The Importance of an Innovative Product Design on Customer

Behavior: Development and Validation of a Scale

Hakil Moon, Jeongdoo Park, and Sangkyun Kim

The importance of innovative product design (IPD) has increased in recent years because customers’ decision-making
factors have changed from product price to product design. However, a definition and measurement of IPD have not
been developed adequately. Building on the customer perspective, this study defines IPD and develops its standard
measurement with three product design attributes: aesthetics, features, and ergonomics. Results of the empirical test
indicate strong evidence for the reliability and validity of the measurement. Overall, this study shows that our
measurement captures unique customer perceptions on product innovativeness from the product design. Additionally,

theoretical and practical implications are discussed.

Introduction
success of a product is dependent on creating unique and superior product characteristics, as perceived by customers
(Cooper and Kleinschmidt, 1987). Several factors affect how firms create unique and superior product characteristics
to ensure success in the market. For example, Zirger and Maidique (1990) emphasize the importance of product design
in increasing new market success. In fact, product design is often used to create competitive advantage in the
marketplace that leads to commercial success (Black and Baker, 1987). Numerous firms use product design as a strategy
to revitalize products and ensure market success (Moon, Miller, and Kim, 2013). Given that extant literature has studied
and found product design to be a critical factor in creating firm success (e.g., Verganti, 2008), it seems that innovative
product design (IPD) plays an important role in ensuring product success. Indeed, firms that introduce innovation in
product design, for example, Alessi, Artemide, and Kartell, have been successful in their respective industries
(Verganti, 2008).
IPD is a critical factor for the success of a product and the firm because it drives consumer demand.As customer
demand changes rapidly and becomes more heterogeneous, the importance firms place on IPD also increases.
Moreover, a product with a high level of IPD can help its

customers create positive impressions about the firm’s innovativeness. Despite IPD’s importance for customers and
firms, no systematic theoretical treatment has been attempted to define IPD both in the marketing and design literature.
Therefore, the purpose of this study is to define IPD, develop a scale to measure the construct, and test the new scale
to confirm its validity.
This research contributes to the new product design and innovation literature in several ways. First, it develops a
conceptualization of IPD based on how consumers perceive a firm’s product attributes. When firms try to satisfy
customer needs through incorporating IPD in their products, consumers identify the firm itself as innovative, which
can prove a competitive advantage for the firm in the market. Thus, it is very important to examine product design in
the context of innovation, as perceived by the customer. Second, it develops a valid measurement standard for IPD as
past research has not provided a clear measurement tool for the construct. An IPD scale will equip new product
managers and marketing managers to better understand consumer perceptions and appropriately manage their product
positioning and innovation strategies. Finally, the research also provide initial evidence for the predictive validity of
the IPD scale by showing that IPD can have positive customer behavioral outcomes for the firm as a whole.
The remainder of the paper is organized as follows.
 IMPORTANCE OF AN INNOVATIVE PRODUCT DESIGN ON CUSTOMER BEHAVIOR J PROD INNOV MANAG 225
2015;32(2):224–232

Address correspondence to: Hakil Moon, Department of Marketing and

International Business, College of Business, Washington State University, Pullman, Washington 99164. E-mail: hakil_moon@wsu.edu. Tel: (509) 335-2419.
The paper begins with the development of a conceptual framework for IPD. Next, it reports the scale development
processes and the results of the empirical test of the newly developed scale. Finally, it discusses the implications of our
results in terms of theory and practice, study limitations, and future research.
Conceptual Background
IPD

