The effect of context attractiveness on product attractiveness and product quality: the moderating role of product familiarity

Abstract

Prior research has investigated a number of drivers of consumers’ perceived product attractiveness, such as a product’s shape and color. The context, in which a product is presented, has so far been largely neglected in examining consumers’ aesthetic appraisal of products. Drawing on social cognition theory, this research investigates how the attractiveness of the visual context (e.g., websites, advertisements) influences consumers’ perceptions of product attractiveness and product quality for familiar versus unfamiliar products. Results of two experimental studies show that consumers perceive unfamiliar products as more attractive and, consequently, of higher quality when products are placed in an attractive context than when they are placed in an unattractive context. No differences in consumers’ perceived product attractiveness and perceived product quality exist for familiar products. The findings extend our theoretical knowledge of product aesthetics and provide managers with insights into the effective communication of their offerings’ attractiveness.

Full text

The effect of context attractiveness on product
attractiveness and product quality: the moderating role
of product familiarity
Benedikt Schnurr
1
&Alexandra Brunner-Sperdin
2
&
Nicola E. Stokburger-Sauer
1
Published online: 9 August 2016
#The Author(s) 2016. This article is published with open access at Springerlink.com
Abstract Prior research has investigated a number of drivers of consumers’perceived
product attractiveness, such as a product’s shape and color. The context, in which a product
is presented, has so far been largely neglected in examining consumers’aesthetic appraisal
of products. Drawing on social cognition theory, this research investigates how the attrac-
tiveness of the visual context (e.g., websites, advertisements) influences consumers’per-
ceptions of product attractiveness and product quality for familiar versus unfamiliar prod-
ucts. Results of two experimental studies show that consumers perceive unfamiliar products
as more attractive and, consequently, of higher quality when products are placed in an
attractive context than when they are placed in an unattractive context. No differences in
consumers’perceived product attractiveness and perceived product quality exist for familiar
products. The findings extend our theoretical knowledge of product aesthetics and provide
managers with insights into the effective communication of their offerings’attractiveness.
Keywords Context effects .Product attractiveness .Product quality .Product familiarity
1 Introduction
Just as consumers ascribe personality traits, for example social skills and competence, to
other people based on their physical attractiveness (Dion et al. 1972; Goldman and Lewis
1977), consumers also make inferences about product attributes based on a product’svisual
appeal (Bloch 1995; Creusen and Schoormans 2005). While past research provides solid
Mark Lett (2017) 28:241–253
DOI 10.1007/s11002-016-9404-3
*Benedikt Schnurr
benedikt.schnurr@uibk.ac.at
1
Department of Strategic Management, Marketing, and Tourism, University of Innsbruck,
Universitaetsstr. 15, 6020 Innsbruck, Austria
2
Department of Marketing, University of Applied Sciences in Kufstein, Andreas Hofer-Straße 7,
6330 Kufstein, Austria
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

knowledge on the design factors that make products more or less attractive (Blijlevens et al.
2011; Veryzer and Hutchinson 1998), it has neglected to examine the influence of the
context, in which a product is presented, on consumers’aesthetic appraisal of products.
This is surprising considering the fact that products are always perceived in some kind of
context, be it a website, an advertisement, a store, or consumers’homes. Consequently,
knowing how the context affects consumers’perceptions of products certainly helps
companies to display them in a manner that makes them appear most attractive.
The objective of this research is to theoretically and empirically examine context
effects in consumers’aesthetic appraisal of products. Specifically, by drawing on social
cognition theory (Mussweiler 2003; Schwarz and Bless 1992), we investigate whether
consumers perceive products as more or less attractive depending on the attractiveness
of the visual context in which the products are presented. Further, we explore whether
perceived product attractiveness subsequently affects consumers’perceptions of prod-
uct quality. In a first experiment, we investigate these context effects using more and
less attractive websites. In a second experiment, we validate and extend the results
using print advertisements as contexts and, additionally, examine whether higher
ratings of product attractiveness translate into higher purchase intentions.
2 Conceptual background
2.1 Context effects and product attractiveness
Research in cognitive psychology has successfully demonstrated that the context
affects consumers’perceptions of target stimuli (Bless and Schwarz 2010; Lee and
Suk 2010). Context effects describe processes of consumers’stimulus perceptions that
are affected by the environment in which the stimulus is perceived. The concept of
cognitive accessibility explains the circumstances under which consumers use contex-
tual information in order to interpret and evaluate a target stimulus. The basic notion of
this concept is that the more cognitively accessible information is, the more likely that
information is to affect the perception of the target stimulus (Stapel 2007).
The use of information that consumers retrieve from the context in forming an impression
about a target stimulus may result in two opposing effects. When the context information is
used as a comparison standard, consumers compare the features of the target stimulus with the
features of the context and judge the target stimulus in the opposite direction to the context—a
contrast effect occurs. When the context information is used as an interpretation frame, it helps
to make sense of the target stimulus, and consumers judge the target stimulus in the same
direction to the context—an assimilation effect occurs. Whether a contrast effect or an
assimilation effect occurs depends on both the characteristics of the context and the target
stimulus.
2.1.1 Contrast effects
For contrast effects to occur, two conditions need to be met. First, the context and the
target stimulus need to belong to the same category (Mussweiler 2003). For example,
consumers are likely to compare the elegance of one restaurant with the elegance of
another restaurant, while they are unlikely to compare the elegance of a restaurant with
242 Mark Lett (2017) 28:241–253
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

