics
spurred by the specific research focus (Hagtvedt and Patrick, 2009). In this study, aesthetics
refers to the concepts of harmony, beauty and order in the material world (White, 1996) with
appreciation of the aesthetics of an object being a sense perception (Veryzer, 1993). As such,
aesthetics is not only about visual appearance but also about other senses such as touch and
taste (Swilley, 2012), acting as stimuli in terms of both cognitive and emotional responses
(Wang et al., 2013). Tapping into a person’s favourable aesthetic responses (Landwehr et al.,
2013) can assist in differentiating products, creating preferences for products.
Following Bloch et al., (2003) and Charters (2006), the aesthetic appeal of a product
may vary from very high (a sculpture or painting) to very low (own-label detergent). Visual
aesthetics is reflected in many customer experiences- most noticeably in fashion and the arts
and less obvious but also significant, in consumer electronic products like personal
computers, tablets and smartphones (Yamamoto and Lambert, 1994). Such products can be
designed to be aesthetically pleasing both visually and to the touch (Swilley, 2012).
5
Little research has been done on how aesthetics influences the purchase of products with both
utilitarian and hedonistic attributes; that is, products valued for both their functional
usefulness as well as their emotional and social values (Hoyer and Stokburger-Sauer, 2012).
To examine the importance and impact of aesthetics on this category of product, a
smartphone is used as an exemplar, defined as a “Personal Digital Assistance phone equipped
with integrated wireless connections and mobile devices” and multiple capabilities (Park and
Chen, 2007). Such a product can be sought for both its utilitarian and hedonistic
characteristics (Brunner et al., 2008; Swilley, 2012) and to reflect the fashion and personal
expression of buyers (Katz and Sugiyama, 2005, 2006).
Approaches to measuring aesthetics
Based on reviewing the multi-disciplinary literature on aesthetics from a consumer
marketing perspective, Wang et al. (2013, p.46) conclude that measurement requires a
holistic approach with two dimensions: aesthetic formality that considers the practical and
useful; and another dimension capturing emotional appeal. Constructs seeking to capture the
importance of aesthetics to consumers have covered different contexts ranging from the
aesthetics of website design to consumer products in general but with the exception of Lavie
and Tractinsky (2004) and Swilley (2012), appear to focus on the emotional dimension.
Measurement foci include measurement of affective responses from aesthetically pleasing
products (Cox and Cox, 2002); understanding how product components and the whole
contribute to aesthetic appreciation; the generation of aesthetic appreciation, especially the
visual; and studies taking a multisensory approach (e.g., Swilley, 2012; Lavie and Tractinsky,
2004).
To assess the contributing sources to aesthetics, Swilley’s (2012) multi-sensory
approach comprehensively covers the middle ground of the aesthetic continuum, products
6
likely to be sought for both their utilitarian and hedonic value. The properties listed in Table
1, proposed by Swilley (2012), were our starting point because:
1. Unlike prior constructs, this one includes most of the dimensions of aesthetics, not
just random measures. This coverage increases the likelihood that both utilitarian and hedonic
stimuli are present (Wang et al., 2013). Other studies have focused on specific areas: on
individuality in the centrality of visual product aesthetics for consumers (Bloch et al., 2003);
on beauty (Bell et al., 1991); on shape (Cox and Cox, 2002); and colour (Kahn and Wansink,
2004).
2. While other studies have focused on different items, such as online websites (Lavie
and Tractinsky, 2004), works of art, cutlery, offices, and car interiors (Stich, 2004), Swilley
used tablets and ebooks, resembling this study’s context.
3. Aesthetics is used as a construct and not as a variable of other constructs, such as
emotional variables.
In summary, the dimensions of aesthetics are based on the physical attributes of a
product rather than emotional variables as aesthetic factors (Lam and Mukherjee, 2005).
INSERT TABLE 1
Swilley (2012) initially considered that a person’s perceptions of the aesthetics of an
object could be captured by three dimensions: product design, product colour and overall
appearance, with overall appearance consisting of three components: texture/touch, beauty
and shape. Subsequently, overall appearance was not treated as a second order factor, Swilley
(2012) proceeding on the basis of 5 factors: product design, product colour, texture/touch,
beauty and shape. Following Creusen and Schoormans (2005), overall appearance was
considered another separate dimension and items for six dimensions developed using Swilley
7
(2012) and earlier research (Wehmeyer, 2008; Cox and Cox, 2002; Bell et al., 1991). These
were then tested through two focus groups and a pilot test (see Appendix 1 for items
pertaining to each dimension).
Swilley (2012) conceptualizes aesthetics in a reflective manner, which is problematic.
First, indicators in reflective models should be interchangeable (Jarvis et al., 2003), but
shape, touch, colour and design as components of aesthetics are unique and not
interchangeable. Second, there should be a co-variation among the indicators in reflective
models (Jarvis et al., 2003); however, there is no theoretical argument that indicators of shape
or colour should correlate to each. Third, in reflective models the causality direction is from
second order factors to first-order components, meaning that any variation in the second order
factor brings variation in the item measures (Edwards and Bagozzi, 2000). As the variation in
aesthetics is based on its factors, such as shape and colour, this means that the way the factors
of aesthetics are observed can change the meaning of aesthetics (e.g., Kim, Kim and
Paramita, 2013). Accordingly, this study uses a formative approach to test the properties
listed in Table 1.
Perceived value
The next question is whether the pleasing aesthetics of an object can trigger perceived
values that mediate purchase intention, the term ‘value’ referring to a judgment of preference
by consumers (Gan et al., 2005). In terms of multi-dimensional approaches to assessing
customer perceived value, the theory of consumption values developed by Sheth et al., (1991)
appears influential in subsequent development of perceived value measurement. The axioms
that consumer choice is a function of independent consumer values that make differential
contributions in any choice situation (Sheth et al., 1991, p.160) underpin the approach of
Sweeney and Soutar (2001). They describe customer value as a customer-perceived
8
preference for a product’s attributes and functionalities. Their consumer perceived value scale
(PERVAL) conceptualizes perceived value as a combination of Functional, Social, Emotional
and Price dimensions that can be used in either a pre or post-purchase product evaluation
context (Chen and Dubinsky, 2003).
Although perceived value has been evaluated using either unidimensional or
multidimensional scales (Sweeney and Soutar, 2001; Walsh et al., 2013), the multi-
dimensional approach is more appropriate in evaluating the shopping habits of consumers
(Chi and Kilduff, 2011). When it comes to the visual appeal of products, the socio-
psychological aspects of consumption (hedonic and social) may be as important as the
utilitarian (functional) aspects (Kempf 1999).
The multi-dimensional approach is also compatible with theoretical developments
regarding the role of feelings in the buying and consumption processes (Sánchez Garcia et al.,
2006). Consumption experiences may simultaneously involve hedonic and utilitarian values
(Sweeney and Soutar, 2001; Walsh et al., 2013). While there are many studies focusing on
the role of perceived value in different contexts, such as services (Callarisa Fiol et al., 2009),
tourism (Gallarza and Gil Saura, 2006) and online marketing (Mathwick et al., 2001),
research focusing on products with both utilitarian and hedonistic attributes is rare.
Perceived value is an important antecedent influencing consumer purchase intention
(Turel et al., 2010). The higher perceived value is, the stronger purchase intention is likely to
be (Monroe and Krishnan, 1985). Table 2 shows three widely used dimensions of perceived
value determined by Sweeny and Soutar (2001) -functional, social and emotional value- and
the items commonly associated with each dimension. In order to understand the value
consumers’ perceive in aesthetics without the monetary value of the product, price is
excluded from this study. Sweeny and Soutar’s (2001) research focused on performance or
9
quality as a functional value of a product, defined as “the utility derived from the perceived
quality and expected performance of the product” (p.211), such as durability and technical
quality (Callarisa Fiol et al., 2009; 2011) and ease of use (Tzou and Lu, 2009).
Social value, defined as the ‘‘perceived utility acquired from an alternative’s
association with one or more specific social groups’’ (Sheth et al. 1991, p.161), can enhance
a person’s social self-concept (Sweeney and Soutar 2001) based on the perception of
society’s assessment of the product (Callarisa Fiol et al., 2011). Purchasers may believe that
by choosing visually appealing products they can improve their social status (Holbrook,
1999) while products thought to be observable in use (e.g. cell phones, eBook readers) and
able to be shared with others, may be chosen based on their perceived social value.
Emotional value is “the perceived utility acquired from an alternative’s capacity to
arouse feelings or affective states” (Sheth et al., 1991, p.161). The aesthetic characteristics of
an object can create emotional reactions (Frijda and Schram, 1995) with product design used
as a means to attract consumers’ attention, convey product information and increase
perceptions of beauty (Tractinsky et al., 2000).
INSERT TABLE 2
Purchase Intention
Purchase intention relates to the likelihood that a consumer will buy a product
(Morowitz and Schmittlein, 1992). Fishbein and Ajzen (1975, p.369) declared that, "if
anyone wants to know whether or not an individual will perform a given behavior, the
simplest and probably most effective thing one can do is to ask the individual whether he
intends to perform that behavior". Therefore, ‘intention’ is assumed to be the immediate
antecedent of behaviour (Ajzen, 1991) where “one makes a self-implicated statement as to a
future course of action” (Bagozzi 1983, p.145).
10
Model, Research Questions and Hypotheses Development
Figure 1 links aesthetic appreciation of an object to different perceived values, with
those values mediating purchase intention. A multi-dimensional perceived value model was
selected because a single dimension, such as perceived usefulness or functionality, may be
less relevant in contexts where technology products potentially have strong hedonic
attractions (Turel et al., 2010, p.53). A multi-dimensional, perceived value approach that
could capture perceptions of both the utilitarian and hedonic values of an object was therefore
preferred.
Reviewing changes in the way aesthetics has become more important in consumer
marketing, Wang et al., (2013) propose aesthetic factors are visual stimuli that influence
behavioural reactions in accordance with the Stimulus-Organism-Response (SOR) paradigm,
such stimuli evoking both cognitive and emotional behavioural reactions (Jacoby, 2002).
Cue theory (Richardson et al. 1994; Lee and Lou, 1995/1996) supports the effect of such
stimuli on a consumer’s perceived value. Products are depicted as an array of extrinsic and
intrinsic cues. While extrinsic cues pertain to attributes that are not part of the physical
product (such the brand name, packaging and price), intrinsic cues pertain to attributes that
are inherent to a product (such as its material, design and appearance) that accord with the
aesthetic appreciation of a product and can give rise to consumer perceived value in that
product.
To ascertain if aesthetics can influence buyers’ decisions through the three different
dimensions of perceived value requires examining whether each dimension can influence
purchase intention, hence perceived value cannot be treated as a second-order construct
comprising the three dimensions. A significant body of research affirms that consumer
perceived value has a direct effect on purchase intention or a closely related concept,
11
willingness to buy, for both products and services (Chen and Dubinsky, 2003; Ashton et al.,
2010; Leelalkulthant and Hongcharu, 2012). While this is the expected path, aesthetic
principles are used in the design of new technology products, the intention being to fulfil
customers directly through the experience of beauty and appearance (Kumar and Garg, 2010).
Accordingly, it is possible that aesthetics can cause positive perceptions that may directly
lead to a buyer’s intention to purchase that product, justifying exploration of that direct path.
Based on the prior literature, we ask:
• Research Question 1: What are the attributes of aesthetics?
• Research Question 2: How does aesthetics influence purchase intention?
Figure 1 links these questions and their associated hypotheses.
INSERT FIGURE 1
Aesthetics may influence purchase intention directly, or indirectly. Aesthetics can
have an indirect link to purchase intention via factors determining technology acceptance
(Van der Heijden, 2003), consistent with the concept of perceived functional value. As a
dimension of overall value, aesthetics’ indirect link with the intention to use virtual artifacts
such as ringtones has also been researched (Turel et al., 2010). Gallarza and Gil Saura (2006)
applied aesthetics to understand how it influences satisfaction and purchase intention in the
travel industry. Aesthetics was also used to measure how it influences customer decisions
while shopping online (Mathwick et al., 2001). Alternatively, aesthetics has been found to
have a direct association with purchase intention (Lee and Koubek 2010; Tzou and Lu, 2009).
Thus, we hypothesize
H1: Aesthetics has a direct positive impact on purchase intention.
12
Contradicting the view that aesthetics stands in the way of usability, Tractinsky (2004,
p.351) claims to have coined the phrase “beautiful is usable” in support of previous work
(Tractinsky et al., 2000) that perceptions of beauty influence perceptions of usefulness.
Similarly, Shin (2012, p. 581) argues that usability and aesthetics are interdependent, finding
that “users … perceived aesthetically pleasing smartphones as more usable compared to
devices with somewhat higher performance but lower aesthetics”.