Innovation is the adoption of change that is new or improved in terms of a firm’s product, process, marketing method,
and organizational method (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, 1997). The Schumpeterian
view of innovation emphasizes marketability of the products. However, it has long been acknowledged that there is a
high rate of new product failures (Chan and Ip, 2010). For example, 46% of all resources allocated to new product
development are spent on products that fail to reach broad commercialization in U.S. firms (Cooper, Edgett, and
Kleinschmidt, 2001). While new product failure statistics do not provide a complete picture of why so many new
products fail in the market, extant research in innovation seems to attribute this to a lack of innovativeness in terms of
a product design (Moon et al., 2013). Importantly, there is a trend in academic research that recognizes that firm
strategies based on the innovative technology alone is not sufficient to ensure a firm’s success (Yoo and Frankwick,
2012). Rather, a differentiation strategy based on product design could very well be a means for achieving innovation
success (Hertenstein, Platt, and Veryzer, 2005).
Extant literature defines the term design very differently. For example, Ulrich (2011) defines product design as
“conceiving and giving form to goods and services that address needs.”Yet other scholars view design as the idea that
provides the instructions for making something that did not exist before or not in quite that form (Walsh, 1996), or as
the synthesis of technology and human needs into manufacturing a product (Crawford and Di Benedetto, 2007). This
study combines the current definitions of product design with the core concept of innovation to define IPD adding
marketing perspective (i.e., customer needs). In this research, IPD refers to whether the innovative product attributes
have been created through product design. That is, significant improvements in product aesthetics, features, and
ergonomics occur through design improvements rather than through technology advancements. Successful firms
provide product benefits to customers by means of cutting-edge product design (Karjalainen and Snelders, 2009). An
important success factor that determines whether a new product will catch customers’ attention is a product’s feature
that enables specific benefits to accrue to the customer (Cooper and Kleinschmidt, 1987). Thus, this study argues that
IPD creates benefits for a firm’s customers.
A successful product design is meaningless if the customer cannot perceive increased quality of the design (Candi,
2010). Because customers are motivated to purchase products, it is important to understand how customers perceive new
or significantly improved product design attributes. Overall, the definition of IPD embraces customer perception in terms
of product design attributes. Further, research suggests that competitiveness in product features can be increased through
good product design, as it enhances nonprice competition in the form of appearance, ease of use, safety, and comfort (Roy
and Riedel, 1997). Specifically, the different dimensions of
BIOGRAPHICALSKETCHES
Dr. Hakil Moon is a Ph.D. candidate in the Department of Marketing and International Business at Washington State University, Pullman, WA, USA. His primary
research interests are innovation, new product design research, and interfirm relationship. He has published in JPIM, Industrial Marketing Management, and other
journals.

Dr. Jeongdoo Park is a Ph.D. candidate at the School of Hospitality Business Management at Washington State University, Pullman, WA, USA.

Dr. Sangkyun Kim is an assistant professor at Sungkyunkwan University, Korea. He received his Ph.D. in strategic management from Washington State University.
His primary research interests are innovation, corporate strategy, and research and development strategy. His previous research has been published in Strategic
Management Journal, Global Business and Finance Review, African Journal of Business Management, Journal of Management Policy and Practice, and
elsewhere.

product design attributes, and the concept of innovation, as perceived by the customers, have been incorporated while
defining IPD.
226 J PROD INNOV MANAG H. MOON ET AL.
2015;32(2):224–232

Our conceptualization of IPD includes three attributes that indicate the innovativeness of a product’s design. The next
sections discuss past research suggesting that IPD is perceived through innovation in product attributes of aesthetics,
features, and ergonomics. Accordingly, this research defines IPD to refer to product design that is perceived by a customer
as innovative, based on the following product attributes: aesthetics, features, and ergonomics.

The Aesthetic Attribute

Most research examining aesthetics has defined it as a perspective of beauty and appreciation for beauty, as the term itself
connects the phenomena of sensation and perception. Past literature suggests that customers respond to product design
based primarily on appearance and external appeal of a product (e.g., Bloch, 1995). Extant literature in product design has
denoted aesthetics using the following attributes: product properties, form, shape, appearance, harmony, stylistic identity,
unique shapes and pattern, symmetry, etc.
Visual attributes attract customers and motivate them to purchase the product (Seva and Helander, 2009). Aesthetics is
essential to consumer product perceptions because the design and aesthetics of products have long been recognized as key
determinants of marketing and sales success (Bloch, 1995). The aesthetic appeal of a product is an important factor that
contributes to the customer’s purchase decision (Seva and Helander, 2009). Previous studies investigated the role of
aesthetic attributes on product sales (e.g., Liu, 2003; Roy and Riedel, 1997). For example, Liu (2003) investigated the effect
of product aesthetics on product market share. The study found the important role of aesthetic attributes in commercially
successful products. In addition, Bloch (1995) studied how product design relates to consumers’ psychological and
behavioral responses based on ideal product form, and argued that the most fundamental characteristic of a product is its
exterior form or design that motivates customer responses. This suggests that aesthetic attributes can affect customer
recognition of innovativeness associated with product design.
When customers need to choose between two products of similar price and functionality, they usually tend to purchase
the product that has a higher and more attractive aesthetic value (Kotler and Rath, 1984). In addition, product form or
design can be a way to gain customers’ attention and be a means to communicate with consumers (Nussbaum, 1993).
Overall, aesthetics in product design denotes the product design attributes such as shape, form, and style that are perceived
by customers, stimulating purchase intension. Therefore, this research contends that aesthetics-based IPD is driven by the
design characteristics of a product that is perceived to be new or substantially improved by customers compared with
current product offerings in terms of the product’s shape, form, appearance, style, color, and symmetry.

