articol despre artefacte in servicii

8/9/2019 Articol Despre Artefacte in Servicii

1/8

Advancing the aesthetic middle principle: Trade-offs in design

attractiveness and strength

Joan L. Giese a,,1,2, Keven Malkewitz b,1, Ulrich R. Orth c,1, Pamela W. Henderson d

a University of Montana, Missoula, MT 59812-6808, USAb Western Oregon University, Monmouth, OR 97361, USAc A&F Marketing, Christian-Albrechts-Universitt Kiel, Wilhelm-Seelig-Platz 6/7, 24098 Kiel, Germanyd New Edge, Inc., 1350 Spaulding Avenue, Richland, WA 99352, USA

a b s t r a c ta r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:

Received 16 May 2012

Received in revised form 6 May 2013

Accepted 7 May 2013

Available online 16 June 2013

Keywords:

Design strength

Design attractiveness

Aesthetic middle

Typeface

Package

Key design properties of marketing artifacts that inuence consumer response include perceived attractiveness

(the valenced evaluative response to the artifact) and perceived strength (the artifacts ability to capture atten-

tion). The aesthetic middle principle contends that the designs most effective in generating purchase intentions

are counterintuitively not the most attractive and strongest, but rather designs tempered to be moderately

attractive and very strong or very attractive and moderately strong. Such designs are visual representations closer

to the aesthetic middle, thereby prompting morefavorable consumerresponses.This researchempiricallytests the

aesthetic middle principle in two consumer eld studies, using both simple (typeface) and complex (wine

package)designs. In a subsequentcontrolled experiment, thestrongest aesthetic middle effectsemergefor hedonic

(rather than utilitarian) products and when less product-related information is available. The effects of the

aesthetic middle occur regardless of available cognitive resources or individual differences in design acumen.

Published by Elsevier Inc.

1. Introduction

Marketers frequently use stimuli to elicit favorable customer

behaviors, such as sending a carefully designed direct mail piece to

solicit contributions or developing an attractive wine bottle to trigger

purchase. In these cases, multiple design properties combine to stim-

ulate purchase intentions (Bloch, 1995). Visual designs of marketing

stimuli are well-established consumer behavior drivers (e.g., Bloch,

1995; Doyle & Bottomley, 2004; Henderson & Cote, 1998; Lee, Ha, &

Widdows, 2011; Muller, Kocher, & Crettaz, 2013; Orth & Malkewitz,

2008), especially when consumers lack product-related knowledge or

expertise (Alba & Hutchinson, 1987; Dhar & Novemsky, 2008). In addi-

tion, two key properties of visual stimuliperceived attractiveness and

strengthprompt consumer responses (Page & Herr, 2002). Potential

buyers use perceptions of attractiveness to form behavioral intentions

(Bloch, Brunel, & Arnold, 2003; Reber, Schwarz, & Winkielman, 2004)

and respond consistently to the perceived strength of a design (Bafna,

2008; Karlsson, Aronsson, & Svensson, 2003; Page & Herr, 2002).

Yet knowledge about the effects of combinations of different levels of

multiple design properties remains lacking (Orth & Malkewitz, 2008;Park, Eisingerich, Pol, & Park, 2013).

Seminal response theory suggests that perceived attractiveness corre-

sponds with the pleasure dimension, whereas strength corresponds with

the potency/dominance dimension (Mehrabian & Russell, 1974; Osgood,

Suci, & Tannenbaum, 1957). In practice, specic design elements, factors,

or holistic designs convey perceived attractiveness and strength

(Henderson, Giese, & Cote, 2004; Orth & Malkewitz, 2008). Perceptions

of attractiveness (Van den Bergh & Vrana, 1998; Veryzer & Hutchinson,

1998) and strength (Janiszewski & Meyvis, 2001) inuence customer re-

sponses, so marketers routinely employ attractive, strong designs to dif-

ferentiate their propositions (Keller, 1993). According to research into

the relative roles of hedonic and utilitarian value seeking, the visual or

aesthetic appeal associated with a design constitutes a hedonic benet,

eliciting emotion and leading to the fulllment of promotion-oriented

goals (Chernev, 2004; Chitturi, Raghunathan, & Mahajan, 2007).