the elegance of a clothing store (Meyers-Levy and Sternthal 1993). Similarly, when a
target product is placed among other products on a website or in an advertisement,
consumers are likely to compare the attractiveness of this target product with the
attractiveness of the other products but not with the attractiveness of the website or
the advertisement. In the latter case, the context and the target stimulus do not belong to
the same category, and consumers will not compare the attributes associated with the
context against the attributes associated with the target stimulus (Mussweiler 2003).
Second, the context needs to be highly distinct from the target stimulus (Stapel
2007). Only if the attribute that consumers associate with the context is primed in the
extreme opposite direction from the attribute that consumers associate with the target
stimulus, consumers are likely to use the context as a comparison standard and judge
the target stimulus in the opposite direction to the context. When both conditions are
met, a positive context leads to a negative evaluation of the target stimulus, while a
negative context leads to a positive evaluation of the target stimulus. Investigating
facial attractiveness ratings, Wedell et al. (1987) showed that consumers judge the same
faces as more attractive when they are presented in a context with less attractive faces.
In the present research, we do not expect contrast effects to occur because the first
condition (context and target stimulus belong to the same category) is not satisfied.
2.1.2 Assimilation effects
For assimilation effects to occur, the following conditions need to be met. First, the target
stimulus needs to be rather ambiguous or unfamiliar (Lee and Suk 2010). In this case, the
target stimulus is open to various interpretations, and consumers are likely to transfer the
attributes associated with the context to the target stimulus. Second, the type of information
that is made accessible through the context has to be relevant for interpreting the target
stimulus (Mussweiler 2003;Stapeletal.1998). Thus, the attributes that consumers associate
with the context need to be transferable to the target stimulus. When both conditions are met,
a positive context leads to a positive evaluation of the target stimulus, while a negative
context leads to a negative evaluation of the target stimulus. In the context of art, Kirk et al.
(2009) showed that consumers evaluate paintings labeled as belonging to an art museum
more positively than paintings labeled as being computer generated by the experimenter.
Following this reasoning, we expect the occurrence of assimilation effects to be moderated
by consumers’product familiarity, which is defined as Bthe number of product-related expe-
riences that have been accumulated by the consumer^(Alba and Hutchinson 1987,p.411).
Specifically, we propose that assimilation effects occur for unfamiliar products, but not for
familiar products. When consumers are highly familiar with a product, they have encountered
numerous products and gained experience in appreciating various product appearances. Thus,
consumers are able to interpret the attractiveness of a familiar product independently from the
context in which the product is presented. However, when consumers encounter a product they
are unfamiliar with or have even never seen before, they have no prior experience with the
product and, thus, lack the ability to judge the product’s attractiveness. Thus, consumers may
use the attractiveness of the visual context in forming an impression about the product’s
attractiveness leading to assimilation effects. Thus, we hypothesize:
H1: When consumers are unfamiliar with the product, they perceive the product
as more attractive when the product is placed in an attractive context than when
Mark Lett (2017) 28:241–253 243
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