Aesthetics has influenced consumer decisions via utilitarian characteristics of
products in different information system contexts such as the usage of websites (Van der
Heijden, 2003), human–computer interaction (Tuch et al., 2012) and mobile commerce (Cyr
et al., 2006). However, although it has been argued that customers may assume that products
with an attractive design are functionally superior (Chaiken and Maheswaran, 1994), in the
mobile technology area there is little research investigating the association of aesthetics with
functional attributes (Shin, 2012), warranting examination of aesthetics’ effect on perceived
functional values.
Perceived functional value pertains to a consumers’ perceptions of a product or
service’s quality and functions (Yang and Jolly, 2009; Callarisa Fiol et al., 2011). There is
support that a consumer’s perception of functional value has a strong, positive relationship
with purchase intention (Bhaskaran and Sukumaran, 2007) and usage of a product (Butler et
al., 2016). Following Sheth et al. (1991), that consumer choice is a function of multiple,
independent consumer values including functional value, we hypothesize functional value’s
mediating role between aesthetics and purchase intention.
H2: Functional value is a mediator between aesthetics and intention to purchase.
In Sheth et al.’s (1991) theory of consumer values, social value is about choice
imagery with choices for highly visible products such clothing, cars and jewellery, driven by
13
their imagery. Aesthetic appreciation of an object may be informed through social interaction
and discourse (Leder et al., 2004) such that what is seen as aesthetically pleasing affects its
perceived social value; its perceived social desirability (Morton et al., 2013).
Social value stems from a product’s ability to reinforce a social self-concept
(Sweeney and Soutar, 2001). People prefer to buy products that are accepted by their social
group or that follow social norms (Wang, 2010; Lee, 2014). Positively perceived social value
leads to a stronger buying intention (Vigneron and Johnson, 1999; Kim, Kim and Wachter,
2013). While much research has investigated the role of social value on purchase decisions
(Sweeney and Soutar, 2001; Callarisa Fiol et al., 2009), there is a paucity of research
investigating whether an object found aesthetically appealing can engender a perception that
it has social value which then influences the purchase decision. Following Sheth et al.,
(1991), that consumer choice is a function of multiple, independent consumer values
including social value, we hypothesize social value’s mediating role between aesthetics and
purchase intention.
H3: Social value is a mediator between aesthetics and intention to purchase.
Aesthetic characteristics of a product may stimulate favourable emotional reactions
leading to emotional attachment (Sánchez-Fernández and Iniesta-Bonillo, 2007; Nanda, et al.,
2008). Emotional value may be common among individuals that value beauty because the
beauty of an object may convey the perception that it may meet their needs (Holbrook, 1999).
In turn, emotional value has been identified as an important influence when
purchasing (Van der Heijden, 2003). The more positive is the emotion, the more likely that
purchase intention will occur (Tzou and Lu, 2009). An aesthetically appealing object may
engender emotional perceived value, an emotional bonding to a product (Lee and Koubek,
2010) that can lead to purchase intention (Hsiao, 2013). Following Sheth et al., (1991), that
14
consumer choice is a function of multiple, independent consumer values including emotional
value, we hypothesize that:
H4: Emotional value is a mediator between aesthetics and intention to purchase.
Method
Our target population was the current owner/user of smartphones in Australia. A
sample was recruited from a very large on-line, consumer panel recruited and run by a well-
established Australian consumer research agency. Using a non-random probability sampling
procedure, the researchers specified the sample characteristics required. We specified adults
(>18 years) distributed by age groups with gender balance. Previous purchase of a
smartphone and current ownership for at least a year were specified to ensure familiarity and
experience with a smartphone. Australian residency for at least 5 years was specified to
ensure familiarity with Australian smartphone market conditions.
Measurement
All of the scales were adapted from prior research. The items are included in
Appendix 1 and 2. The scales for aesthetics and different dimensions of perceived value
constructs were adapted from previous research (Tables 1 and 2). The purchase intention
scale was drawn from Chandran and Morwitz (2005). All items were measured using a five-
point Likert scale, with the anchors being “strongly disagree” and “strongly agree.”
Experience using smartphones was measured in years of use.
To ensure the variables used were suitable for our context, two focus groups were
formed to discuss the questionnaire, remove any ambiguity and unpack the Aesthetics
construct to uncover its underlying dimensions (Bruhn et al., 2008). Insights from the focus
15
group were important in the process of adding more items for aesthetics (A27 and A12-
Appendix 1) and perceived value (FV8- Appendix 2).
To identify any more problems with the questionnaire (Choi et al., 2011), we sent 200
questionnaires to respondents using an email or Facebook message that included a clickable
hyperlink to Survey Monkey. Sixty-five completed the questionnaire (30% completion rate).
The panel was representative of all age groups, similar to the final study. Resulting from the
pre-test, two items (A28 and A10- Appendix1) which had loadings of less than 0.3 were
deleted from the aesthetics scale (Hair et al., 2010). The majority of changes pertained to
rewording, sorting and elimination of some questions to make the questionnaire more
applicable to an Australian setting.
Data Collection and Analysis
Data Collection
After finalizing the survey instrument, the questionnaire was posted on the research
agency’s online survey website and the selected sample (783 persons meeting the selection
criteria) were asked to participate by completing the survey online. The survey was closed
after 7 days with 415 usable responses, indicating a response rate of 55%. Three control
variables were included to remove other possible explanations for the relationships among
constructs: gender (male/female), education level (less than high school to completed
university), and age in years. Specifically, the control variables included gender, age, and
education.
The descriptive statistics (Table 3) show females are slightly over-represented while
there is sufficient age and education dispersion. While the sample has a much smaller 65+
cohort than in the Australian population, this may reflect smartphone ownership differences
16
between age groups, something not tested. Educationally, those with at least a university
degree are over- represented and this is reflected in the employment of respondents- slightly
more than 50% of the respondents held professional, managerial/administrative/technician
and office positions.
INSERT TABLE 3
Analysis and test for Reliability and Validity
To test a theoretical model with data from a free questionnaire where some items are
not “tied” to a particular set of constructs, we followed an “anchor variable approach”
recommended by Kock and Verville (2012). At the first stage, latent variables were formed
by aggregating the indicators supposed to load on them. Warp-PLS 4.0 was used for the
measurement purification process and confirmatory factor analysis. Warp-PLS uses variance-
based methods to analyse data which is distributional free, useful for non-normal or unknown
distributions (Chin, 2010). Because all the measurement items in this research are measured
on a Likert scale in which their normalities cannot be distributed, variance-based WARP-PLS
software is preferable to a covariance-based tool like AMOS.
Next, acceptable convergent validity in confirmatory factor analysis was used for
uncovering redundant variables (Wu et al., 2014).Thus, all correlations among variables
equal to or greater than 0.5 were found to belong to the same latent variable (Kline, 2011;
Hair et al., 2010). Moreover, the pattern matrix was formed by the loadings and cross-
loadings obtained by an oblique rotation of the structure matrix (Hair et al., 2010). Overall
appearance, which was measured by three items, was deleted because one of its indicators
had a low loading (0.3) and the other two had high loadings with both design and overall
appearance. Even by deleting each item, the AVE did not change and was lower than 0.7.
17
Thus, these items did not pass a satisfactory level of individual item reliability. Beauty also
was deleted because both of its variable indicators had loadings lower than 0.3.
In summary, 10 items (AE 3, 6, 7, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27) from aesthetics, one item
from functional value (FV 7) and one from the purchase intention (PI 4) construct had
loadings less than the recommended 0.5 (Hair et al., 2010; Kline, 2011), and were therefore
deleted (see Appendix 1 for each item content). Deletion of low loading items led to the
confirmation of internal consistency, a substantial increase of composite reliability (Table 4) ,
higher factor loadings ( see Appendix 3 and 4) and high convergent validity as each latent
construct explained more than fifty percent of its item’s variance (Hair et al., 2010; Henseler
et al., 2015). Table 4 reports the findings from the assessment of the measurement model in
terms of inter-construct correlations, Cronbach’s alphas, composite reliabilities, and average
variance extracted (AVE) for each construct, as well as overall fit.
Composite Reliability (CR) and Cronbach Alpha (CA) coefficients greater than 0.7
were used to measure the reliability of the questionnaire (Hair et al., 2014). All indicators
were semantically related to the relevant latent factors and belonged to each other. However,
Jarvis et al. (2003) also suggest appraising the external validity of formative measures.
Variance inflation factors (VIFs) were also calculated for each latent variable to examine the
collinearity among latent variables. VIFs lower than 5 show no collinearity (Hair et al., 2010;
Kline, 2011).
Discriminant validity as part of a validity test was run to determine the correlation
among latent variables (see Table 4). The square root of the average variance extracted
(AVEs) for each latent variable was greater than any correlation between the latent variable
and others in the model (Hair et al., 2014) showing the indicators belonged to just one latent
factor.
18
INSERT TABLE 4
The validity, reliability, and collinearity results confirmed the data set as a basis for
variance-based, structural equation modelling (SEM) analysis. The appropriateness of the
first-order measure, but also the suitability of the indicators to measure their components
were confirmed.
In summary and answering RQ1, the latent factors of aesthetics were called Colour,
Shape, Design and Touch. As shown in Table 4, Design had the greatest weight in Aesthetics
followed by Colour, Touch and Shape while Overall Appearance and Beauty were rejected
because of their low loadings or high cross loadings.
Results
Figure 2 depicts the SEM model used. The beta coefficients (β) (standardized partial
regression coefficients) show the strength of association between pairs of latent variables
linked by the arrows. All are significant at the p-value <.01 and <0.05 level (Hair et al.,
2014). Warp-PLS 4.0 applies a bootstrapping method (900 samples, sample size 415) to find
out whether different dimensions of perceived value have mediating roles (see Table 5).
INSERT FIGURE 2
INSERT TABLE 5
Answering RQ2, a direct link between Aesthetics and Purchase Intention is accepted
(Hypothesis 1). Because the direct relationship is significant but weak (R2 = 0.08), a check
was run on whether different components of perceived value influenced this relationship
positively or negatively when used as mediators. Thus, in order to assess whether aesthetics’
relationship was mediated by perceived functional value, Hypothesis 2, was assessed in the
19
first stage. As seen in Table 5, the indirect relationship through perceived functional value
(H2) was not supported (P-value= .07).
The indirect relationship between aesthetics and purchase intention via social value is
supported (p-value < .001). Since the indirect effect is significant (H3 is supported), social
value absorbs some of the direct effect (Table 5). The effect size is medium and aesthetics
can explain a high 60 % of the variance in purchase intention through social value.
The indirect relationship between aesthetics and purchase intention via emotional
value (H4) is also supported (p-value < .001); emotional value is a mediator between
aesthetics and purchase intention. However, both effect size (f 2) and the coefficient
determinant (R2) are low. Although, the relationship between aesthetics and purchase
intention can be both direct and indirect when it is mediated by emotional value, only 20% of
the variance of purchase intention (R2 = 0.2) is directly explained by aesthetics and the rest is
explained by the indirect relationship via emotional value.
Differences between respondents based on their gender, age and education were also
tested in terms of the emotional value link. No significant differences were found to affect the
aggregate findings of the role of emotional value as a mediator between aesthetics and
purchase intention. Emotional value is not as strong a mediator as social value.
While aesthetics has the strongest influence on emotional value (β=0.6) and explains
35% variance of emotional value, it influences purchase intention more through social value.
Compared to emotional value (β= 0.10), social value has a stronger relationship with
purchase intention (β= 0.68) (see Figure 2). Aesthetics, could explain 55% (R2 = 0.55) of the
variance of purchase intention directly and indirectly through the social and emotional
dimensions of perceived value.
20
In order to understand the extent to which the variance of purchase intention is
directly explained by aesthetics and how much of the target construct’s variance is explained
by the indirect relationship via perceived social and emotional dimensions of value (the
mediator variables), the Variance Accounted For (VAF) was calculated (Hair et al., 2014).
β ( ) .
VAF= = =50 (1)
β ( ) β ( ) . .
Since VAF is larger than 20% and less than 80%, a partial mediation is established.
Thus, the relationship between aesthetics and purchase intention can be both direct and
indirect when mediated by social value. Although the effect size is medium (0.1), aesthetics
could explain sixty percent of the variance of purchase intention (R2= 0.6) when mediated by
social value. The maximum and total effect that Aesthetics has on Purchase Intention is 0.3,
with an effect size of 0.1 which is moderate (p-value <.001, see Table 5).
Discussion
Three research issues into the role of aesthetics on purchase intention are addressed.
First, what are the components of aesthetics and their relationship with aesthetics? Swilley
(2012) was our starting point, with her proposal for three dimensions (Colour, Design and
Overall Appearance, the latter consisting of three components, Texture/Touch, Beauty and
Shape). In addition to testing the five dimensions ultimately used by Swilley (2012) Overall
Appearance was also tested as a separate dimension. Four different factors were confirmed:
Design, Colour, Touch and Shape. These factors each had a different weight in defining
aesthetics with none of the four particularly dominating; that is, all contributed to perceptions
of the aesthetics of a smartphone. To arrive at these dimensions a formative approach, rather
than the reflective approach used by Swilley (2012), was justified and used.
21
Design had the heaviest weighting (see table 4) supporting Brunner et al (2008) that
design is increasingly becoming an important strategic tool and a success factor for firms
offering personalised consumer durables. Colour was the second-most important attribute of
aesthetics, supporting Veryzer and Hutchinson‘s (1998) finding that, as part of a product’s
attributes (Kerfoot et al., 2003), colour can impact an aesthetic response. It attracts
consumers to products and increases sales (Grossman and Wisenblit, 1999).Support for touch
as a determinant also confirms findings by Ernst and Banks (2002) that tactile information
can be used as a criterion to distinguish between stimuli when tactile information is used in
association with visual exploration. The finding that aesthetics is affected by tactile
information and that touch can influence aesthetics appreciation more than the visual input,
such as shape or colour (Jansson-Boyd and Marlow, 2007), is also confirmed for smartphones
and possibly for other devices that increasingly require touch in order to be used. Shape is
also a determinant of aesthetics although of slightly less importance, but consistent with
findings that it can become a competitive advantage for a product where shape is influenced
by social trends (Berkowitz, 1987).
Overall Appearance and Beauty were dropped because of unsatisfactory loadings.
Although our findings did not confirm Swilley’s (2012) use of beauty as a factor of aesthetics
this does not mean that individuals do not appreciate beauty. Participants may perceive
beauty as “an aesthetic representation which involves pure physicality” (Vacker and Key,
1993; p.486) and thus they might equate beauty with aesthetics rather than as a separate
dimension.
The second and third issues related to the relationship between aesthetics and
purchase intention. Previous studies had found a strong effect of aesthetics on user
preferences in different contexts (eg., Yamamoto and Lambert, 1994; Lee and Koubek,
22
2010). We found aesthetics had a significant, but relatively weak direct relationship with
purchase intention, compared with its indirect effects. This could be because of the nature of
digital products as shopping products (Li and Gery, 2000) with customers carefully
evaluating the value they may gain from an aesthetically pleasing smartphone before they
intend to purchase.
The indirect path of aesthetics’ effect on purchase intention through perceived value
was complex. Aesthetics’ effect on emotional value was far stronger than for either functional
or social value, although the effects on the latter two were still significant. More surprising,
contrary to previous research (Tractinsky et al., 2000; Ben-Bassat et al., 2006; Lee and
Koubek, 2010; Angeli et al., 2006) and our hypothesis, the relationship between aesthetics
and perceived functional value was weak (R2 =.08), while there was no effect on purchase
intention. Purchase intention was influenced most strongly by perceived social value.
Further testing whether functional value strengthened either social or emotional value
also rejected that role. An explanation of this contrary finding will require more research.
Lin and Bhattacherjee (2010) found that, for interactive hedonic technologies, perceived
enjoyment and social usage are the core drivers of behavioural intention rather than perceived
usefulness and perceived use. In addition,the growing standardization of technology features
in smartphones (Reimann et al., 2010) may be responsible for diminishing the influence of
perceived functional value on purchase intention (Kim et al., 2013), especially if customers
expect the same functionality in any smartphone and thus place more emphasis on other
aspects of perceived value. Thus, the sample requirements of ownership and use of a
smartphone may have led to a discounting of the importance of functional value when
considering purchase intention. Whether first time purchasers would respond in the same way
would be useful further research.
23
Managerial implications
The model used in this research validates the positive impact of aesthetics on different
dimensions of perceived value and perceived value on purchase intention. The finding that
design, colour, touch and shape, all contribute to aesthetic appreciation of a smartphone,
creates challenges for marketers to understand the most appealing synthesis of these
attributes, to emphasise the need for this synthesis in new product development and to
promote this synthesis in their integrated marketing communications. Linking appreciation of
a smartphone’s aesthetics directly and indirectly to purchase intention supports a more careful
consideration of how aesthetics can be used to benefit product development, promotional and
positioning and strategies.
Taking into account the specific aesthetic dimensions that were confirmed can assist
in the design of more personalized products that enable firms to better capture value from
their customers via unique visual appearance (Karjalainen and Snelders, 2009). Successful
product development focusing on a unique visual design could also reduce promotional costs
(Moon et al (2013). The capacity of designers to respond to the aesthetics preferences of
individual customers in this area also raises the possibility of greater involvement of
customers in the co-creation of value (Prahalad and Ramaswamy, 2004). Although the co-
creation of value is more commonly associated with service provision rather than
smartphones, based on student survey evidence from two countries Katz and Sugiyama
(2005, p.78) argue that “the creation and consumption of mobile phones becomes a multi-
party process”.
Confirmation of the strong links between aesthetic appreciation of a smartphone and its
perceived emotional and social values should also be taken into account in promotional
strategies. More nuanced promotional strategies should be considered based on the different
24
relationship strengths revealed by this study. Shifting promotional orientation from product
functionality to emphasise its interlinked emotional and social values could be particularly
useful in order to gain a competitive advantage. The link between aesthetics and perceived
values was strongest for emotional value. Further research into the emotional meanings
aesthetics’ evoke for this product and the value of such emotional connections (Lojacono and
Zaccai, 2012) could lead to more focussed and effective promotional strategies. However,
social value played the most important mediating role in consumer purchase intention. In
countries where the smartphone penetration rate is high, customers are more likely to be
connected to their friends, families and referent groups potentially increasing the
psychological dependency that people have with their friends and peers (Walsh et al., 2009;
Wei and Lo, 2006), thus supporting the importance of also emphasising social value in
promotional campaigns.
Following Persaud and Azhar (2012), marketing strategies may need to focus on the role of
referent groups on customer purchase intention. In-group norms may influence customers to
choose a specific smartphone. This offers opportunities for better positioning in the
marketplace by the grouping of customers and objects in terms of the commonalities of their
aesthetic experience as well as their differentiation on the same bases. Such conditions show
the opportunity for marketers to explore all dimensions of customer value before choosing
their own appropriate market position. Such positioning in terms of pursuing a symbolic
design incongruent with the product category is urged by Brunner et al (2016, p.314), who
also cautions that, if this is not possible consumer benefits can be increased through more
aesthetic product design.
Limitations and Further Research
25
This study only explored the dimensions of aesthetics in general and did not examine
variations in specific dimensions; for instance, shape can take various forms, such as oval,
circular, rectangular, or square. Even design can be different based on the taste of customers.
Exploring the attributes of each latent variable of aesthetics appreciation could provide more
detailed insights about each dimension of aesthetics.
The perspective of aesthetics examined was subjective, drawing on respondent’s

