The four-factor model of product design: scale development and validation
| Published date | 17 September 2018 |
| Pages | 684-700 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/JPBM-11-2017-1659 |
| Date | 17 September 2018 |
| Author | Naeem Gul Gilal,Jing Zhang,Faheem Gul Gilal |
| Subject Matter | Marketing,Product management,Brand management/equity |
The four-factor model of product design:
scale development and validation
Naeem Gul Gilal and Jing Zhang
School of Management, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, China, and
Faheem Gul Gilal
Department of Business Administration, Sukkur IBA University, Sukkur, Sindh, Pakistan
Abstract
Purpose –In the modern era, the significance of product design has increased because customers’priorities in the evaluation of products have
changed from product price to product design. Companies consider product design to be one of the most important sources of competitive
advantage and standards for evaluating their performance. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to develop and validate a new scale to mea sure
product design along with its dimensions.
Design/methodology/approach –An extensive literature review and consumer interviews and surveys were conducted to generate an initial item
pool. Exploratory factor analysis was used to reduce the initial item pool, and confirmatory factor analysis was performed for measurement
validation. A total of four separate studies were conducted for the conceptualization and operationalization of a product design scale.
Findings –Using data from three samples, the authors develop and validate a new scale to measure product design along affective, cognitive,
ergonomic and reflective dimensions. Furthermore, the results provide strong evidence of the reliability, discriminant validity, measureme nt
invariance and nomological validity of the four product design dimensions. Finally, the effects of these product design dimensions on harmonious
and obsessive brand passion were assessed. The results show that the affective and reflective dimensions appear to be pro minent for capturing the
obsessive brand passion, whereas the cognitive and ergonomic dimensions are capable of increasing harmonious brand passion.
Originality/value –This is the first study that develops and validates the measurement of product design as a four-dimensional construct that can
be transferred to a scale and applied across a wide range of product categories.
Keywords Brand passion, Affective design, Cognitive design, Ergonomic design, Product design scale
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
Customers perceive product success to be predominantly
dependent on creating unique and superior product attributes
(Cooper and Kleinschmidt, 1987;Gilal et al., 2018a,2018b,
2018c). Numerous factors influence how firms create unique and
superior product attributes to ensure a competitive position in the
market. Many scholars have reported the significance of product
design for new market success (Lee and Johnson, 2017). For
instance, Gilal et al. (2018a,2018b,2018c)andCandi et al. (2017)
recognize that product design can be used as a strategic tool to
create a competitive advantage for companies. Straker and Wrigley
(2016) argue that customer retention and loyalty can be achieved
through product design and consequently lead to company
dominance. Practitioners have also acknowledged the importance
of product design for a company’s success. For instance, the design
companies IDEO and Alessi have used product design thinking
and design-driven innovation to gain deep customer insights (Price
et al., 2015). In fact, product design has been used as a principal
means of making products differentiable in today’smarketplace.
Successful managers often use product design to develop a
sustainable and enduring relationship with customers, and it
can also serve as a framework to evaluate the effects of product
design-based values on long-lasting relationship-based
outcomes. Recognizing the significance of product design in
practice, the research has begun to deliver its advantages
(Bloch, 2011;Dahl, 2011;Homburg et al., 2015). However,
despite the fact that product design is the first choice for
marketing science institutes (2010, 2012), it is still considered
to be an under-researched area of academic investigation (Mu
and Di Benedetto, 2011;Luchs and Swan, 2011;Join et al.,
1995;Ulrich, 2011;Verganti, 2011). Specifically, the
surprising perspective ofproduct design is that despite its great
significance, both academics and practitionersconsider it to be
an under-researchedarea in the following three respects:
1 There is not-as-yet a well-recognized definition of product
design and its dimensions that can be applied to extensive
product categories.
2 Still lacking is an adequate construct that is considered to
be independent of product categories.
3 There is no standardized mode of analysis of product
design outcomes that differentiates among design
dimensions.
Substantial empirical research has evaluated product design in
very confined dimensions, extending from a one-dimension
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on
Emerald Insight at: www.emeraldinsight.com/1061-0421.htm
Journal of Product & Brand Management
27/6 (2018) 684–700
© Emerald Publishing Limited [ISSN 1061-0421]
[DOI 10.1108/JPBM-11-2017-1659]
This research is sponsored by the National Natural Science Foundation of
China under Grant No. 71672068 and 71272125.
684
measure, specifically the aestheticaspects of product design, to
the measurement of two dimensions, for instance,hedonic and
utilitarian (HED/UT) dimensions (Landwehr et al.,2012,
2013;Dhar and Wertenbroch, 2000;Chitturi et al., 2008;
Noble, 2011;Homburg et al., 2015). However, academic
scholars have recentlybroadened this notion from a one or two-
dimensional evaluation to a three-dimensional concept of
product design that is composed of affective, cognitive and
ergonomic dimensions. The extantliterature suggests that only
a few studies have employed this three-dimensional
conceptualization, using slightly divergent terms for the
different aspects; for example, Moon et al. (2015) study
innovative product design (IPD) and develop its standard
measurement with three product design attributes: aesthetics,
features and ergonomics. Homburg et al. (2015) develop and
validate a three-dimensional scale to measure product design
attributes such as aesthetics, functionality and symbolism.