the product is placed in an unattractive context. When consumers are familiar
with the product, no differences in perceived product attractiveness occur.
2.2 Product attractiveness and product quality
Consumers make inferences about numerous product attributes, including func-
tional attributes such as product quality, through a product’s visual appearance
(Bloch 1995; Creusen and Schoormans 2005). A positive relationship between
stimulus attractiveness and product quality has been found in several contexts
such as websites (Wang et al. 2011) and retail stores (Richardson et al. 1996).
In fact, attractiveness and quality are directly related through the Bwhat is
beautiful is good^stereotype (Dion et al. 1972). Researchers have shown that
attractive people are more positively evaluated in terms of social skills
(Goldman and Lewis 1977) and are believed to be more competent and
successful (Dion et al. 1972) compared to less attractive people. Further, in
an advertising context, a spill-over effect exists in which physically attractive
testimonials used in advertisements lead to more positive perceptions of product
quality than physically less attractive testimonials (Petroshius and Crocker
1989).
In this research, we expect that consumers’perceptions of product attractiveness posi-
tively influence their perceptions of product quality. When consumers are not provided with
any other information about a product and when consumers have no prior experience in
using the product, the product’s visual appearance serves as an extrinsic cue that facilitates
consumers’judgments of product quality (Garber et al. 2000). As suggested above, the
attractiveness of the context, in which a product is presented, affects consumers’perceived
product attractiveness for unfamiliar products, but not for familiar products. We propose:
H2: When consumers are unfamiliar with the product, they perceive the product
quality as higher when the product is placed in an attractive context than when the
product is placed in an unattractive context. When consumers are familiar with
the product, no differences in perceived product quality occur.
H3: The interactive effect of context attractiveness and product familiarity on
perceived product quality is mediated by perceived product attractiveness.
3Study1
3.1 Method
3.1.1 Participants and design
A total of 194 students from a European university participated voluntarily in study 1
(135 female, M
age
= 24.63). Participants were randomly assigned to a 2 (unattractive vs.
attractive website) × 2 (unfamiliar vs. familiar product) between-subjects design.
244 Mark Lett (2017) 28:241–253
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

3.1.2 Stimuli
To create the stimuli, two pretests were conducted. In the first pretest, 59 participants
(31 female, M
age
= 23.60) rated their familiarity with 30 products from various catego-
ries on the items by Roehm and Sternthal (2001). Results indicated to use a pineapple
slicer as the unfamiliar product and a cooking pot as the familiar product (M
pineapple
slicer
=2.58, M
cooking pot
=6.37, p<0.01).
In the second pretest, 52 participants (33 female, M
age
= 24.83) were randomly assigned
to a 2 (unattractive vs. attractive website) × 2 (unfamiliar vs. familiar product) design. The
first factor was manipulated between participants and the latter within participants. We
created two screenshots of a fictitious online retailer. Literature shows that attractive
websites are high in classical and expressive aesthetics, whereas unattractive websites
are low in both aesthetic dimensions (Tractinsky et al. 2006). While classical aesthetics
refers to the clarity and order of the web design, expressive aesthetics refers to the richness
and creativity of the web design. In line with previous literature (Cai and Xu 2011;Wang
et al. 2011), we manipulated the websites’classical aesthetics by varying the logical
organization of different website elements as well as the legibility of font type. We
manipulated expressive aesthetics by using different text and background color combina-
tions. We did not make any changes in terms of content between the two websites. The
participants rated the screenshots on the 9-item classical/expressive web aesthetics scale
(Cai and Xu 2011). Further, the participants rated how realistic they found the website (BI
can imagine that this website really exists^and BI have seen a website like this before^)
and the content of the website based on Zhang and von Dran (2001)(BThe level of
information on this website is appropriate^and BThe content of this website is relevant^).
Results of a 2 × 2 MANOVA showed only significant main effects for website attractive-
ness, while all main effects for product familiarity as well as all interaction effects were not
significant (all p> 0.300). We therefore merged the data across the two different products.
A MANOVA revealed that the attractive websites were perceived higher in terms of
both classical aesthetics (M
attractive
=4.71,M
unattractive
=2.99,p< 0.001) and expressive
aesthetics (M
attractive
=3.03,M
unattractive
=1.20,p< 0.001) than the unattractive website.
Further, the two websites did not differ significantly in terms of how realistic they were
perceived (M
unattractive
=3.92, M
attractive
=4.40, p> 0.10) and in terms of website con-
tent (M
unattractive
=3.92,M
attractive
=3.40,p> 0.10). These results show that our manip-
ulation of website attractiveness did not affect participants’perceptions of the websites’
realism or content. We, thus, used the two websites (see Fig. 1) as our final stimuli.
3.1.3 Measurement
After processing the stimulus, participants indicated their perceptions of product quality
on the items provided by Dodds et al. (1991)(BThis product seems to be very reliable,^
BThe manufacturing quality of this product seems very high,^BThe quality of this
product is very high,^BThis product seems to be very dependable,^and BThis product
is likely to be durable^;α= 0.91). Perceived product attractiveness was measured using
the items by Page and Herr (2002)(Bunattractive/attractive^and Bnot beautiful/
beautiful^). As a manipulation check, the participants indicated the website’sclassical
(α= 0.78) and expressive aesthetics (α= 0.96), the degree of realism of the website (BI
have seen a website like this before^), as well their familiarity with the product.
Mark Lett (2017) 28:241–253 245
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