perception of what they perceived as aesthetically pleasing so that this could be linked to
their perceived values. Differences among individuals and the extent of those differences can
be better understood using the centrality of visual product scale (Bloch et al., 2003), but this
was beyond the scope of this study. Future research could assess which variables play an
important part in developing aesthetic appreciation. For example, do people from differing
socio-cultural backgrounds (Shin, 2012) differ in their aesthetic appreciation? Using the
centrality of visual product scale (Bloch et al., 2003) can help to explore important
differences between among individuals.
This study is product specific and further research should include other technology
products valued for their usefulness, such as tablets. The possibility of other variables
affecting the aesthetic appreciation of a product needs consideration. Some lifestyle factors
may control many consumption decisions (Hawkins and Mothersbaugh, 2010). Motivation
and experience may differentiate how we value aesthetics (Mothersill, 1984). Further
research could explore personal determinants of variations in the appreciation of aesthetics,
such as life style and demographic variables, and links to purchase intention.
The model presented in the research did not develop hypotheses about the existence
of variables moderating the relationship between factors affecting purchase intention, nor the
relationship between this and aesthetics. Generalisation could be enhanced by extending the
26
study to other countries with similar social, economic and development characteristics as
Australia.
References
Angeli, A.D, Sutcliffe, A, and Hartmann, J. (2006), "Interaction, usability and aesthetics: what
influences users' preferences?," in Proceedings of the 6th conference on Designing Interactive
systems. University Park, PA, USA: ACM.
Ajzen, I. (1991), "The theory of planned behavior", Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, Vol. 50 No. 2, pp. 179-211.