Integratingdesign research withvisual perception theories (Arnheim,

1974; Page & Herr, 2002; Veryzer, 1999), affective response frameworks

(Mehrabian & Russell, 1974), and hedonicutilitarian benets research

(Chitturi, Raghunathan, & Mahajan, 2008), the present research examines

the counterintuitive design principle of the aesthetic middle (Arnheim,

1974), according to which maximizing both attractiveness and strength

may not be optimal for stimulating purchase intentions. Instead, temper-

ing either attractiveness or strength may yield a visual representation

closer to the aesthetic middle, prompting more favorable responses. In ac-

cordance with research that indicates that variation in motivational goals

leads consumers to attach different relative importance to hedonic and

Journal of Business Research 67 (2014) 11541161

Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 406 243 2273.

E-mail addresses:[email protected](J.L. Giese),[email protected]

(K. Malkewitz), [email protected](U.R. Orth), [email protected]

(P.W. Henderson).1 Authors contributed equally and are listed alphabetically.2 This paper was developed while the author was at the University of Oregon and

Kansas State University.

0148-2963/$ see front matter. Published by Elsevier Inc.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2013.05.018

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Business Research
http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2013.05.018http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2013.05.018http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2013.05.018mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2013.05.018http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/01482963http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/01482963http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2013.05.018mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2013.05.018http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://crossmark.dyndns.org/dialog/?doi=10.1016/j.jbusres.2013.05.018&domain=f


2/8

utilitarian benets in purchase decisions (Chitturi et al., 2008), this study

posits that when consumers lack information on utilitarian benets (e.g.,

product attribute information), aesthetic middle designs (high attrac-

tiveness [strength]/moderate strength [attractiveness]) increase pur-

chase intentions more than designs that combine high attractiveness

with high strength.

2. Conceptual background and hypotheses

2.1. Perceived attractiveness

Perceived attractiveness strongly inuences customers'responses to

designs, resulting in evaluations of stimuli as attractive, pleasing, or

likable (Bloch et al., 2003; Hekkert, Snelders, & van Wieringen, 2003;

Reber et al., 2004). Attractiveness refers to a design's valenced evaluative

response or perceived hedonic tone (Berlyne, 1974). By corresponding

with aesthetic, experiential, and enjoyment-related values, attractive-

ness provides hedonic benets (Chitturi et al., 2007; Holbrook, 1999).

Design elements that can create perceptions of attractiveness include

shape (Bloch et al., 2003), proportion (Raghubir & Greenleaf, 2006), typ-

icality, naturalness, and harmony (Orth, Campana, & Malkewitz, 2010).

Simple, symmetric, harmonious, and natural typefaces and logos appear

more attractive than complex, asymmetric, contrasting, or articial ones

(Henderson& Cote, 1998; Henderson et al., 2004; Veryzer & Hutchinson,

1998). Similarly, symmetric, simple, well-proportioneddesigns are more

attractive than asymmetric, complex, ill-proportioned ones (Raghubir

& Greenleaf, 2006).

The positive link between attractiveness and behavioral intentions

is a well-supported phenomenon (Bloch et al., 2003). Attractiveness

enhances purchase intentions by increasing an offer's perceived value

(Creusen & Schoormans, 2005). Customers who perceive two offers as

similar in utilitarian value tend to purchase the more attractive alterna-

tive (Kotler & Rath, 1984). Visual uency research also links design

attractiveness to behavioral intentions, because uency (i.e., ease and

speed of processing the design) increases preference and purchase

intentions through increased attractiveness (Reber et al., 2004). Thus,

theory and empirical evidence consistently indicate that attractiveness

plays an important role in the persuasive ability of marketing stimuliand inuences customers' behavioral intentions.

2.2. Perceived strength

Consumers respond to the perceived strength of the design of

marketing stimuli (e.g., Bafna, 2008; Karlsson et al., 2003; Page &

Herr, 2002). Perceived strength, or the potency of a stimulus (Osgood

et al., 1957), refers to a design's power to capture attention(Berlyne,

1974, p. 320) or perceived authoritative tone (Mehrabian & Russell,

1974). For example, larger, heavier typefaces with few ourishes evoke

perceptions of strength more than smaller, lighter, or more ourished

ones (Henderson et al., 2004). More complex stimuli convey strength

through high imageground contrast, larger images, more vivid and sat-

urated colors, or bolder labels (Henderson & Cote, 1998; Orth &

Malkewitz, 2008).