3.2 Results
3.2.1 Manipulation check
The attractive websites were rated higher than the unattractive websites in terms of
classical aesthetics (M
attractive
=5.49, M
unattractive
=3.59,p< 0.001) and expressive aes-
thetics (M
attractive
=4.49, M
attractive
=1.66, p< 0.001). There were no significant differ-
ences in the degree of realism between the websites (M
attractive
=4.02, M
unattractive
=
3.54, p> 0.10). Further, the participants reported higher familiarity with the familiar
product than with the unfamiliar product (M
familiar
=6.49,M
unfamiliar
=2.75,p<0.001).
Fig. 1 Familiar product placed on attractive website (top) and unfamiliar product placed on unattractive
website (bottom)
246 Mark Lett (2017) 28:241–253
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

3.2.2 Perceived product attractiveness
A 2 × 2 ANOVA with website attractiveness and product familiarity as indepen-
dent variables on perceived product attractiveness revealed a significant main
effect for website attractiveness (F(1,192) = 13.67, p< 0.001) while the effect
for product familiarity was not significant (F(1,192) = 0.043, p>0.10). The
interaction between website attractiveness and product familiarity reached sig-
nificance (F(1,192) = 6.25, p< 0.05). As predicted in H1, the participants per-
ceived the unfamiliar product as more attractive when it was placed on the
attractive website than when it was placed on the unattractive website
(M
attractive
= 5.51, M
unattractive
=4.55, p< 0.001). No difference was found for
the familiar product (M
attractive
= 5.16, M
unattractive
=4.97, p>0.10).
3.2.3 Perceived product quality
A 2 × 2 ANOVA on perceived product quality produced a significant main effect for
website attractiveness (F(1,192) = 7.26, p< 0.01). The effect for product familiarity was
not significant (F(1,192) = 1.03, p> 0.10); the interaction reached significance
(F(1,192) = 4.25, p< 0.05). Supporting H2, the participants rated the quality of the
unfamiliar product as higher when the product was placed on the attractive website than
when it was placed on the unattractive website (M
attractive
=4.47, M
unattractive
=3.64,
p< 0.01). No difference existed for the familiar product (M
attractive
=4.28,M
unattractive
=
4.17, p>0.10).
3.2.4 Moderated mediation analysis
To examine whether the interactive effect of website attractiveness and product
familiarity on perceived product quality is mediated by perceived product
attractiveness, we employed the methodology for testing moderated mediation
suggested by Preacher et al. (2007) using the bootstrapping procedure (n=
5000). Results indicated the presence of a moderated mediation (CI
95 %
=−0.85,
−0.11), thus supporting H3. Specifically, perceived product attractiveness medi-
ated the relationship between website attractiveness and perceived product
quality for the unfamiliar product (CI
95 %
= 0.24, 0.87), but not for the familiar
product (CI
95 %
=−0.11, 0.29).
3.3 Discussion
Study 1 demonstrates that the perceptions of product attractiveness of con-
sumers who are unfamiliar with a product are greatly affected by the visual
appeal of the context in which the product is presented. Further, this increase in
perceptions of product attractiveness leads to an increase in perceptions of
product quality. When consumers are familiar with the product, the context
does not affect consumers’perceptions of either product attractiveness or
product quality.
To validate and extend these findings, we made three critical changes in
study 2. First, while websites served as the context in study 1, we chose print
Mark Lett (2017) 28:241–253 247
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

advertisements in study 2 to show that assimilation effects appear both in an
online and offline context. Second, while European students served as the
participants in study 1, American consumers were the participants in study 2.
Further, in addition to investigating the effects on perceived product quality, we
included a measure of purchase intention in study 2.
4Study2
4.1 Product attractiveness and purchase intention
Consumers’perceptions of product attractiveness influence their behavioral responses
towards a product, which are typically described by avoidance or approach (Crilly et al.
2004; Bloch 1995). When a product elicits rather positive perceptions of attractiveness,
consumers are likely to engage in approach behavior, such as spending additional time
looking at the product or willingness to buy it. In this research, we suggest that
consumers’increased perceptions of product attractiveness translate into higher inten-
tions to purchase the product.
H4: When consumers are unfamiliar with the product, their intentions to
purchase the product are higher when the product is placed in an attrac-
tive context than when the product is placed in an unattractive context.
When consumers are familiar with the product, no differences in purchase
intentions occur.
H5: The interactive effect of context attractiveness and product familiarity on
purchase intention is mediated by perceived product attractiveness.
4.2 Method
4.2.1 Participants and design
A total of 200 US consumers, recruited via Mechanical Turk, participated in study 2 (84
female, M
age
= 35.98). The participants were randomly assigned to a 2 (unattractive vs.
attractive ad) × 2 (unfamiliar vs. familiar product) between-subjects design.
4.2.2 Stimuli
Similar to study 1, two pretests were conducted. In the first pretest, 37 participants (15
female, M
age
= 34.39) rated their familiarity with 16 products from different product
categories. In order to use products from the same product category, we chose the
pineapple slicer as the unfamiliar product and the toaster as the familiar product
(M
pineapple slicer
=2.43, M
toaster
=5.96, p<0.01).
In the second pretest, 189 participants (84 female, M
age
= 38.75) were randomly
assigned to a 2 (unattractive vs. attractive ad) × 2 (unfamiliar vs. familiar product)
between-subjects design. A professional graphic designer created the advertisements by
248 Mark Lett (2017) 28:241–253
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