Ashton, A.S. Scott, N. Solnet, D and Breakey, N. (2010), “Hotel restaurant dining: the relationship
between perceived value and intention to purchase”, Tourism and Hospitality Research,
Vol.10 No. 3, pp.206-218.
Australian Mobile Telecommunications Association [AMTA] (2015). Australia’s mobile decade: 10
years of consumer insights into mobile use and recycling: 2005-2015, accessed 20/02/2016 at
http:// www. mobilemuster. com.au/media/107666/ australia_s_mobile_decade.pdf
Bagozzi, R. (1983), "A holistic methodology for modeling consumer response to innovation",
Operations Research, Vol.31, No.1, pp. 128–76.
Bell, S. S., Holbrook, M. B. and Solomon, M. R. (1991), "Combining esthetic and social value to
explain preferences for product styles with the incorporation of personality and ensemble
effects", Journal of Social Behavior & Personality, Vol. 6 No. 6, pp. 243-274.
Ben-Bassat, T, Meyer, J & Tractinsky, N 2006, ‘Economic and subjective measures of the Perceived
Value of Aesthetics and usability’, ACM Transactions on Computer–Human Interaction,
Vol.13 No.2, pp.210–34.
Berkowitz, M. (1987), "Product shape as a design innovation strategy", Journal of Product Innovation
Management, Vol. 4 No. 4, pp. 274-283.
Bhaskaran, S. and Sukumaran, N. (2007), "Contextual and methodological issues in COO studies",
Marketing Intelligence & Planning, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 66-81.
Bloch, P. H., Brunel, F. F. and Arnold, T. J. (2003) "Individual differences in the centrality of visual
product aesthetics: Concept and measurement", Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 29 No.
4, pp. 551-565.
Bruhn, M., Georgi, D. and Hadwich, K. (2008) "Customer equity management as formative second-
order construct", Journal of Business Research, Vol. 61 No. 12, pp. 1292-1301.
Brunel, F., & Swain, S. D. (2008) "A moderated perceptual model of product aesthetic evaluations",
European Advances in Consumer Research, vol. 8, pp. 444-445.
Brunner, C. Jungen, S and Esch , F. (2016),"Impact of symbolic product design on
27
brand evaluations", Journal of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 25 Iss 3 pp. 307 – 320.
Brunner, R., Emery, S. and Hall, R. (2008), "Do you matter?: how great design will make people love
your company", FT Press.
Butler, K, Gordon, R, Roggeveen, K, Waitt, G, Cooper, P & Zainuddin, N 2016, 'Social marketing
and value in behaviour? Perceived value of using energy efficiently among low income older
citizens', Journal of Social Marketing, vol. 6 No. 2.
Callarisa Fiol, L.J., Bigne Alcaniz, E., Moliner Tena, M. A. and Sánchez García, J. (2009), "Customer
loyalty in clusters: perceived value and satisfaction as antecedents", Journal of Business-to-
Business Marketing, Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 276-316.
Callarisa Fiol, L. J., Moliner Tena, M. A. and Sánchez García, J. (2011), "Multidimensional
perspective of perceived value in industrial clusters", Journal of Business & Industrial
Marketing, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 132-145.
Chaiken, S. and Maheswaran, D. (1994), "Heuristic processing can bias systematic processing: effects
of source credibility, argument ambiguity, and task importance on attitude judgment", Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 66 No. 3, pp. 460-473.
Chandran, S. and Morwitz, V.G. (2005), ‘Effects of participative pricing on consumers' cognitions
and actions: A goal theoretic perspective’, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol.32, No.2, pp.
249-59.
Charters, S. (2006), "Aesthetic Products and Aesthetic Consumption: A Review", Consumption
Markets & Culture, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 235-255.
Chen,Z. and Dubinsky, A. (2003), “A conceptual model of perceived customer value in E-Commerce:
a preliminary investigation”, Psychology & Marketing, Vol. 24. No. 4, pp. 323-347.
Chi, T. and Kilduff, P. P. (2011), "Understanding consumer perceived value of casual sportswear: An
empirical study", Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Vol. 18 No. 5, pp. 422-429.
Chin, W.W (2010), ‘How to write up and report PLS analyses’, in VE Vinzi, WW Chin, J Henseler &
H Wang (ed.), Handbook of partial least squares: concepts, methods and applications in
marketing and related fields, Springer, Berlin, pp. 655–690.
Choi, H., Kim, Y. and Kim, J. (2011), "Driving factors of post adoption behavior in mobile data
services", Journal of Business Research, Vol. 64 No. 11, pp. 1212-1217.
Cox, D. and Cox, A. D. (2002), "Beyond first impressions: The effects of repeated exposure on
consumer liking of visually complex and simple product designs", Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science, Vol. 30 No. 2, pp. 119-130.
Creusen, M. and Schoormans, J. (2005), “The different roles of product appearance in consumer
choice”, Journal of Product Innovative Management, Vol. 22, No.1, pp. 63-81.
Cyr, D., Head, M. and Ivanov, A. (2006), "Design aesthetics leading to m-loyalty in mobile
commerce", Information and Management, Vol. 43 No. 8, pp. 950-963.
28
Economist Intelligence Unit (2013), "Australia mobile: Smitten with smartphones", Available at:
http://country.eiu.com/Industry.aspx?Country=Australia&topic=Industry&subtopic=Telecom
munications (accessed: 20 April 2014).
Edwards, J. R. and Bagozzi, R. P. (2000), "On the nature and direction of relationships between
constructs and measures", Psychological Methods, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 155-174.
Ernst, M. O. and Banks, M. S. (2002), "Humans integrate visual and haptic information in a
statistically optimal fashion", Nature, Vol. 415 No. 6870, pp. 429-433.
Fishbein, M. and Ajzen, I. (1975), Belief, attitude, intention and behavior: An introduction to theory
and research, Addison-Wesley, Reading.
Frijda, N. and Schram, D. (1995), "Introduction", Poetics, Vol. 23 No. 1–2, pp. 1-6.
Gallarza, M. G. and Gil Saura, I. (2006), "Value dimensions, perceived value, satisfaction and loyalty:
an investigation of university students’ travel behaviour", Tourism Management, Vol. 27 No.
3, pp. 437-452.
Gan, C., Limsombunchai, V., Clemes, M. and Weng, A. (2005) Consumer choice prediction:
Artificial neural networks versus logistic models, Lincoln University, Commerce Division,
Canterbury
Grossman, P. R and Wisenblit, J. Z. (1999), "What we know about consumers' color choices", Journal
of marketing practice: Applied Marketing Science, Vol. 5 No. 3, pp. 78-88.
Hagtvedt, H. and Patrick, V. (2009), “Summary of roundtable discussion at ACR 2008 (San
Francisco, Aesthetics and Consumption,” Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 36, pp.810-
812. Association for Consumer Research, http://www.acrwebsite.org /volumes /14204/
volumes/v36/NA-36.
Hair, J., Black, W., Babin, B. and Anderson, R. (2010), "Multivariate data analysis", Upper Saddle
River, Prentice Hall.
Hair, J.F., Hult, G.T.M., Ringle, C.M. & Sarstedt, M. (2014), "A Primer on partial least squares
structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) ", Sage, Thousand Oaks, Newbury Park, CA.
Hawkins, D. and Mothersbaugh, D. (2010), "Consumer behavior: Building marketing strategy",
McGraw Hill, New York.
Henseler, J, Ringle, CM and Sarstedt, M (2015), 'A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity
in variance-based structural equation modeling', Journal of the Academy of Marketing
Science, vol. 43, no. 1, pp. 115-35.
Holbrook, M. B. (1999), Consumer value: A framework for analysis and research, Routledge,
London.
Hoyer, W. and Stokburger-Sauer, N. (2012), "The role of aesthetic taste in consumer behavior",
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 40 No. 1, pp. 167-180.
Hsiao, K-L 2013, 'Android smartphone adoption and intention to pay for mobile internet: Perspectives
from software, hardware, design, and value', Library Hi Tech, vol. 31, no. 2, pp. 216-35.
29
Jacoby, J. (2002), "Stimulus-organism-response reconsidered: an evolutionary step in modelling
(consumer) behaviour", Journal of Consumer Psychology, Vol.12 No. 1, pp.51-57.
Jansson-Boyd, C. and Marlow, N. (2007), "Not only in the eye of the beholder: Tactile information
can affect aesthetic evaluation", Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, Vol. 1 No.
3, pp. 170.
Jarvis, C. B., MacKenzie, S. B. and Podsakoff, P. M. (2003), "A critical review of construct indicators
and measurement model misspecification in marketing and consumer research", Journal of
Consumer Research, Vol. 30 No. 2, pp. 199-218.
Kahn, B. E. and Wansink, B. (2004), "The influence of assortment structure on perceived variety and
consumption quantities", Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 30 No. 4, pp. 519-533.