The Feature Attribute

Past research on product design uses the terms function, feature, technical virtue, technical attributes, performance
superiority, and usefulness synonymously. A feature can refer to many things: dimensions, source ingredients, services,
structures, performance, components, and so on (Crawford and Di Benedetto, 2007). A functional value of product is a
basic utilitarian perspective, indicating that function is related to the product usefulness. Product features permit certain
functions to create benefits in the operational process. This means that features are a broader concept leading to functions
that create benefits. Thus, this research designates the term “features” to represent all other terms as one of the constructs
to define IPD.
Extant research indicates that customers respond to product design based on improved product features (e.g., Black
and Baker, 1987; Souder and Song, 1997). Innovative products can be represented by specific product aspects such as
new functions. Roy and Riedel (1997) emphasize the importance of IPD in providing competitiveness to improve
product features and performance. Because design is a process meant to satisfy user requirements in terms of
functionality in product attributes, feature attributes can lead to IPD through functional improvement of the product
(Black and Baker, 1987). Thus, another key success factor in creating superior competition seems to be product features,
such as improved functionality and performance created by product design. Therefore, our research contends that
features-based IPD is driven by the design characteristics of a product that is perceived to be new or substantially
improved by customers compared with current product offerings in terms of the product’s functions and performance.
 IMPORTANCE OF AN INNOVATIVE PRODUCT DESIGN ON CUSTOMER BEHAVIOR J PROD INNOV MANAG 227
2015;32(2):224–232

The Ergonomic Attribute

Customers respond to product design based on product safety, comfort, and user friendliness (e.g., Fagerberg, Stahl,
and Hook, 2004; Osborne, 1987). Ergonomics is defined as “the scientific study of equipment design, as in office
furniture or transportation seating, for the purpose of improving efficiency, comfort, or safety” (The American Heritage
Science Dictionary, 2005). Research suggests that ergonomics is related to product characteristics such as safety,
efficiency of use, and comfort aimed at maximizing customer satisfaction (Osborne, 1987). Ergonomic properties are
recognized as important because firms are competing on ease of use of the product (Nussbaum, 1993). Prior literature
about product design used ease of use, user friendliness, customer centeredness, and easy to use as synonyms (e.g.,
Fagerberg et al., 2004). Good-looking product design and usefulness of the products (aesthetics and features,
respectively) are useless if the customers are not satisfied with crucial aspects of a product related to safe usage and
comfort (Norman, 1998). This is the reason why this study adds the ergonomic attribute as the last construct to define
IPD. Further, the technology acceptance model (TAM) also distinctively divides the concept between perceived
usefulness and perceived ease of use (e.g., Davis, 1989).
Because the main purpose of design is to consider human safety (Chang, 2008), the study of the relationship between
humans and products becomes more important in maximizing human safety and comfort (Corsini, 2002). While
traditional studies in design have paid less attention to human factors, they also emphasize that it is time to consider
ergonomic attributes as an important dimension to human-related research (Liu, 2003). Past research (e.g., Walsh,
1996) studying the relationship between design and innovation has emphasized the importance of product user
friendliness and safety. Thus, this study argues that ergonomics-based IPD is driven by the design characteristics of a
product that is perceived to be new or substantially improved by customers compared with current product offerings
in terms of the product’s ease of use, comfort, and safety.
IPD involves perceptions based on aesthetics, features, and ergonomics regarding the innovativeness of a product’s
design. Accordingly, in the process of developing a new scale for IPD, this research considers IPD to comprise the
three dimensions of aesthetic-based, featurebased, and ergonomic-based design, and puts forward a second-order
reflective measurement model for the IPD construct. The next sections explain the scale development process and test
the resultant measure using an experimental study to verify the validity of our new IPD scale.