varying the degree of classical and expressive aesthetics. The participants rated the
advertisements on the 9-item classical/expressive aesthetics scale (Cai and Xu 2011),
which was adapted to the advertisement context. Further, the participants rated the
content of the advertisement as well as the believability of the advertisement based on
the items by Gürhan-Canli and Maheswaran (2000). Results of a 2 × 2 MANOVA only
revealed significant main effects for ad attractiveness, while all main effects for product
familiarity as well as all interaction effects were not significant (all p>0.200). We
therefore merged the data across the two different products.
A MANOVA showed that the attractive advertisements scored higher in terms of
both classical aesthetics (M
attractive
=4.43,M
unattractive
=3.73,p< 0.001) and expressive
aesthetics (M
attractive
=4.69, M
unattractive
=3.16, p< 0.001) than the unattractive adver-
tisements. Further, the advertisements did not differ in terms of content (M
unattractive
=
4.06, M
attractive
=4.14, p> 0.10) and believability (M
attractive
=4.95, M
unattractive
=4.62,
p> 0.10). These results show that our manipulation of advertisement attractiveness did
not affect participants’perceptions of content or believability. Further, mean values of
above 4.50 for ad believability suggest that our stimuli show acceptable external
validity. We, thus, used the two advertisements as our final stimuli (see Fig. 2).
4.2.3 Measurement
The same measures as in study 1 were used to assess perceived product quality
(α= 0.96) and perceived product attractiveness. Additionally, the participants indicated
how likely they would purchase the product from 1(Bvery unlikely^)to7(Bvery
Fig. 2 Attractive advertisement for familiar product (left) and unattractive advertisement for unfamiliar
product (right)
Mark Lett (2017) 28:241–253 249
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

likely^). Finally, the participants assed the advertisement’sclassical(α= 0.91) and
expressive aesthetics (α= 0.97), the degree of realism of the ad, as well as their
familiarity with the product on the same items used in study 1.
4.3 Results
4.3.1 Manipulation check
The attractive advertisements were rated higher than the unattractive advertisements in
terms of classical aesthetics (M
attractive
=4.94,M
unattractive
=4.01,p< 0.001) and expressive
aesthetics (M
attractive
=4.81,M
unattractive
=3.39,p< 0.001). Also, there were no differences
in the degree of realism between the advertisements (M
attractive
=2.71,M
unattractive
=2.34,
p> 0.10). Further, the participants reported higher familiarity with the familiar product
than with the unfamiliar product (M
familiar
=5.62, M
unfamiliar
=2.39,p<0.001).
4.3.2 Perceived product attractiveness
A 2 × 2 ANOVA with advertisement attractiveness and product familiarity as indepen-
dent variables on perceived product attractiveness revealed a non-significant main
effect for product familiarity (F(1,198) = 0.428, p> 0.10) and a significant main effect
for ad attractiveness (F(1,198) = 7.98, p< 0.01). The interaction between ad attractive-
ness and product familiarity reached significance (F(1,198) = 12.57, p< 0.001). Con-
gruent with H1, the participants perceived the unfamiliar product as more attractive
when it was shown in the attractive advertisement than when it was shown in the
unattractive advertisement (M
attractive
=5.65, M
unattractive
=4.54, p< 0.001). No differ-
ence was found for the familiar product (M
attractive
=5.15, M
unattractive
=5.27, p>0.10).
4.3.3 Perceived product quality
A 2 × 2 ANOVA on perceived product quality revealed significant main effects for
product familiarity (F(1,1981) = 2.93, p< 0.10) and ad attractiveness (F(1,198) = 5.71,
p< 0.05). Further, the interaction was significant (F(1,198) = 3.98, p< 0.05). In support
of H2, the participants rated the quality of the unfamiliar product higher when the
product was shown in the attractive advertisement than when it was shown in the
unattractive advertisement (M
attractive
=5.61, M
unattractive
=5.03, p< 0.01). No difference
existed for the familiar product (M
attractive
=5.12,M
unattractive
=5.07, p>0.10).
4.3.4 Purchase intention
A 2 × 2 ANOVA on purchase intention produced a significant main effect for product
familiarity (F(1,198) = 4.89, p< 0.05) while the effect for ad attractiveness did not
reach significance (F(1,198) = 1.41, p> 0.10). The interaction turned out to be signif-
icant (F(1,198) = 6.21, p< 0.05). Supporting H4, the participants indicated a higher
purchase intention for the unfamiliar product when the product was shown in the
attractive advertisement than when it was shown in the unattractive advertisement
(M
attractive
=4.59, M
unattractive
=3.67, p< 0.05). No effect was found for the familiar
product (M
attractive
=4.52, M
unattractive
=4.84,p>0.10).
250 Mark Lett (2017) 28:241–253
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