Karjalainen, T, and Snelders, D. (2010), "Designing Visual Recognition for the Brand", Journal Of
Product Innovation Management, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 6-22.
Katz, J. E. and Sugiyama, S. (2006), "Mobile phones as fashion statements: evidence from student
surveys in the US and Japan", New Media & Society, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 321-337.
Katz, J. E. and Sugiyama, S. (2005), "The co-creation of mobile communications’ public meaning” in
R. Ling and P. Pedersen (eds.) Mobile Communications, Re-negotiation of the Social
Sphere,pp.63-81, Springer, London.
Kempf, D. S. (1999), "Attitude formation from product trial: Distinct roles of cognition and affect for
hedonic and functional products", Psychology & Marketing, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 35-50.
Kerfoot, S., Davies, B. and Ward, P. (2003), "Visual merchandising and the creation of discernible
retail brands", International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, Vol. 31 No. 3, pp.
143-152.
Kim, J., Han, W., Kim, D. and Paramita, W. (2013), "Is beauty in the eye of the beholder? Gender and
beauty in the cosmetics sector: A comparative study of Indonesia and Korea", Marketing
Intelligence & Planning, Vol. 31 No. 2, pp. 127-140.
Kim, YH, Kim, DJ and Wachter, K. (2013), “A study of mobile user engagement (MoEN):
Engagement motivations, perceived value, satisfaction, and continued engagement intention”,
Decision Support Systems, vol. 56, pp. 361-70.
Kline, R. B. (2011), Principles and practice of structural equation modelling, The Guilford Press,
New York.
Kock, N. and Verville, J. (2012), "Exploring free questionnaire data with anchor variables: an
illustration based on a study of IT in healthcare", International Journal of Healthcare
Information Systems and Informatics (IJHISI), Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 46-63.
Kumar, M. and Garg, N. (2010), "Aesthetic principles and cognitive emotion appraisals: How much
of the beauty lies in the eye of the beholder? ", Journal of Consumer Psychology, Vol. 20 No.
4, pp. 485-494.
30
Lam, S. Y. and Mukherjee, A. (2005), "The effects of merchandise coordination and juxtaposition on
consumers’ product evaluation and purchase intention in store-based retailing", Journal of
Retailing, Vol. 81 No. 3, pp. 231-250.
Landwehr, J. R., Wentzel, D. and Herrmann, A. (2013), "Product Design for the Long Run: Consumer
Responses to Typical and Atypical Designs at Different Stages of Exposure", Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 77 No. 5, pp. 92-107.
Lavie, T. and Tractinsky, N. (2004), "Assessing dimensions of perceived visual aesthetics of web
sites", International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, Vol. 60 No. 3, pp. 269-298.
Leder, H. Belke1, B. Oeberst, A. and Augustin, D. (2004), “A model of aesthetic appreciation and
aesthetic judgments”, British Journal of Psychology, Vol. 95, pp. 489–508.