The contention that design strength inuences behavior reects an

integration of visual perception theories with normative inuence (com-

pliance and conformity) research. For example, studies of architectural

drawings (Bafna, 2008) and interior design (Karlsson et al., 2003) indi-

cate that design strength determines behavioral responses. Strength

also is fundamental in customer responses to product shapes in diversecategories, such as tea kettles, sofas, and automobiles (Hsiao & Chen,

2006). Colors and saturation levels work similarly; customers respond

to strength when evaluating whether designs appear controlling, inu-

ential, or dominant (Brengman & Geuens, 2004). Normative theories

(Cialdini & Goldstein, 2004) suggest that such external cues guide cus-

tomers, who respond by complying with dominant persuasive stimuli,

such as advertising and packages (Bowman, Heilman, & Seetharaman,

2004). Thus theoryand empirical evidence advocate key effectsof design

strength on behavioral intentions.

2.3. The aesthetic middle principle and theoretical foundations

Aesthetic theorists maintain that stimuli with moderate aesthetic

qualities elicit more favorable responses than stimuli that score lower

or higher on a particular quality (Arnheim, 1974). Berlyne (1971)

built on this observation to posit preferences for moderate levels of

complexity; consumer responses follow an inverted U-shaped curve

with optimum levels at a moderate degree of visual complexity. In

line with this theory, environmental psychologists reportthat moderate

visual stimuli are more likely to yield approach behavior (Mehrabian &

Russell, 1974; Wirtz, Mattila, & Tan, 2000). Although marketing gener-

ally focuses on extreme design characteristics (i.e., the more attractive

or stronger,the better), other disciplines extensively apply theaesthetic

middle principle, such as the arts (Leder, Belke, Oeberst, & Augustin,

2004), architecture (Nohl, 2001), music (Beauvois, 2007), and poetry

(Simonton, 1990).

Persuasion and communication research acknowledge the notion

of moderation, analogous to the aesthetic middle. Moderate levels

of schema congruity and repetition are most effective (Bornstein &D'Agostino, 1992; Campbell & Goodstein, 2001). Moreover, research

on design (Batra, Brunel, & Chandran, 2009; Horsky & Honea, 2009)

and salespeople (Kang & Herr, 2006) suggests that very high levels

of attractiveness do not necessarily generate the most favorable

customer responses. By examining effects of aesthetic middle designs

(seeFig. 1), the current research extends design theory and practice.

Research on hedonicutilitarian motivations (Higgins, 2001) and

their trade-offs also supports the claim that combining high levels

of multiple dimensions may not yield the most positive consumer

response (Kivetz & Simonson, 2002).Chitturi et al. (2007) identify

an inection point at which the trade-off between utilitarian and

hedonic benets yields superior options, though the trade-off requires

Design-based

perceptions

BELOW the

aesthetic middle

The Aesthetic Middle

Design-based

perceptions

ABOVE the

aesthetic middle

Attractiveness Moderate

Attractiveness

Moderate

Attractiveness

High

Attractiveness

High

Attractiveness

Strength Moderate

Strength High Strength

Moderate

Strength High Strength

Fig. 1.The principle of the

Aesthetic Middle

applied to design-based perceptions.

1155J.L. Giese et al. / Journal of Business Research 67 (2014) 11541161


3/8

that utilitarian benets achieve a desired threshold. Therefore, in cer-

tain combinations, one dimension can maintain a moderate level,

whereas the other is high. In this sense, aesthetic middle designs

which combine appropriately moderate levels of attractiveness

(strength) with high levels of strength (attractiveness)should lead

to superior behavioral intentions, compared with either high/high

or moderate/moderate combinations. In turn, when consumers lack

other information, they should respond more positively to marketing

stimuli that feature designs withmoderatehigh (aesthetic middle) com-

binations of attractiveness and strength (i.e., moderate attractiveness/

high strength or high attractiveness/moderate strength):

H1. Purchase intentions are more favorable for aesthetic middle designs

than for designs with both (a) moderate or (b) high attractiveness and

strength perceptions.

2.4. Moderators

The proposed aesthetic middle effect may not occur uniformly

across customers and situations. Factors likely to inuence customers'

design perceptions include the hedonic or utilitarian nature of the

product category (Babin, Darden, & Grifn, 1994; Limon, Kahle, & Orth,

2009; Voss, Spangenberg, & Grohmann, 2003); consumer familiarity,

experience, or involvement (Alba & Hutchinson, 1987; Meyers-Levy

& Malaviya, 1999; Zaichkowsky, 1985); design acumen (Bloch et al.,

2003); and cognitive capacity (Zhao & Meyer, 2007). Previous studies

conrm differences in customer responses to hedonic versus utilitarian

package designs (Limon et al., 2009). Furthermore, the motivational

differences underlying customers' pursuit of hedonic or utilitarian

benets should affect whether aesthetics effectively elicit purchase in-

tentions.Thus, aesthetic middle designs should exert a greater inuence

on hedonic than utilitarian product decisions (Chernev, 2004).