Srinivasan et al. (2012) study the total product design concept
(TPDC) as consisting of three dimensions, specifically
functionality, aesthetics and meaning. Bloch et al. (2003)
investigate three product-related dimensions of product
aesthetics centrality such as value, acumen and response
intensity. Candi (2006) develops a model for evaluating
product design emphasis that is based on a three-dimensional
reconstruction of product designs that includes dimensions
such as functional,visceral and experiential dimensions.
Our study identifies gaps in the research and offers two main
contributions. First, we extend the literature by systematically
developing and empirically validating an independent product
category scale to measureproduct design as a four-dimensional
construct. Thus, we follow well-recognized procedures of scale
development (Gerbing and Anderson, 1988;Churchill, 1979;
Campbell and Fiske, 1959;Fornell and Larcker, 1981;
Netemeyer et al.,2003;Homburg et al.,2015) using three
samples of data sets from culturally different countries. We
check the reliability (composite and Cronbach’s alpha) and
determine the convergent validity among the product design
dimensions. We further show the discriminant validity of our
scale from the new product design: concept, measurementand
consequences scale (NPDCMCS); a centrality of visual
product aestheticsscale (CVPA); a HED/UT scale; and an IPD
scale. Before demonstrating the scale development procedure,
this study theoretically derives and empirically validates the
definition of product design and its dimensions through an
extensive literature review and qualitative interviews with
consumers. Second, the characteristics of product design have
frequently been associated with consumer behavior (Bloch,
2011;Kumar and Garg, 2010;Creusen,2011). To this end, we
apply the scale and assess how the four product design
dimensions affect consumer behavior outcomes such as brand
passion. In particular, we aim to develop a scale that can be
empirically appliedto extensive product categories and extends
the research on product design.
In addition to being conceptually relevant, this research is
extremely beneficial for marketers, as it offers an explicit
definition of product design that provides managers with a
framework to build brands and avoid idiosyncratic judgments
of product design. Our four-factorconceptualization highlights
that product design is far broader than the merely cognitive
dimension of a product and indicates that research and
development (R&D) departments should consider engaging
interdisciplinary teams of professionals on the affective,
ergonomic and reflective dimensions. Managers can
conveniently apply this scale to measureconsumers’behavioral
responses to a product design. Lastly, practitionersmay utilize
this body of knowledge to revitalize and redesign their brands
based on affective,ergonomic, and reflective dimensions.
The remainder of the paper is organized as follows. First, the
paper begins with the development of a conceptual framework
for the dimensions of product design. Second, we present our
research methods and scale development process. Third, we
provide the empirical results of the newly developed scale
(Studies 1-4). Finally, the paper discusses in depth the
implications for theory and practice, the study’s limitations,
and the scope of relatedfuture research.
Literature review
Review of existing scales
Before our empirical analysis of the four product design
dimensions, we provide an evaluationof the existing scales that
are related to product design, specifically, Bloch et al.’s (2003)
CVPAS, Srinivasan et al.’s (2012) vehicle quality survey scale
(VQSS), Voss et al.’s (2003) hedonic/utilitarian scale (HED/
UT), Homburg et al.’s (2015) new product design: concept,
measurement and consequences scale (NPDCMCS); and
Moon et al.’s (2015)IPD scale. Next, we concisely explain each
scale and describewhy it is inadequate to fulfill our objectives.
Bloch et al.’s (2003) scalestress the degree of importance of a
visual aesthetics scale for specific consumers’associations with
products. It comprises three sub-dimensions, value, acumen
and response, and it contains 11 items. Because this construct
emphasizes the attributes that are inherent in consumers and
not in products, it does not fulfill our aim of assessing product
design.
The objective of the VQSS is to ask consumers who have
bought a new car to show their degree of satisfaction using 95
car characteristics.Therefore, the scale items are specific to cars
and denote attributes, for instance,“driving range between fuel
stops,”“overall interior quietness,”“look and feel of the
steering wheel”and “front seat headroom”(Srinivasan et al.,
2012, p. 17). There are three main concerns with this
construct. First, an assessment that consists of 95 items is
cumbersome. Second, as the items are explicitly specific to the
product category, they cannot be applied to other product
categories. Third, as this construct emphasizes customer
satisfaction, consumers make their assessment once have had
considerable experience with the product; however, our
recommended definition of product design absolutely requires
no earlier experienceof the product.
The objective of the HED/UT construct is to assess the
“hedonic and utilitarian dimensions of consumer attitudes
toward product categories”(Voss et al., 2003, p. 310). The
construct comprises ten adjective pairs, for example, “helpful/
unhelpful”and “not thrilling/thrilling.”From a conceptual
perspective, this contradicts our scale in two important
respects. First, the HED/UT construct ignores important
hedonic items suchas touch, smell, color, scent, beauty, music,
shape, appearance and feel (Berry et al.,2002;Bloch, 2011;
Bosmans, 2006;Csikszentmihalyi and Robinson, 1990;
Four-factor model of product design
Naeem Gul Gilal, Jing Zhang and Faheem Gul Gilal
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Volume 27 · Number 6 · 2018 · 684–700
685
To continue reading
Request your trial