Lee, SY (2014), 'Examining the factors that influence early adopters’ smartphone adoption: The case
of college students', Telematics and Informatics, vol. 31 No. 2, pp. 308-18.
Lee, M and Lou, Y-C (1995/1996), “Consumer reliance on intrinsic and extrinsic cues in product
evaluations: A conjoint approach”, Journal of Applied Business Research, Vol. 12 No.1, pp.
21-28.
Lee, S and Koubek, R.J. (2010), "Understanding user preferences based on usability and aesthetics
before and after actual use", Interacting with Computers, vol.22 No.6, pp. 530-43.
Leelakulthanit, O. and Hongcharu, B. (2012), “Perceived customer value regarding eco-cars”, The
Journal of Global Business Management, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 74-79.
Li, Z. G. and Gery, N. (2000), "E-tailing—For all products?", Business Horizons, Vol. 43 No. 6, pp.
49-54.
Lin, C-P and Bhattacherjee, A. (2010), “Extending technology usage models to interactive hedonic
technologies: a theoretical model and empirical test”, Information Systems Journal, Vol. 20,
pp. 163-181.
Lojacono, G. and Zaccai, G. (2012), "The evolution of the design-‐inspired enterprise", MIT Sloan
Management Review, Vol. 45 No. 3, pp.75-79
Mathwick, C., Malhotra, N. and Rigdon, E. (2001), "Experiential value: conceptualization,
measurement and application in the catalog and Internet shopping environment", Journal of
Retailing, Vol. 77, No. 1, pp. 39-56.
Monroe, K. B. and Krishnan, R. (1985), "The effect of price on subjective product evaluations",
Perceived Quality, Vol. 1, pp. 209-232.
Moon, H. Miller, D. and Kim, S. (2013), “Product design innovation and customer value: cross‐
cultural research in the United States and Korea”, Journal of Product Innovation
Management, Vol. 30, No. 1, pp. 31‐43.
31
Morton, A. Rivers, C. , Charters, S. and Spinks, W. (2013), “Champagne purchasing: the influence of
kudos and sentimentality”, Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal, Vol. 16
No. 2, pp.150-164.
Morwitz, V. G. and Schmittlein, D. (1992), "Using segmentation to improve sales forecasts based on
purchase intent: Which" intenders" actually buy?”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 29
No. 4, pp. 391-405.
Mothersill, M. (1984), Beauty Restored, Clarendon Press, Oxford.
Nanda, P. Bos, J. Kramer, K. Hay, K. and Ignacz, J. (2008), “Effect of smartphone aesthetic design on
users' emotional reaction: An empirical study”, The TQM Journal, Vol. 20, No. 4, pp. 348-55.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (2015), Available at: https:// data.Oecd
.org/searchresults/?r=+f/type/datasets (accessed August 28, 2015)
Park, Y. and Chen, J. V. (2007), "Acceptance and adoption of the innovative use of smartphone",
Industrial Management & Data Systems, Vol. 107 No. 9, pp. 1349-1365.
Persaud, A. and Azhar, I. (2012), “Innovative mobile marketing via smartphones: Are consumers
ready?” Marketing Intelligence & Planning, Vol. 30 No. 4, pp. 418-43.
Prahalad, C.K. and Ramaswamy, V. (2004), “Co-creation experiences: The next practice in value
creation”, Journal of Interactive Marketing, Vol. 18, pp. 5-14.
Reimann, M., Zaichkowsky, J., Neuhaus, C., Bender, T. and Weber, B. (2010), "Aesthetic package
design: A behavioral, neural, and psychological investigation", Journal of Consumer
Psychology, Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 431-441.
Richardson, P. Dick, A. and Jain, A. (1994), “Extrinsic and intrinsic cue effects on perceptions of
store brand quality”, Journal of Marketing, Vol.58 No.4. pp.28-36.
Sánchez-Fernández, R. and Iniesta-Bonillo, M. (2007), “The concept of perceived value: a systematic
review of the research”, Marketing Theory, Vol.7 No.4, pp. 427-51.
Sánchez García, J., Callarisa, L., Rodriguez, R. M. and Moliner, M. A. (2006), "Perceived value of
the purchase of a tourism product", Tourism Management, Vol. 27 No. 3, pp. 394-409.
Sheth, J. N., Newman, B. I. and Gross, B. L. (1991), "Why we buy what we buy: A theory of
consumption values", Journal of Business Research, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 159-170.
Shin, D-H (2012) “Cross-analysis of usability and aesthetic in smart devices: what influences users’
preferences?” Cross Cultural Management, Vol. 19 No. 4, pp. 563-587.
Stich, C. (2004), "Development of scales for aesthetic research", Free University of Berlin dissertation
publishing, Berlin [Online], Available at: http://www.diss.fu-berlin.de/ diss / receive
/FUDISS _thesis _000000001553 (accessed: November 12, 2012).
Sweeney, J. C. and Soutar, G. N. (2001), "Consumer perceived value: The development of a multiple
item scale", Journal of Retailing, Vol. 77 No. 2, pp. 203-220.
32
Swilley, E. (2012), "Aesthetic technology: scale development and measurement", International
Journal of Technology Marketing, Vol. 7 No. 3, pp. 324-341.
Tractinsky, N. (2004), “A few notes on the study of beauty in HCI”, Human-Computer Interaction,
Vol. 19 No 4, pp.351-357.
Tractinsky, N., Katz, A. S. and Ikar, D. (2000), "What is beautiful is usable", Interacting with
Computers, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 127-145.
Tuch, A. N., Roth, S. P., Hornbæk, K., Opwis, K. and Bargas-Avila, J. A. (2012), "Is beautiful really
usable? Toward understanding the relation between usability, aesthetics, and affect in HCI",
Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 28 No. 5, pp. 1596-1607.
Turel, O., Serenko, A. and Bontis, N. (2010), "User acceptance of hedonic digital artifacts: A theory
of consumption values perspective", Information & Management, Vol. 47 No. 1, pp. 53-59.
Tzou, R.-C. and Lu, H.-P. (2009), "Exploring the emotional, aesthetic, and ergonomic facets of
innovative product on fashion technology acceptance model", Behaviour & Information
Technology, Vol. 28 No. 4, pp. 311-322.
Vacker, B. and Key, W. R. (1993), "Beauty and the beholder: The pursuit of beauty through
commodities", Psychology and Marketing, Vol. 10 No. 6, pp. 471-494.
Van der Heijden, H. (2003), "User Acceptance of Hedonic Information Systems", MIS Quarterly,
Vol. 28 No. 4, pp. 695-704.
et alVeryzer, R. W. (1993), "Aesthetic response and the influence of design principles on product
preferences", Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 224-228.
Veryzer, R.W and Hutchinson, J. W. (1998), "The influence of unity and prototypicality on aesthetic
responses to new product designs", Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 24 No. 4, pp. 374-
385.
Vigneron, F. and Johnson, L. W. (1999), "A review and a conceptual framework of prestige-seeking
consumer behaviour ", Academy of Marketing Science Review, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 1-15.
Walsh, G., Shiu, E. and Hassan, L. M. (2013), "Replicating, validating, and reducing the length of the
consumer perceived value scale", Journal of Business Research, Vol. 6 No. 3, pp. 280-295.
Walsh, S. P., White, K. M. and Young, R. M. (2009), "The phone connection: A qualitative
exploration of how belongingness and social identification relate to mobile phone use
amongst Australian youth", Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, Vol. 19 No.
3, pp. 225-240.
Wang, E. S. T. (2010), "Impact of multiple perceived value on consumers' brand preference and
purchase intention: a case of snack foods", Journal of Food Products Marketing, Vol. 16 No.
4, pp. 386-397.
Wang, Y., Cruthirds, K., Axinn, C. and Guo, C. (2013), “In search of aesthetics in consumer
marketing: An examination of aesthetic stimuli from the Philosophy of Art and the
Psychology of Art, Academy of Marketing Studies Journal, Vol.17 No. 2, pp.37-55.
33
Wehmeyer, K. (2008), "User-device attachment? scale development and initial test", International
Journal of Mobile Communications, Vol. 6 No. 3, pp. 280-295.
Wei, R. and Lo, V.-H. (2006), "Staying connected while on the move Cell phone use and social
connectedness", New Media & Society, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 53-72.
White, D. A. (1996), "It’s Working Beautifully! Philosophical Reflections on Aesthetics and
Organization Theory ", Journal of Organization, Vol. 3 No. 2, pp.195–208.
Wu, L.Y., Kuan-Yang, C., Po-Yuan, C. and Shu-Ling, C. (2014), "Perceived value, transaction cost,
and repurchase-intention in online shopping: A relational exchange perspective", Journal of
Business Research, Vol. 67 No. 1, pp. 2768-2776.
Yamamoto, M. and Lambert, D. R. (1994), "The impact of product aesthetics on the evaluation of
industrial products", Journal of Product Innovation Management, Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 309-324.
Yang, K. and Jolly, L. D. (2009), "The effects of consumer perceived value and subjective norm on
mobile data service adoption between American and Korean consumers", Journal of Retailing
and Consumer Services, Vol. 16 No. 6, pp. 502-508.
INSERT APPENDIX 1
INSERT APPENDIX 2
INSERT APPENDIX 3
INSERT APPENDIX 4
34
Table 1. Properties of Aesthetics
Dimension Description
Colour 1. Purchase decision is strongly influenced by cues, such as colour.
2. Consumers’ perception of an object can be revealed by their selected
colour choice.
3. Product colour can engage buyers and increase sales.
4. Aesthetic responses to a stimulus are influenced by colour.
5. Product quality is determined by its colour.
Design 1. Design of a product is its competitive advantage and success factor in the
marketplace.
2. Design and aesthetics are interrelated as the physical form includes the
aesthetic components of the product (e.g. shape, colour).
Overall 1. Individuals are drawn by product appearance.
2. The appearance of a product has a strong impact on consumer appreciation
Appearance
of its quality, function and ease of use.
1. Influences evaluation of retail product offerings.