H2. Compared with other design combinations, aesthetic middle designs

result in the most favorable purchase intentions for hedonic, rather than

utilitarian, products.

Prospective customers with limited information about a product

or organization use peripheral (Petty, Cacioppo, & Schumann, 1983)

and extrinsic (Rao & Monroe, 1988) cues more than customers withextensive information. These cues are both pervasive and inuential

(Haugtvedt, 1997); as one such cue, design can exert an inuence

(Orth et al., 2010). When they have little knowledge about or informa-

tion available to make decisions, prospective customers usevisualinfor-

mation featured in communications, packaging, and products (Dhar &

Novemsky, 2008; Jae & Viswanathan, 2012). Signaling theory suggests

that design cues can guide the behavior of less informed customers

(Kirmani & Rao, 2000); as consumers acquire information, this

inuence of design cues lessens (Dhar & Novemsky, 2008).

In a broad sense, consumers who are more familiar, informed,

or involved with a product category have more expertise (Alba

& Hutchinson, 1987; Johnson & Russo, 1984) and typically use knowl-

edge, rather than design-based perceptions, to make purchase deci-

sions (Meyers-Levy & Malaviya, 1999; Petty et al., 1983). Because

expertise dilutes the impact of attractiveness and strength, dimin-

ished aesthetic middle effects are likely too.


result in the most favorable purchase intentions among less informed,

not more informed, customers.

Design acumen refers to a person's ability to recognize, categorize,

and evaluate productdesigns (Bloch et al., 2003, p. 553). Through their

frequent exposure to designs, high acumen consumers develop a

rich, readily accessible knowledge structure about visual arrangements

and con

gurations. These knowledge structures lead to more holisticprocessing;less accessible designknowledge requires analytic, elemental,

or atomistic processing(Richler, Tanaka, Brown, & Gauthier,2008). Differ-

ences in processing style imply high acumen consumers consider not

only design attractiveness and strength but also other design facets

(e.g., uniqueness,unity, repetition). This broader, more holistic process-

ing should lead to a more muted impact of design-based attractiveness

and strength and therefore a dilution of the aesthetic middle effect:


result in the most favorable purchase intentions among customers with

low, not high, design acumen.

Finally, processing visual stimuli requires mental resources (Zhao

& Meyer, 2007), but unrelated information (e.g., to-do lists) competes

for these resources. Therefore, the presence of cognitive loads may

reduce information processing efciency (Chowdhury, Ratneshwar, &Mohanty, 2009). In contrast, uency research suggests that even with

limited cognitive resources, attractive designs generate positive affect

and liking (Landwehr & Orth, 2010; Reber et al., 2004). Furthermore,

an increased cognitive load usually reduces the resources available for

central processing, such that information cues relying on peripheral

processing (e.g., hedonic value derived from aesthetic middle designs)

gain a more prominent inuence. Therefore:

H5. Aesthetic middle designs inuence purchase intentions, regardless

of cognitive load.

Table 1

Study 1 typefaces and descriptive characteristics.

Font

76

73

61

67

n Attractiveness

Moderate

Moderate

High

High

Strength

Moderate

Moderate

High

High

(Std. Dev.)

Intent to donate mean

3.79 (2.42)

4.59 (2.47)

4.79 (2.16)

4.25 (2.33)

Attractiveness mean

3.42

4.88

3.38

5.62

Strength mean

3.67

2.94

5.31

5.62

1

2

3

4

5

High AttractivenessHigh Strength

Moderate AttractivenessHigh Strength

High AttractivenessModerate Strength

Moderate AttractivenessModerate Strength

IntenttoDonate

Typeface Attractiveness and Strength

Fig. 2.Study 1: Effects of typeface design on intent to donate.

1156 J.L. Giese et al. / Journal of Business Research 67 (2014) 11541161


4/8

3. Study 1

Study 1 tests the aesthetic middle effect using typefaces, a relatively

simple design stimulus, in a direct mail postcard intended to inuence

prospective donors' behavioral intentions. The design is a 2 (typeface

attractiveness: moderate vs. high) 2 (typeface strength: moderate

vs. high) between-subjects quasi-experiment.