Methodology
Scale Development
Previous research related to IPD was reviewed to help generate initial scale items in terms of product aesthetic, feature,
and ergonomic characteristics. Prior research conceptualized and tested the aesthetics attribute in product design
(Bloch, Brunel, and Arnold, 2003). Ravasi and Lojacono (2005) defined stylistic identity as a unique and distinctive
combination of product shape and color that distinguishes them from competitors. Some research has referred to
product exterior, style, and product shape synonymously (e.g., Roy and Riedel, 1997). In addition, Seva and Helander
(2009) tested the relationship between aesthetics attribute and purchase intentions using data on cellular phone physical
design in terms of attributes such as shape, color, and the ratio of width and length. In the scale developed by Moon et
al. (2013), the factors belonging to the aesthetic attributes indicated internal consistency (alpha .80). Thus, following
prior research, items in the scale to measure IPD for aesthetic attributes have been included.
Second, the scale also included items to measure the product features. Prior research has indicated that improved product
design related to product functions can help ensure market success for new products (e.g., Souder and Song, 1997). In past
research, the feature attribute was mainly measured through a product functional approach by measuring improved product
features in terms of improved function and performance of the product (e.g., Roy and Riedel, 1997). In keeping with prior
research, in our initial scale to measure IPD, the study created items to account for the feature attributes.
The third concept included in the item generation stage related to product ergonomics. Extensive previous research has
emphasized product safety and comfort of using a product (Chang, 2008). Product design has connotations of safety
because a sharp or jagged product shape is often perceived as abrupt or even unsafe by customers (Fagerberg et al., 2004).
228 J PROD INNOV MANAG H. MOON ET AL.
2015;32(2):224–232

This study focused on product safety and comfort as measures of ergonomic attributes because ergonomics is related to
product attributes such as safety, efficiency of use, and comfort to maximize customer satisfaction (Osborne, 1987).
Further, it added product ease of use as a scale to measure ergonomics. Davis (1989) developed a valid measurement scale
for predicting user acceptance of ease of use in information technology adoption. This scale has been adapted in our study
to measure ease of use. Ergonomic product design creates value through comprehensibility and usability, which means that
all customers should easily understand how to use a product for it to qualify as ergonomically designed. This study further
expanded the original meaning of ergonomics to a humanistic view by adding ease of use of the product. Thus, following
prior research, our study has adapted the initial scale for IPD to include survey items that measure ergonomic attributes.

Item Generation and Expert Review

Following standard methods (Nunnally and Bernstein, 1994), items were gathered after a review of relevant aesthetics,
features, and ergonomics, which resulted in an initial pool of 73 items intended to capture various aspects of IPD. Following
prior research (Bearden, Hardesty, and Rose, 2001), content validity was assessed using expert judges. Seven experts who
possessed psychometric expertise were chosen to evaluate the initial items. The definition of IPD was provided to the
experts, along with the new items to evaluate. Experts rated how highly the items were representative of the definition by
choosing “completely representative,” “somewhat representative,” or “not representative.” Items that were not
representative of the construct were deleted. Then, the Saxe and Weitz’s (1982) approach was used to test content validity
that requires at least 50% of judges to rate an item as completely representative for the item to be retained. Based on this
process, 34 scale items remained: 13 aesthetic attribute items, 11 feature attribute items, and 10 ergonomic attribute items.

Study 1: Scale Refinement

The 34 items were administered to a sample of university employees (n 215) in order to examine the underlying factor
structure. This study asked the survey participants to evaluate a modern product that they recently purchased on the 34
items using a 7-point Likert scale (1 strongly disagree, 7 strongly agree). As a first step in scale purification, the Kaiser–
Meyer–Olkin test (KMO) and Bartlett’s test of sphericity were used for determining the adequacy of using factor analysis
on the data set (Kaiser and Rice, 1974). The result showed that the KMO value of .90 and Bartlett’s test of sphericity were
significant, indicating that the data set is appropriate to conduct factor analysis (chi-square 3874, degrees of freedom
561, p .01).
Exploratory factor analysis was conducted on the initial 34 items using principal components analysis with varimax
rotation. The factor analysis revealed a four-factor solution with eigenvalues greater than 1, which explained 66% variance.
But deletion of 19 items that had low factor loadings (lower than .4) and significant cross loadings resulted in 16 items
retained. These 16 items loaded on three dominant factors (variance explained 63%). The three factors were consistent
with the three dimensions initially conceptualized in our study: factor 1 (aesthetic attribute, five items), factor 2 (feature
attribute, six items), and factor 3 (ergonomic attribute, five items).