Texture/
2. Touch can affect customer's purchase decision even when there is no
Touch related description about a product.
3. Texture is important in the evaluation of products.
4. The ability to touch adds information to the purchase decision.
Beauty
1. Aesthetic value and utilitarian value, or beauty and use, need not be
distinct.
1. The ratio of the sides of a rectangular product or package can influence
Shape
purchase intentions and preferences and is related to marketplace demand.
2. Product shape can become a differential advantage when consistent with
social and cultural trends.
Source: Swilley, 2012
1
Table 2. Dimensions of Customers’ Perceived Value
Variable References Scale Items
1. Consistent quality done well,

Sheth et al. (1991); 2. Reliability
Functional Yang and Jolly (2009); 3. Reliable
Value Callarisa Fiol et al. 4. Good functions
(2009; 2011); Sweeny 5. Ease of use
and Soutar (2001) 6. Usefulness.
1. Grants social approval from others,
Social Sheth et al. (1991); 2. Makes me feel acceptable to others,
Value Sweeney and Soutar 3. Improves the way a person is perceived,
(2001); Sánchez García 4. Gives a good impression to other people

et al. (2006); Roig 5. Many people I know buy these products
Fandos et al. (2006)
1. Gives me feelings of well-being,
Sweeney and Soutar 2. is exciting,
(2001);Yang and Jolly 3. Makes me elated ,
Emotional (2009); Bloch et al. 4. Feel relaxed while using,
Value (2003) 5. Feels good to have a product with a superior design,
6. Beautiful design makes our world a better place to
live
Table 3. Demographic Information of Respondents

Category N Percent*
Female 227 55 (50.3)
Gender
Male 188 45 (49.7)

Total 415 100
18-35 122 29 (33)
36-48 126 30 (26)
Age
49-64 132 32 (24)

65+ 35 8 (17)
Total 415 100
Less than high school 29 7
Education
Completed high school 108 26

Completed vocational training 110 26.5 (31)**
(TAFE)
Completed University 168 40.5 (23)**
Total 415 100
*Percentages in brackets are for the relative Australian population breakdown, excluding persons under 18
years. Source: Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS), 2015, Cat. 3101. **.Percentages in brackets are the
Australian workforce breakdown. Source: ABS. 2010 Cat. 6227
2
Table 4. Measurement Statistics
Variables CA CR AVE VIF Weight Correlation among variables

(p-value)
1 2 3 4 5
Functional .9 .9 .7 1.4 n.a .85 -.34 .14 -.14 .15
Value a
Social Value a .9 .9 .8 3 n.a -.34 .92 .41 .73 .38
Emotional .9 .9 .7 2 n.a .13 .41 .84 .47 .58
Value a
Purchase .8 .9 .7 2.2 n.a -.15 .73 .44 .80 .25
Intention a
Aesthetics b n.a n.a n.a 1.7 n.a .28 .38 .58 .25 n.a
a
Colour .8 .9 .7 1.1 .39(.001) .86 .22 .26 .27
Shape a .8 .9 .7 1.3 .23(.001) .22 .83 .33 .49
a
Touch .9 .9 .7 1.3 .36(.001) .26 .33 .87 .42
a
Design .9 .9 .8 1.5 .41(.001) .27 .49 .42 .89
Notes: n.a: not applicable, a: Reflective construct, b: Formative construct, the bold numbers on the diagonal are the
square root of the AVE, CR: Composite reliability, CA: Cronbach Alpha, AVE: Average Variance Extracted, VIF:
Variance Inflation Factor
Table 5. Hypotheses Results
Effect
P- 2
Hypothesis Estimate Measure H0-Result R Size
value
H1 AE PI β coefficient =.25 .01 Accepted .08 .07
H2 AE FV PI ------ .07 Rejected
H3 AE SV PI Indirect Effect = 0.3 .001 Accepted 0.6 0.1

H4 AE EV PI Indirect effect = 0.2 .027 Accepted 0.2 0.1
Total effects 0.1
(Indirect + Direct
effect) = 0.3
Notes: AE: Aesthetics, FV: Functional Value, SV: Social Value, EV: Emotional Value, PI: Purchase Intention,
Effect Size: 0.02: small, 0.15: medium, 0.35: large, *: Potential links
3
Appendix 1. Items of Aesthetics
Item
dimension Items
number
A1 I do not care about the colour of my smartphone.
A2 Smartphones should come in different colours.
A3 The colour of my smartphone means a lot to me.
A4 I should be able to choose a smartphone that is multi-coloured
A smartphone should have contrasting colours that accent its
A5
presence.
Colour A smartphone should come in bright colours such as red, orange , and
A6
yellow
Smartphones should come in muted colours such as brown, black,