3.1. Stimuli and procedures

The stimulus selection derived from a database containing 210

typefaces, rated in terms of their attractiveness and strength by con-sumers (Henderson et al., 2004). To ensure the realism of the study,

using unattractive or very weak typefaces was not an option. Excluding

low attractiveness, low strength levels also increases the difculty of

obtaining signicant results.Table 1depicts the typefaces selected to

reect the desired combinations of high/moderate attractiveness,

crossed with moderate/high strength.

In partnership with a national nonprot organization, the authors

sent postcards with four different typefaces to 2200 previous donors

(informed prospective customers) and 6600 non-donors (less informed

prospective customers) in the U.S. Pacic Northwest. The postcards did

not differ other than in the typeface. Of the 289 postcards returned by

non-donors, 12 contained incomplete responses, leaving 277 responses

for the further analysis. A seven-point Likert-type scale (I am likely to

donate to [organization] in the future) assessed intentions to donate.

3.2. Results and discussion

Analyses of variance (ANOVAs) indicated no signicant main

effects of attractiveness (F(1,273) = .22, p = .64) or strength

(F(1,273) =1.35, p = .25) on intentions to donate, but a signif-

icant attractiveness strength interaction effect emerged (F(1,273) =

5.50, p = .02). Typefaces with high attractiveness/moderate strength

(M= 4.59) and moderate attractiveness/high strength (M= 4.79) in-

creased intentionsto donate more than typefaces with high attractiveness

and strength (M= 4.25) and moderate attractiveness and strength

(M= 3.79).

Planned comparisons, using a Tukey test, indicated signicantly

higher intentions to donate in response to aesthetic middle rather

than moderate attractiveness/moderate strength typefaces (p = .04

andp = .01), in support ofH1a. In contrast, no signicant difference

emerged between the high attractiveness/high strength typeface and

the moderate attractiveness/moderate strength typeface (p= .24).

Although directional differences arose between the two aesthetic

middle typefaces and the high attractiveness/high strength typeface,

the results were not signicant (p= .40 and p= .20), soH1b was

not supported. Nevertheless, preliminary support for tempering one

design dimension (moderate attractiveness or strength) relative tothe other (high strength or attractiveness) became evident from the

interaction effect (p = .02) and the conforming directions of the

intention means (i.e., high/moderate typefaces resulted in higher

intentions to donate than the high/high typefaces). Fig. 2 depicts

these results.

Donation history served as a proxy for customer information

about the organization. Repeating the analyses with the hold-out

sample of donors (n = 114) indicated no signicant effect of type-

faces on intention to donate (F(3,110) = 1.73, p = .17). Further-

more, the attractiveness strength interaction was not signicant

(F(1,110) = .09, p = .77), in support of H3. Aesthetic middle

designs were more effective in inuencing purchase intentions

mainly among less informed customers (i.e., non-donors).

These ndings suggest a rm's prospective customers respond more

favorably to aesthetic middle typeface designs than to other combina-

tions. Although typeface is a subtle design cue, the results were signi-

cant for prospective, not existing, donors. However, three issues may

limit the generalizability of these ndings. First, real designs rarely

consist of only typeface; instead, customers typically view more com-

plex stimuli. Second, purchase intentions differed signicantly for the

aesthetic middle versus the moderate/moderate typefaces but not

compared with the high/high typefaces. Third, the realistic nature of

the study may have introduced noise. These issues motivated Studies

2 and 3.

4. Study 2

A design's complexity exerts a signicant inuence on customer

responses (Cox & Cox, 2002; Hsiao & Chen, 2006; Karlsson et al.,2003). By examining more complex stimuli,Study2 seeksto corroborate

and extend thendings of Study 1. Wine packages provided appropriate

study stimuli since they met several key criteria (Campbell & Goodstein,

2001; Orth & Malkewitz, 2008). In particular, wine packages vary

in typeface and other design properties related to attractiveness and

strength perceptions; real packages vary in attractiveness and strength;

substantial variance characterizes consumer information and familiarity;

and package design is important in the formation of buyer behavioral

intentions.

4.1. Participants and procedure

Researchers purchased 120 wine packages from multiple retailers to

obtain variance in design attractiveness and strength. In addition, theselection favored little known brands to reduce the level of potential

noise created by familiarity with the brand. Pretests of the packages

with design professionals (N = 101) established stimuli scores for

attractiveness and strength. Using cutoff points for three equal groups

(i.e., low, moderate, and high attractiveness or strength), research

assistants selected ten packages to include in each experimental cell

(e.g., moderate/moderate, moderate/high, high/moderate, and high/

high attractiveness and strength) resulting in a total of 40 stimuli.