Study 2: Confirmation of the Dimensions and Validity Test

Study 2 administered the 16 scale items to a new sample of university employees (n 247) in order to confirm the three
dimensions and test discriminant validity. A threefactor measurement model was tested using confirmatory factor analysis.
Four items (two feature attribute items, one feature attribute item, and one ergonomic attribute item) were deleted because
of significant cross loadings and correlated errors. The three-factor measurement model with the remaining 12 items (four
items for each dimension) provided a good fit: 2 (51) 81.77, p .01; comparative fit index (CFI) .97; Tucker–Lewis
index (TLI) .97; root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) .049; standardized root mean square residual
(SRMR) .041. Standardized factor loadings were all significant, ranging from .66 to .89 (Table 1). The study also assessed
the internal consistency of the three dimensions of the IPD scale by calculating a Cronbach’s alpha for each dimension
 IMPORTANCE OF AN INNOVATIVE PRODUCT DESIGN ON CUSTOMER BEHAVIOR J PROD INNOV MANAG 229
2015;32(2):224–232

using the 12 items. The results showed that Cronbach’s alphas for the three dimensions are satisfactory: aesthetic attribute
.89, feature attribute .90, and ergonomic attribute .82. All items within each dimension also had item-total correlations
of greater than .58. These results indicate satisfactory levels of internal consistency.
Several constructs were collected to test discriminant validity of the IPD scale. First, this study identified two
constructs: the centrality of visual product aesthetics (CVPA) (Bloch et al., 2003) and the hedonic/utilitarian view scale
(Voss, Spangenberg, and Grohmann, 2003). Both IPD and CVPA scales measure the construct of aesthetic evaluation
perceived by customers. Thus, the expectation is that customers who score high on the CVPA scale will also have a
high score on the IPD scale. Another expectation is that the IPD scale has to be highly related to the hedonic and
utilitarian scale because IPD is representative of unique and fancy product design that is closed to hedonic view.
Additionally, IPD could play a useful role for customers because IPD can create easeof-use of the product and is
functionally closed to the utilitarian view. Thus, customers who score high on the hedonic and utilitarian scale will also
have high scores on the IPD scale. Davis’s (1989) TAM scale was also used because IPD and TAM scales both have
used items specific to usefulness and ease of use. Customers who score high in the usefulness and ease of use will have
high scores on the IPD scale as well. Finally, the study used the customer innovativeness scale (Tellis, Prabhu, and
Chandy, 2009) as customers with a high propensity of innovativeness in their life may strongly perceive overall IPD.
Thus, customers who have a high score on the customer innovativeness will have a high score on the IPD scale.
To make the discriminant validity tests more tractable, the study created three parceled items for each IPD dimension
(i.e., aesthetic attribute, feature attribute, and
Table 1. Results of Confirmatory Factor Analysis for the Innovative Product Design (IPD) Scale

Standardized Factor Loadings

Items 1 2 3

Aesthetic attribute (.89)

1. The product design is very stylish. .74
2. The aesthetic design of the product is advanced. .81

3. The aesthetics of the product are exceptional. .89

4. The appearance of the product is exceptional. .89

Feature attribute (.90)

1. The product is designed to perform exceptional functions. .82
2. The design of the product provides cutting-edge functionality. .84

3. The product is uniquely designed to provide exceptional performance. .84

4. The product is designed to go beyond consumers’ expectations in terms of functionality. .83

Ergonomic feature (.82)

1. The product design is comfortable for anyone to use. .71
2. The product design is intuitive for consumers to use. .73

3. The product is designed to be user-friendly. .84

4. The product is designed to accommodate user abilities. .66

n 284, 2 (51) 81.77, p .01; comparative fit index (CFI) .97; Tucker–Lewis index (TLI) .97; root mean square error of approximation
(RMSEA) .049; standardized root mean square residual (SRMR) .041.
230 J PROD INNOV MANAG H. MOON ET AL.
2015;32(2):224–232

ergonomic attribute), and they were used as indicators for a general IPD latent construct. A second-order factor analysis
supported our item-parceling strategy. The second-order factor model suggested a reasonable fit (2 [51] 81.77, p
.01; CFI .97; TLI .97; RMSEA .049; SRMR .041), and the three secondorder factors loaded significantly on
a general IPD latent factor (i.e., aesthetic attribute .80, feature attribute .95, and ergonomic attribute .43).
Results of the discriminant analysis support our expectations. The study tested for discriminant validity using the
difference between average variance extracted (AVE) score and squared phi correlation. To have discriminant validity,
the amount of AVE of two constructs must exceed their squared phi correlation. Results show that the new IPD scale
is different from related concepts such as CVPA (AVE .56, squared correlation .16), hedonic views (AVE .65,
squared correlation .65), usefulness (AVE .68, squared correlation .22), and customer innovativeness (AVE
.35, squared correlation .28).