4.3.5 Moderated mediation analyses
To test for the existence of a moderated mediation, we applied the same procedure as in
study 1. Including perceived product quality as the dependent variable, results indicated
the presence of a moderated mediation (CI
95 %
=−0.82, −0.22), supporting H3. Spe-
cifically, perceived product attractiveness mediated the relationship between ad attrac-
tiveness and perceived product quality for the unfamiliar product (CI
95 %
= 0.25, 0.68),
but not for the familiar product (CI
95 %
=−0.27, 0.15).
To test H5, we included purchase intention as the dependent variable. Results
revealed the presence of a moderated mediation (CI
95 %
=−1.662, −0.48). Perceived
product attractiveness mediated the relationship between ad attractiveness and purchase
intention for the unfamiliar product (CI
95 %
= 0.55, 1.14), but not for the familiar
product (CI
95 %
=−0.53, 0.31).
5 General discussion
In the two studies with different contexts and different consumers, we showed that the
consumers who are unfamiliar with a product perceive the product as more attractive
and, consequently, of higher quality when the product is placed in an attractive context
than when it is placed in an unattractive context. Further, the higher ratings of product
attractiveness translate into higher intentions to purchase the product. When the
consumers are familiar with the product, no differences between the attractive and
unattractive context exist.
Our findings make important contributions to the literature. First, we provide
evidence for the existence of assimilation effects in consumers’aesthetic appraisal of
products. While previous studies have mainly focused on the relationship between
product form and consumers’aesthetic appraisal, our results suggest that when the
consumers are unfamiliar with a product, they take the attractiveness of the context, in
which the product is presented, into account when judging the product’sattractiveness.
Second, we contribute to Bloch’s(1995) theoretical propositions by empirically show-
ing that consumers’responses to a product’s visual appearance are influenced by the
context in which the product is perceived. Third, our results provide empirical proof for
the Bwhat is beautiful is good^stereotype (Dion et al. 1972) in a consumer product
context. In both the experiments, perceived product attractiveness had a positive effect
on perceived product quality.
From a managerial perspective, our findings assist marketers to more effectively
position their products and to communicate their products’visual appeal. Specifically,
we show that a visually appealing context is more important when consumers are
unfamiliar, rather than familiar, with products. When the consumers are unfamiliar with
products, they perceive products more attractive when the products are placed in a
visually appealing context. This situation may occur when radically new products are
launched, when companies seek to target new customer segments, when buying a gift
for someone else, or when parents want to buy something for their children. In these
situations, it is critical for marketers to present their offerings in a context that is as
visually appealing as possible, be it a website, an advertisement, or a department store.
For example, when companies launch new products, which are unfamiliar to
Mark Lett (2017) 28:241–253 251
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