Table 2presents some examples.

Study participants were randomly selected visitors to wine tasting

rooms in the Pacic Northwest. A total of 433 consumers (mean

age = 46.3 years, 57.2% women) each viewed one randomly selected

wine package, prominently displayed on a table in a semi-enclosed

booth, and completed a series of questions. Research assistants

Table 2

Study 2 examples of wine package stimuli.

Hi

Strength

Moderate

Strength

High

Attractive

Moderate

Attractive



5/8

screened respondents to assess their familiarity with the wine brands;

the group exhibited low familiarity overall (N= 353; M= 1.43;

SD= .78; 1 = not at all familiarto 7 = very much familiar).

4.2. Independent and dependent variables

Two semantic differentials assessed attractiveness (1 = don't

like at all/not attractive to 7 = like it very much/very attractive,

item-to-factor correlation > .91,

= .80). A multi-item measureassessed design strength using participants' ratings of how strong,

rugged, outdoorsy, or tough the design seemed on a seven-point scale

(1 = not at all to 7 = very much (adapted from Aaker, 1997),

item-to-factor correlation > .87, = .78). To assess visitors' purchase

intentions, the survey included, Would you buy this wine the next

time you see it in a store? (1 = denitely no to 7 = denitely

yes).

The test of the experimental manipulation compared levels of

attractiveness and strength across conditions. The ANOVA results

indicated the expected difference in the perceived attractiveness

of the stimuli (F(1,151) = 90.24,p = .001). Participants rated the

attractive designs as more attractive than the moderate designs

(M= 5.02, M= 3.84). In addition, the comparisons of consumer

ratings of perceived strength indicated a signicant effect of themanip-

ulation (F(1,151) = 65.96,p= .001) with higherratings for the attrac-

tive compared with the moderate designs (M= 5.04,M= 3.98).

4.3. Results and discussion

The ANOVA results indicated no signicant main effect of de-

sign strength on purchase intentions (F(9,298) = .73, p= .68)

but a signicant main effect of attractiveness (F(5,302) = 3.70,

p = .01). The attractiveness strength interaction was signicant

too (F(34,372) = 1.52,p= .04): Package designs with high attractive-

ness/moderate strength (M= 4.52) or moderate attractiveness/high

strength (M= 4.43) prompted higher purchase intentions than de-

signs with high attractiveness and strength (M= 3.61) or moderate

attractiveness and strength (M= 3.21). Post-hoc analyses with Tukey

tests indicated the differences were signicant (ps b .05) exceptbetween the two aesthetic middle designs (p= .53).Table 3presents

these results.

Planned comparisons also showed signicantly higher intentions

to purchase for the aesthetic middle versus the moderate/moderate

designs (p = .001 and p = .004), in support of H1a. Signicant

results also demonstrated differences between the aesthetic middle

package designs versus the high/high designs (p b.05), in line with

H1b. Of particular interest, the aesthetic middle designs resulted in

signicantly higher intentions to purchase than did the moderate/

moderate designs, but the high/high designs did not (p= .46),

asFig. 3shows.

Repeating these analyses withthe hold-out sample of cases previously

excluded because of their high familiarity scores (n= 76, M= 4.21,

SD= 1.05) allows tests of a potential confounding effect of familiarity.

The ANOVA results indicated familiarity had no signicant main effect

on purchase intentions (p = .85); however, an analysis of covariance

(ANCOVA) indicated the effect of the attractiveness strength inter-

action on purchase intentions varied with familiarity (Ffamiliarity = .78,

p= .76; Fatt st= 4.56, p = .001; Ffamiliarity att st = 8.46, p = .001).

When familiarity was high, aesthetic middle designs were notmore likely

to be purchased (p> .05) than designs with high or moderate attractive-ness and strength. High familiarity thus attenuated the aesthetic middle

effect, in support ofH3.

Thesendings corroborate the Study 1 results in another product

category, using more complex stimuli, and thus conrm that aesthetic

middle combinations of attractiveness and strength generate the

most favorable purchase intentions. Customers who are not familiar

with the brand respond more favorably to aesthetic middle package

designs than do more familiar customers. Therefore, a rm that

aims to increase prospective buyers' purchase intentions should use

designs exhibiting either high attractiveness tempered by moderate

strength or high strength tempered by moderate attractiveness.