Study 3: Empirical Test

An empirical test was conducted to show whether the IPD scale successfully measures IPD attributes and has an effect
on purchase intentions of consumers. Our expectation is that a product with an innovative design will receive higher
IPD scores, which in turn leads to greater purchase intentions of the product. That is, IPD should have a positive effect
on purchase intention through consumers’ perceptions of IPD attributes.
To test this hypothesis, the study manipulated product designs at two levels: high IPD and low IPD. The study created
four product images that represent high and low IPDs for two consumer products (vacuum cleaner and office chair). Before
proceeding to the empirical test, the study randomly assigned 80 university employees to one of the four conditions (i.e.,
high and low innovative designs for a chair and a vacuum cleaner). The study then asked the participants to take a look at
the product images and indicate to what extent the product designs were innovative based on two questions. T-tests showed
that the manipulation was successful. High innovative design conditions for the two products showed significantly higher
mean scores than low innovative design conditions: mean (high innovative vacuum) 4.08 versus mean (low innovative
vacuum) 2.26, t(38) 7.43, p .01, mean (high innovative chair) 3.24 versus mean (low innovative chair) 2.55, t(38)
2.90, p .01.
In study 3, a new sample of university employees (n 284) were randomly assigned to one of the four conditions. The
participants were exposed to one of the four product images and asked to assess the product design using the 12-item IPD
scale as well as purchase intentions using three items adopted from Taylor and Bearden (2002). Given successful
manipulations for the two products, this study collapsed the four conditions to two: high innovative design and low
innovative design. This study also created general IPD scores to test the research hypothesis in a similar manner as in study
2. Item scores for each dimension were averaged into single scores for each dimension, and the three scores were then
averaged to create an overall IPD score.
To test whether the IPD scale could measure the IPD of our manipulations as the study predicted, a one-way analysis of
variance test was performed, and it was found that the IPD scores were significantly higher for the high innovative product
condition than for the low innovative product condition (F [1, 282] 90.68, p .01). The study also adopted a bootstrap
approach to investigate the significance of a mediated effect of the IPD on the relationship between the IPD (0 low
innovative design, 1 high innovative design) and purchase intention. The bootstrap approach is preferred over the
conventional Sobel test (Sobel, 1982) because using bootstrapping can remove a high type I error rate because of its
violation of normal distribution assumptions (Shrout and Bolger, 2002). The bootstrap reduces prior concern by repeatedly
estimating the regression coefficients with bootstrap samples. The bootstrap approach has the same sample size as the
original sample and is conducted choosing the sample randomly from the original sample. Following previous
recommendations, 1000 samples were bootstrapped to obtain bias-corrected confidence intervals in the current study (e.g.,
Edwards and Lambert, 2007).
The bootstrap results showed that the indirect effect of the innovative design on purchase intention via the IPD was
significant (b 1.23, p .01). There was also a significant direct path between the innovative design and purchase intention
(b .77, p .01) while controlling for the IPD scores, suggesting that the IPD partially mediated the relationship between
the innovative design and purchase intention. It is noteworthy that the significant negative direct effect indicates that the
 IMPORTANCE OF AN INNOVATIVE PRODUCT DESIGN ON CUSTOMER BEHAVIOR J PROD INNOV MANAG 231
2015;32(2):224–232

unexplained part of the relationship between the innovative design and purchase intention can be explained by an
inconsistent mediation effect of a third variable (MacKinnon, Krull, and Lockwood, 2000). For example, price perceptions
as an inconsistent mediator may explain the negative direct effect. Highly IPD may signal a high price, which in turn lowers
purchase intention.