consumers, these companies may profit from using advertisements with superior
aesthetic appeal. Likewise, such companies could use an aesthetically appealing con-
text in order to compensate for a possible lack of experience and expertise in producing
products with a superior visual design.
Despite these advances, our research has limitations that suggest directions for future
research. First, we limited our research to the investigation of assimilation effects in
consumers’aesthetic appraisal of products. A recent study by Blijlevens et al. (2012)
provides evidence that consumers perceive typical products as more typical when
presented in an atypical context than when presented in a typical context. It would be
interesting to investigate whether consumers judge an attractive product as more
attractive when the product is placed among unattractive products than when it is
placed among attractive products. Second, we limited the context to websites and
advertisements. Researchers should investigate the effects with products placed in other
contexts, for example retail stores. Third, it is likely that personality characteristics
moderate the existence of assimilation effects. For example, consumers with a high
centrality of visual product aesthetics (CVPA; Bloch et al. 2003) might be less
influenced by the attractiveness of the context compared to those with a low CVPA.
Likewise, the effect might be moderated by the product category, such that it is stronger
for hedonic products for which aesthetics is of great importance to consumers (e.g.,
clothing, furniture), compared to utilitarian products for which aesthetics is only of
minor importance (e.g., tooth paste, batteries).
Acknowledgements Open access funding provided by University of Innsbruck and Medical University of
Innsbruck.
Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International
License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and repro-
duction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) andthe source, provide a
link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.
References
Alba, J. W., & Hutchinson, J. W. (1987). Dimensions of consumer expertise. Journal of Consumer Research,
13(4), 411–454.
Bless, H., & Schwarz, N. (2010). Mental construal and the emergence of assimilation and contrast effects: the
inclusion/exclusion model. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 42,319–373.
Blijlevens, J., Carbon, C.-C., Mugge, R., & Schoormans, J. P. L. (2011). Aesthetic appraisal of product
designs: independent effects of typicality and arousal. British Journal of Psychology, 103(1), 44–57.
Blijlevens, J., Gemser, G., & Mugge, R. (2012). The importance of being Bwell-placed^: the influence of
context on perceived typicality and esthetic appraisal of product appearance. Acta Psychologica, 139(1),
178–186.
Bloch, P. H. (1995). Seeking the ideal form: product design and consumer response. Journal of Marketing,
59(3), 16–29.
Bloch, P. H., Brunel, F. F., Arnold, T. J. (2003). Individual differences in the centrality of visual product
aesthetics: concept and measurement. Journal of Consumer Research, 29(4), 551–565.
Cai, S., & Xu, Y. (2011). Designing not just for pleasure: effects of web site aesthetics on consumer shopping
value. International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 15(4), 159–188.
Creusen, M. E. H., & Schoormans, J. P. L. (2005). The different roles of product appearance in consumer
choice. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 22(1), 63–81.
252 Mark Lett (2017) 28:241–253
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Crilly, N., Moultrie, J., & Clarkson, P. J. (2004). Seeing things: consumer response to the visual domain in
product design. Design Studies, 25(6), 547–577.
Dion, K., Berscheid, E., & Walster, E. (1972). What is beautiful is good. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 24(3), 285–290.
Dodds, W. B., Monroe, K. B., & Grewal, D. (1991). Effects of price, brand, and store information on buyers’
product evaluations. Journal of Marketing Research, 28(3), 307–319.
Garber, L. L., Hyatt, E. M., & Starr, R. G. (2000). The effects of food color on perceived flavor. Journal of
Marketing Theory and Practice, 8(4), 59–72.
Goldman, W., & Lewis, P. (1977). Beautiful is good: evidence that the physically attractive are more socially
skillful. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 13(2), 125–130.
Gürhan-Canli, Z., & Maheswaran, D. (2000). Determinants of country-of-origin evaluations. Journal of
Consumer Research, 27(1), 96–108.
Kirk, U., Skov, M., Hulme, O., Christensen, M. S., & Zeki, S. (2009). Modulation of aesthetic value by
semantic context: an fMRI study. NeuroImage, 44(3), 1125–1132.
Lee, M. P., & Suk, K. (2010). Disambiguating the role of ambiguity in perceptual assimilation and contrast
effects. Journal of Consumer Research, 36(5), 890–897.
Meyers-Levy, J., & Sternthal, B. (1993). A two-factor explanation of assimilation and contrast effects. Journal
of Marketing Research, 30(3), 359–368.
Mussweiler, T. (2003). Comparison processes in social judgment: mechanisms and consequences.
Psychological Review, 110(3), 472–489.
Page, C., & Herr, P. M. (2002). An investigation of the processes by which product design and brand strength
interact to determine initial affect and quality judgments. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 12(2), 133–
147.
Petroshius, S. M., & Crocker, K. E. (1989). An empirical analysis of spokesperson characteristics on
advertisement and product evaluations. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 17(3), 217–225.
Preacher, K. J., Rucker, D. D., & Hayes, A. F. (2007). Addressing moderated mediation hypotheses: theory,
methods, and prescriptions. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 42(1), 185–227.
Richardson, P., Jain, A. K., & Dick, A. (1996). The influence of store aesthetics on evaluation of private label
brands. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 5(1), 19–28.