5. Study 3

To test the hypothesized roles of product category and individual

differences (involvement, design acumen, and cognitive load), Study 3

used a 2 (attractiveness: high vs. moderate) 2 (strength: high vs.

moderate) 2 (cognitive load: high vs. low) 2 (product category:

perfumes vs. cough drops) mixed factorial design. The results of a pre-

test (N= 25) suggested perfumes as hedonic and cough drops as

utilitarian products. Participants exhibited low category knowledge

for both (perfume M= 1.93, SD = 1.06; cough drops M= 3.43,

SD = 1.61, 1 = not at all knowledgeable to 7 = very knowl-

edgeable). Eight professional designers helped choose appropriate

stimuli to represent the four possible combinations of moderate/

high attractiveness and strength. To reduce potential bias, the stimuli

used disguised brand names. Pretesting stimuli with members of the

Table 3

Study 2 stimuli and descriptives.

Example wine packages Att ractive ness Str engt h n I nt ent to pur ch ase me an ( std. de v.) Att ractiveness me an Str engt h mean

Cristom Moderate Moderate

Torij Mor Moderate Moderate 91 3.21 (1.69) 4.25 4.18

Badger Mountain Moderate Moderate

Travaglini High Moderate

Bella Vida High Moderate 90 4.52 (1.45) 6.04 4.48

Barton Guetier High Moderate

Oswego Hills Moderate High

Prosperity Moderate High 87 4.43 (1.62) 4.83 5.66

Naia Moderate High

Desert Wind High High

Angrove's High High 83 3.61 (1.82) 5.62 5.80

Silkwood High High

1

2

3

4

5

High AttractivenessHigh Strength

Moderate AttractivenessHigh Strength

High AttractivenessModerate Strength

Moderate AttractivenessModerate Strength

IntenttoPurchase

Wine Package Attractiveness and Strength

Fig. 3.Study 2: Effects of wine package design on intent to purchase.



6/8

target population (N= 18) ascertained attractiveness and strength

scores.

5.1. Participants and procedure

Half (n= 66) the participants received a cognitive load manipula-

tion, whereas the other half (n= 64) did not. Manipulating cognitive

load involved asking participants to hold either a ten-digit number

(load condition) or one-digit number (no load condition) in memoryduring the entire survey and report the number at the end of the

experiment (Anseel & Duyck, 2009). Research assistants conrmed

the participants did not write down the numbers.

One hundred and twenty-two female college students participated

in Study 3 for a small gift. Two participants did not complete all parts

of the study. The nal sample thus consisted of 120 respondents

(mean age = 27.1 years). The focus on female participants accounts

for possible gender differences in processing and attractiveness evalua-

tions of visual stimuli due to differential activation and accessibility of

constructs and ideas, contingent upon the category (Johar, Moreau, &

Schwarz, 2003). Homogeneous populations are appropriate for mini-

mizing variance due to noise from other sources, such as age, gender,

or education (Bagozzi, 1984).

Thestimuli appeared on an onlinesurvey site, accessible only to par-

ticipants. After a short introduction, participants evaluated designs and

submittedtheir responses. In theevaluation task, allparticipantsjudged

one design each in the perfume and cough drop categories, presented in

alternating order. For each design, participants indicated perceived

attractiveness, strength, and intentions to purchase on scales identical

to those in Study 2. A three-item, ve-point Likert-type scale

(De Wulf, Odekerken-Schrder, & Iacobucci, 2001) measured product

category involvement (= .92). Participants also completed scales to

assess their design acumen(Bloch et al., 2003; = .82), cognitive load

(Wirth, Knsting, & Leutner, 2009; = .92), and socio-demographic

measures.

5.2. Manipulation checks and results

The ANOVA results indicated a signicant effect of load condition onperceived load (F(1,119) = 247.13;p= .001) at higher load condition

scores (M= 3.51 vs. M= 1.07). Similarly, design attractiveness had

the predicted effect on attractiveness (F(1,119) = 23.36, p= .001,

M= 2.46 vs. 3.33), and design strength had the anticipated effect on

perceived strength (F(1,119) = 19.75, p= .001, M= 2.23 vs. 3.17).

Thus, the experimental manipulations were successful.

Across product categories, the ANOVAs indicated no signicant

main effects of design attractiveness (F(1,119) = 1.33, p= .25) or

of design strength (F(1,119) = 1.28, p = .26) on purchase inten-

tions. Neither cognitive load (F(1,119) = .21,p = .65) nor individual

design acumen exerted signicant main effects on purchase intentions

(F(20,99) = 1.07, p = .39). Replicating the previous two studies, the

effects of the strength attractiveness interaction on purchase inten-

tions was signicant (F(2,118) = 13.30, p= .001). Package designswith high attractiveness/moderate strength (M= 3.76) and moderate

attractiveness/high strength (M= 3.61) initiated higher purchase

intentions than designs with high attractiveness and strength

(M= 3.41) or moderate attractiveness and strength (M= 1.73).