A7
and beige.
A8 The colour of my smartphone should be attention getting.
A9 The colour of my smartphone should be desirable.
Design I should be able to customize the setting or interface of my
A10
smartphone the way I want.
The design of my smartphone based on what is available such as its
A11
shape, size, and weight should be unique to me.
A12 The design of my smartphone means a lot to me.
A13 The design of my smartphone should be attention getting.
Beauty The aesthetics of my smartphone means as much to me as its
A14
technology.
A15 Shape I like the shape (square, oval, smooth edge) of my smartphone
A16 The shape of a smartphone should be pleasing to the eye.
A17 I should enjoy looking at the shape of my smartphone.
A18 The shape of a smartphone means a lot to me.
A19 Touch The feel of my smartphone is very important to me.
A20 The texture of my smartphone means a lot to me.
Overall The overall appearance of my smartphone means a lot to me.
A21
appearance
Overall I am more concerned with the capability of my smartphone such as
A22 appearance playing games or running different programs at the same time rather
than its looks.
Overall The look of a smartphone product can become out dated quickly (the
A23
appearance shape, weight, and screen).
A24 Design Functionality means more to me than the design of my smartphone
A25 Design I care about the design of my smartphone.
A26 Beauty The beauty of my smartphone means a lot to me.
A27 Design The weight of the smartphone means a lot to me.
A28 Beauty The durability of my smartphone is very important than beauty to me.
Touch The feel of the surface of my smartphone such as its smoothness is
A29
very important to me
Touch The senses conveyed by my smartphone such as coolness to touch are
A30
very important to me
Note: A: Aesthetics
4
10 items (AE 3, 6, 7, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27) had loadings less than the
recommended 0.5 (Hair et al., 2010; Kline, 2011), and were therefore deleted.
Appendix 2. Items of Perceived Value
Item
Items
number
FV1 I want a smartphone with a layout, which is easy to follow
FV2 I want a smartphone with the highest reliability
FV3 I want a smartphone with a high degree of functionality
FV4 I want a smartphone which is easy to use
I want a smartphone which is useful based on its technical capabilities like a
FV5
powerful processor or running different program at the same time
I want a smartphone which is durable in terms of damage protection or battery
FV6
life
I want a smartphone with many different software applications for different
FV7
purposes
FV8 I want a smartphone that is versatile like being good on texting and calling
I seek the approval of my smartphone from my families, friends, or co-workers/
SV1
peers
I seek the acceptance of my smartphone by my family, friends, or co-workers/
SV2
peers
I seek to improve the way I am perceived by my family, friends, or co-workers/
SV3
peers
I seek to impress my family, friends, or co-workers/ peers through the purchase of
SV4
my desired smartphone
SV5 I seek to buy the smartphone that my family, friends, or co-workers/ peers select
SV6 I seek to buy a smartphone that can be an expression of myself .
EV1 I feel excited when I have my desired smartphone
EV2 I feel relaxed while using my desired smartphone
EV3 I feel good that my smartphone is superior to other smartphones.
EV4 I am happy when I am using my desired smartphone.
EV5 I feel my life is better since I bought my smartphone
EV6 Being noticed by others while using my desired smartphone is important to me.
PI1 It is probable that I will purchase my ideal smartphone if it is available
PI2 It is certain that I will purchase my ideal smartphone if it is available
PI3 There is chance that I will buy my ideal smartphone if it is available
PI4 I am likely that I will buy my ideal smartphone if it is available
Note: FV: Functional Value, SV: Social Value, EV: Emotional Value, PI: Purchase Intention
5
Appendix 3. Factor loadings of aesthetics items
Items Colour Shape Touch Design

q9-2 (0.88)
q9-1 (0.86)
q9-8 (0.87)
q9-5 (0.87)
q9-9 (0.85)
q9-4 (0.80)
q9-17 (.85)
q9-18 (.75)
q9-16 (.88)
q9-15 (.85)
q9-19 (.76)
q9-20 (.90)
q9-29 (.89)
q9-30 (.91)
q9-13 (.93)
q9-12 (.87)
q9-11 (.87)
6
Appendix 4.
Perceived Value and Purchase Intention Item Loadings
Emotional
Social Purchase
Functional Value
Items Value Intention
Value (FV) (EV)
(SV) (PI)
q10-1 (.89)
q10-2 (.90)
q10-3 (.79)
q10-4 (.87)
q10-6 (.83)
q10-8 (.78)
q11-1 (.95)
q11-2 (.94)
q11-4 (.89)
q11-5 (.91)
q12-1 (.79)
q12-2 (.95)
q12-3 (.73)
q12-4 (.95)
q12-5 (.74)
q13-1 (.77)
q13-2 (.95)
q13-3 (.91)
7
Figure 1. Proposed Theoretical Model
Figure 2: PLS-Based Structural Equation Model.

Mip 12 2015 0230

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Mip 12 2015 0230

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Marketing Intelligence & Planning

The importance of aesthetics on customers’ intentions to purchase smartphones

Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

1. Purpose- This study examines how potential purchasers of a personal information,

is a direct relationship from aesthetics to purchase intention.

strengthen purchase intention in terms of both product development and promotional

functional value, provides guidance on how to use aesthetics in promotional

8. Keywords: Aesthetics, Consumer behaviour, Perceived Value, Purchase Intention,

Partial Least Square

Aesthetic principles often are used in the design of personal information

communication, entertainment, technology products (Swilley, 2012; Charters, 2006);

This study examines how potential purchasers’ perceptions of the aesthetics of a

smartphone influence their purchase intentions. Described as an interactive, hedonic

perceived usefulness in influencing purchase intention (Lin and Bhattacherjee, 2010).

(Wang et al., 2013), and using a smartphone as an example of a fairly standardized,

dimensions of perceived value drawn from the aesthetics.

These issues are investigated using a sample of Australian smartphone owners. An

discretionary spending (Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, 2015;

of technology as a reason for replacement varied in importance as smartphones emerged

sources of perceived value influencing the phone replacement decision.

The paper proceeds by developing a scale that seeks to capture dimensions of

of this potential heterogeneity are also excluded.

2013) can assist in differentiating products, creating preferences for products.

To examine the importance and impact of aesthetics on this category of product, a

smartphone is used as an exemplar, defined as a “Personal Digital Assistance phone equipped

expression of buyers (Katz and Sugiyama, 2005, 2006).

Approaches to measuring aesthetics

Based on reviewing the multi-disciplinary literature on aesthetics from a consumer

Measurement foci include measurement of affective responses from aesthetically pleasing

contribute to aesthetic appreciation; the generation of aesthetic appreciation, especially the

To assess the contributing sources to aesthetics, Swilley’s (2012) multi-sensory

1, proposed by Swilley (2012), were our starting point because:

used tablets and ebooks, resembling this study’s context.

3. Aesthetics is used as a construct and not as a variable of other constructs, such as

In summary, the dimensions of aesthetics are based on the physical attributes of a

Swilley (2012) initially considered that a person’s perceptions of the aesthetics of an

appearance, with overall appearance consisting of three components: texture/touch, beauty

pertaining to each dimension).

Swilley (2012) conceptualizes aesthetics in a reflective manner, which is problematic.

interchangeable. Second, there should be a co-variation among the indicators in reflective

by consumers (Gan et al., 2005). In terms of multi-dimensional approaches to assessing

appears influential in subsequent development of perceived value measurement. The axioms

Sweeney and Soutar (2001). They describe customer value as a customer-perceived

(PERVAL) conceptualizes perceived value as a combination of Functional, Social, Emotional

context (Chen and Dubinsky, 2003).

Although perceived value has been evaluated using either unidimensional or

dimensional approach is more appropriate in evaluating the shopping habits of consumers

psychological aspects of consumption (hedonic and social) may be as important as the

utilitarian (functional) aspects (Kempf 1999).

The multi-dimensional approach is also compatible with theoretical developments

Perceived value is an important antecedent influencing consumer purchase intention

Social value, defined as the ‘‘perceived utility acquired from an alternative’s

Emotional value is “the perceived utility acquired from an alternative’s capacity to

as a means to attract consumers’ attention, convey product information and increase

perceptions of beauty (Tractinsky et al., 2000).

intends to perform that behavior". Therefore, ‘intention’ is assumed to be the immediate

antecedent of behaviour (Ajzen, 1991) where “one makes a self-implicated statement as to a

future course of action” (Bagozzi 1983, p.145).

Figure 1 links aesthetic appreciation of an object to different perceived values, with

selected because a single dimension, such as perceived usefulness or functionality, may be

behavioural reactions in accordance with the Stimulus-Organism-Response (SOR) paradigm,

purchase intention, hence perceived value cannot be treated as a second-order construct