Looks Interesting, but what does it Do? Evaluation of Incongruent Product form Depends on Positioning

130 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

Too Exciting to Fail, Too Sincere to Succeed: The Effects of Brand Personality on Sensory Disconfirmation (2016, unknown): “Such actions can be inferred from consumer reviews (Dawes, Singer, and Lemons 1972), advertising (Deighton 1984), past experiences (Day 1977), and of particular interest in this article, how the product looks (Bloch 1995; Chitturi, Raghunathan, and Mahajan 2007; Noseworthy and Trudel 2011).”
Speaking to the mind or the heart: effects of matching hedonic versus utilitarian arguments and products (2016, background): “2008), involvement (Wang and Lee 2006), schema (Meyers-Levy and Tybout 1989), type of congruence (Noseworthy and Trudel 2011), and number of exposures (Landwehr et al.”
An Arousal Regulation Explanation of Mood Effects on Consumer Choice (2012, unknown): “…economy” (Pine and Gilmore 1999), and there is growing interest in better understanding how consumers evaluate and choose between different types of hedonic consumption experiences (Ariely and Zauberman 2000; Murray and Bellman 2011; Noseworthy, Cotte, and Lee 2011; Noseworthy and Trudel 2011).”
Pleasure principles: A review of research on hedonic consumption (2013, background): “Behavioral design and psycho-pleasures may similarly be viewed as beyond our boundaries (with some recent notable exceptions; see, e.g., Noseworthy & Trudel, 2011; Thompson, Hamilton, & Rust, 2005), although there is precedent for examining product mastery (see below).”