General Discussion and Conclusion

Recent studies in innovation and design have claimed that product design is a critical factor in creating firm success (e.g.,
Verganti, 2008). However, scholars have urged more research in product design with a methodological paradigm (Ulrich,
2011). As a response, this research is an attempt to incorporate the concept of innovation to product design. The present
research proposes that firm innovativeness differs in terms of the extent to which a firm’s products are able to influence
customers’ perception.
Following generally accepted scale development procedures, 12 items were developed and evaluated with regard to
psychometric properties. Through an empirical test, it was found that the new IPD scale works because the group that
was highly motivated by IPD perceived that the product is very innovative based on its design attributes. This indicates
that customers perceive product innovativeness based on the product design. The three studies conducted in this
research provide strong evidence for the reliability and validity of the IPD scale. In terms of construct validity, IPD is
distinct but positively correlated with the CVPA (Bloch et al., 2003), TAM (Davis, 1989), customer innovativeness
(Tellis et al., 2009), and the hedonic view (Voss et al., 2003) scales. This implies that IPD captures unique customer
perceptions in terms of product innovativeness based on the product design.
Our research contributes theoretically and methodologically in product design and innovation. First, IPD is
conceptualized based on how consumers perceive a firm’s product designs. To our best knowledge, this is the first ever
conceptualization of product design from the perspective of the consumer. Because it is the consumer who makes the
purchase decisions regarding new products, this view is in the best traditions of the marketing concept.
Second, previous literature contains insufficient analysis of the factors that lead to how customers perceive product
innovativeness in terms of the product design. Our research defines IPD as how customers perceive product
innovativeness in terms of the shape, features, and ergonomic characteristics of the firm’s product. In so doing, this
study has shown that IPD is a more complex construct than hitherto defined and studied.
Third, our study provides a reliable measurement standard to measure IPD. The IPD scale helps us better understand
how customers perceive product innovativeness and which product attributes can affect customer perception of product
innovativeness, ultimately motivating purchasing behavior. The IPD scale will help new product managers and
marketing managers to measure and analyze consumer perceptions, and to manage their product and innovation
strategies. Finally, the study of predictive validity for the construct shows that it is indeed helpful to managers in
understanding consumers’ buying intentions for an innovative product.
There are a variety of directions for future research to extend the findings of this study. One avenue is to extend the
perspective of IPD to the firm level. This research focuses primarily on firm innovativeness as perceived by customers
to define IPD. IPD perceived by firms might be different from that by customers. The firm might approach IPD from
the point of view of easy manufacture and/or mass production. Thus, further research should study IPD from the firm
perspective. Additionally, there might be other factors that affect firm innovativeness as perceived by customers. Our
study focuses only on the product characteristics in terms of aesthetics, features, and ergonomics of the products. Future
research should study other product attributes that affect design innovativeness as perceived by the customers. Finally,
our definition of IPD was based on various product categories. If IPD is examined in different product categories, it
might be problematic for customers to truly evaluate IPD. Therefore, further research should focus on developing the
IPD scale applicable broad product categories.

References
Bearden, W. O., D. M. Hardesty, and L. Rose. 2001. Consumer selfconfidence: Refinements in conceptualization and measurement. The Journal of
Consumer Research 28: 121–34.
232 J PROD INNOV MANAG H. MOON ET AL.
2015;32(2):224–232