Roehm, M. L., & Sternthal, B. (2001). The moderating effect of knowledge and resources on the persuasive
impact of analogies. Journal of Consumer Research, 28(2), 257–272.
Schwarz, N., & Bless, H. (1992). Constructing reality and its alternatives: an inclusion/exclusion model of
assimilation and contrast effects in social judgment. In M. L. Leonard & A. Tessa (Eds.), The construction
of social judgments. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Stapel, D. A. (2007). In the mind of the beholder: the interpretation comparison model of accessibility effects.
In D. A. Stapel & J. Suls (Eds.), Assimilation and contrast in social psychology. New York: Psychology
Press.
Stapel, D. A., Koomen, W., & Velthuijsen, A. S. (1998). Assimilation or contrast?: comparison relevance,
distinctness, and the impact of accessible information on consumer judgments. J
ournalofConsumer
Psychology, 7(1), 1–24.
Tractinsky, N., Cokhavi, A., Kirschenbaum, M., & Sharfi, T. (2006). Evaluating the consistency of immediate
aesthetic perceptions of web pages. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 64(11), 1071–
1083.
Veryzer, R. W., & Hutchinson, J. W. (1998). The influence of unity and prototypicality on aesthetic responses
to new product designs. Journal of Consumer Research, 24(4), 374–394.
Wang, Y. J., Minor, M. S., & Wei, J. (2011). Aesthetics and the online shopping environment: understanding
consumer responses. Journal of Retailing, 87(1), 46–58.
Wedell, D. H., Parducci, A., & Geiselman, R. E. (1987). A formal analysis of ratingsof physical attractiveness:
successive contrast and simultaneous assimilation. JournalofExperimentalSocialPsychology,23(3),
230–249.
Zhang, P., & von Dran, G. M. (2001). User expectations and rankings of quality factors in different web site
domains. International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 6(2), 9–33.
Mark Lett (2017) 28:241–253 253
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Terms and Conditions
Springer Nature journal content, brought to you courtesy of Springer Nature Customer Service Center
GmbH (“Springer Nature”).
Springer Nature supports a reasonable amount of sharing of research papers by authors, subscribers
and authorised users (“Users”), for small-scale personal, non-commercial use provided that all
copyright, trade and service marks and other proprietary notices are maintained. By accessing,
sharing, receiving or otherwise using the Springer Nature journal content you agree to these terms of
use (“Terms”). For these purposes, Springer Nature considers academic use (by researchers and
students) to be non-commercial.
These Terms are supplementary and will apply in addition to any applicable website terms and
conditions, a relevant site licence or a personal subscription. These Terms will prevail over any
conflict or ambiguity with regards to the relevant terms, a site licence or a personal subscription (to
the extent of the conflict or ambiguity only). For Creative Commons-licensed articles, the terms of
the Creative Commons license used will apply.
We collect and use personal data to provide access to the Springer Nature journal content. We may
also use these personal data internally within ResearchGate and Springer Nature and as agreed share
it, in an anonymised way, for purposes of tracking, analysis and reporting. We will not otherwise
disclose your personal data outside the ResearchGate or the Springer Nature group of companies
unless we have your permission as detailed in the Privacy Policy.
While Users may use the Springer Nature journal content for small scale, personal non-commercial
use, it is important to note that Users may not:
use such content for the purpose of providing other users with access on a regular or large scale
basis or as a means to circumvent access control;
use such content where to do so would be considered a criminal or statutory offence in any
jurisdiction, or gives rise to civil liability, or is otherwise unlawful;
falsely or misleadingly imply or suggest endorsement, approval , sponsorship, or association
unless explicitly agreed to by Springer Nature in writing;
use bots or other automated methods to access the content or redirect messages
override any security feature or exclusionary protocol; or
share the content in order to create substitute for Springer Nature products or services or a
systematic database of Springer Nature journal content.
In line with the restriction against commercial use, Springer Nature does not permit the creation of a
product or service that creates revenue, royalties, rent or income from our content or its inclusion as
part of a paid for service or for other commercial gain. Springer Nature journal content cannot be
used for inter-library loans and librarians may not upload Springer Nature journal content on a large
scale into their, or any other, institutional repository.
These terms of use are reviewed regularly and may be amended at any time. Springer Nature is not
obligated to publish any information or content on this website and may remove it or features or
functionality at our sole discretion, at any time with or without notice. Springer Nature may revoke
this licence to you at any time and remove access to any copies of the Springer Nature journal content
which have been saved.
To the fullest extent permitted by law, Springer Nature makes no warranties, representations or
guarantees to Users, either express or implied with respect to the Springer nature journal content and
all parties disclaim and waive any implied warranties or warranties imposed by law, including
merchantability or fitness for any particular purpose.
Please note that these rights do not automatically extend to content, data or other material published
by Springer Nature that may be licensed from third parties.
If you would like to use or distribute our Springer Nature journal content to a wider audience or on a
regular basis or in any other manner not expressly permitted by these Terms, please contact Springer
Nature at
onlineservice@springernature.com