Black, C. D., and M. J. Baker. 1987. Success through design. Design Studies 8 (4): 207–16.
Bloch, P. H. 1995. Seeking the ideal form: Product design and consumer response. Journal of Marketing 59 (July): 16–29.
Bloch, P. H., F. F. Brunel, and T. J. Arnold. 2003. Individual differences in the centrality of visual product aesthetics: Concept and measurement. The
Journal of Consumer Research 29: 551–65.
Candi, M. 2010. Benefits of aesthetic design as an element of new service development. Journal of Product Innovation Management 27: 1047– 64.
Chan, S. L., and W. H. Ip. 2010. A Scorecard-Markov model for new product screening decisions. Industrial Management and Data System 110 (7): 971–
92.
Chang, C.-C. 2008. Factors influencing visual comfort appreciation of the product form of digital cameras. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics
38: 1007–16.
Cooper, R. G., and E. J. Kleinschmidt. 1987. Success factors in product innovation. Industrial Marketing Management 16 (3): 215–23.
Cooper, R. G., S. J. Edgett, and E. J. Kleinschmidt. 2001. Portfolio management for new products (2nd ed.). Cambridge, MA: Perseus Press.
Corsini, R. 2002. The dictionary of psychology. New York: BrunnerRoutledge.
Crawford, M. C., and A. Di Benedetto. 2007. New products management (9th ed.). Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill.
Davis, F. D. 1989. Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly 13 (3): 319–40.
Edwards, J. R., and L. S. Lambert. 2007. Methods for integrating moderation and mediation: A general analytical framework using moderated path analysis.
Psychological Methods 12: 1–22.
Fagerberg, P., A. Stahl, and K. Hook. 2004. eMoto: Emotionally engaging interactions. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing 8 (5): 377–81.
Hertenstein, J. H., M. B. Platt, and R. W. Veryzer. 2005. The impact of industrial design effectiveness on corporate financial performance. Journal of Product
Innovation Management 22: 3–21.
Kaiser, H. F., and J. Rice. 1974. Little jiffy, mark IV. Educational and Psychological Measurement 34 (1): 111–17.
Karjalainen, T.-M., and D. Snelders. 2009. Designing visual recognition for the brand. Journal of Product Innovation Management 27 (1): 6–22.
Kotler, P., and G. A. Rath. 1984. Design—A powerful but neglected strategic tool. The Journal of Business Strategy 5: 16–21.
Liu,Y. 2003. Engineering aesthetics and aesthetic ergonomics: Theoretical foundations and a dual-process research methodology. Ergonomics 46: 1273–92.
MacKinnon, D. P., J. L. Krull, and C. M. Lockwood. 2000. Equivalence of the mediation, confounding and suppression effect. Prevention Science 1 (4): 173–
81.
Moon, H., D. R. Miller, and S. H. Kim. 2013. Product design innovation and customer value: Cross-cultural research in the United States and Korea. Journal of
Product Innovation Management 30 (1): 31–43.
Norman, E. 1998. The nature of technology for design. International Journal of Technology and Design Education 8: 67–87.
Nunnally, J. C., and I. Bernstein. 1994. Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Nussbaum, B. 1993. Hot products. Business Week. June 7: 54–7.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). 1997. The Oslo manual: Proposed guidelines for collecting and interpreting technological
innovation data. Paris: OECD.
Osborne, D. J. 1987. Ergonomics at work. New York: John Wiley & Sons,
Inc.
Ravasi, D., and G. Lojacono. 2005. Managing design and designers for strategic renewal. Long Range Planning 38: 51–77.
Roy, R., and J. Riedel. 1997. Design and innovation in successful product competition. Technovation 17 (10): 537–48.
Saxe, R., and B. A. Weitz. 1982. The SOCO scale: A measure of the customer orientation of salespeople. Journal of Marketing Research 19: 343–51.
Seva, R. R., and M. G. Helander. 2009. The influence of cellular phone attributes on users’ affective experiences: A cultural comparison. International Journal
of Industrial Ergonomics 39: 341–46.
Shrout, P. E., and N. Bolger. 2002. Mediation in experimental and nonexperimental studies: New procedures and recommendations. Psychological Methods 7:
422–45.
Sobel, M. E. 1982. Asymptotic confidence intervals for indirect effects in structural equation models. In Sociological methodology, ed. S. Leinhardt, 290–312.
San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Souder, W. E., and M. X. Song. 1997. Contingent product design and marketing strategies influencing new product success and failure in U.S. and Japanese
electronics firms. Journal of Product Innovation Management 14 (1): 21–34.
Taylor, V. A., and W. O. Bearden. 2002. The effects of price on brand extension evaluations: The moderating role of extension similarity. Journal of the Academy
of Marketing Science 30 (2): 131–40.
Tellis, G. J., J. Prabhu, and R. Chandy. 2009. Innovation of firms across nations: The pre-eminence of internal firm culture. Journal of Marketing 73 (1): 3–23.
The American Heritage Science Dictionary. 2005. Definitions. Available at http://www.dictionary.reference.com.
Ulrich, K. T. 2011. Design is everything? Journal of Product Innovation Management 28: 394–98.
Verganti, R. 2008. Design, meanings, and radical innovation: A metamodel and a research agenda. Journal of Product Innovation Management 25 (5): 436–56.
Voss, K. E., E. R. Spangenberg, and B. Grohmann. 2003. Measuring the hedonic and utilitarian dimensions of consumer attitude. Journal of Marketing Research
40: 310–20.
Walsh, V. 1996. Design, innovation and the boundaries of the firm. Research Policy 25: 509–29.
Yoo, J., and G. L. Frankwick. 2012. New product development capabilities and new product performances: Moderating role of organizational climate. Journal
of Global Scholars of Marketing Science 22: 83– 100.
 IMPORTANCE OF AN INNOVATIVE PRODUCT DESIGN ON CUSTOMER BEHAVIOR J PROD INNOV MANAG 233
2015;32(2):224–232

Zirger, B. J., and M. A. Maidique. 1990. A model of new product development: An empirical test. Management Science 36 (7): 867–83.