Post-hoc analyses using the Tukey test indicated the differences

were signicant (ps b .05), except for the difference between the

two aesthetic middle designs (p= .85). In line with previous ndings,

planned comparisons indicated that the aesthetic middle designs

resulted in signicantly higher intentions to purchase compared with

high/high and moderate/moderate combinations (ps = .001).

When product category served as a covariate, the effect of

the attractiveness strength interaction on purchase intentions

varied by category (Fcategory = 13.14, p= .001; Fatt st = 11.38,

p= .001; Fcategory att st = 9.31, p = .001). Specically, the

attractiveness strength interaction effect was signicant for perfumes

(F(2,58) = 8.15, p= .001) but not for cough drops (F(2,58) = 2.16,

p = .13). In support of H2, the aesthetic middle principle holds for

the hedonic but not for the utilitarian category.

The effect also varied with customers' involvement (Finvolvement=

.90, p= .67; Fatt st= 22.15, p= .001; Finvolvement att st= 2.63,

p= .04). With a median involvement split, the effects of the aesthetic

middle designs held for less but not for more involved customers. For

less involved customers, designs with high attractiveness/moderatestrength (M= 4.79) and moderate attractiveness/high strength

(M= 4.50) invoke higher purchase intentions than high/high

(M= 4.03) or moderate/moderate (M= 3.98) combinations, thus

replicating support forH3.

The ANCOVA results indicated that the effect of the attractive-

ness strength interaction on purchase intentions did not vary

with design acumen (Facumen = .09, p = .76; Fatt st = 13.11,

p = .001; Facumen att st = 1.00, p = .48). The ndings did not

support H4. Furthermore, the effect of the attractiveness strength

interaction on purchase intentions did not vary with the cognitive

load on the viewer (Fload= 3.16,p = .06;Fatt st= 13.10, p = .001;

Fload att st = .89, p = .41). Thus, in support of H5, the aesthetic

middle design effect holds regardless of the cognitive resources avail-

able for design processing.

6. Discussion and further research

The results of three studies offer at least ve ndings of interest

to researchers and practitioners. First, the joint effects of perceived

attractiveness and perceived strength evoke responses, such that

aesthetic middle designs (i.e., high attractiveness/moderate strength

or moderate attractiveness/high strength) prompt the most favorable

behavioral intentions. Second, the aesthetic middle effect applies not

only to typeface (simple design stimulus) but also to more complex

stimuli, such as packages. Third, aesthetic middle designs are most

effective when customers have little other information (e.g., utilitarian

benets), whether due to their limited experience, low familiarity,

or low involvement. Fourth, unlike many other factors that inuence

purchase decisions, the inuence of aesthetic middle designs does notdepend on customers' design acumen or available cognitive resources.

Fifth, aesthetic middle designs are more effective in inuencing

purchase decisions for hedonic than for utilitarian products.

An important theoretical contribution of this research relates

to the test for the efcacy of the aesthetic middle principle to

advance design theory, an area noticeably suffering from a lack of

theory (Verganti, 2006). This research also extends understanding of

the fundamental dimensions of consumer response (Mehrabian &

Russell, 1974), by showing that design-based attractiveness (pleasure)

and strength (dominance) inuence consumer responses to marketing

stimuli, such as packages and direct mail. In demonstrating, counterin-

tuitively, that a seemingly suboptimal combination of attractiveness

and strength actually results in superior purchase intentions, this inves-

tigation suggests caution be taken when using highly attractive or verystrong designs. Furthermore, academicians and practitioners need

to reconsider their tendency toward scientic reductionism, such as

examining single variables in isolation. Finally, this research integrates

ndings on specic design properties with a hedonicutilitarian moti-

vation framework (Chitturi et al., 2008) to demonstrate that trade-offs

in stimuli dimensions can yield superior responses, such as behavioral

intentions.

As demand accelerates for behavioral response models that apply

across contexts (Leeang & Wittink, 2000), the generalizability of

aesthetic middle effects assumes particular importance. Aesthetic

middle results persist, in this study, across design stimuli of varying

complexity, different measures of behavioral intentions, diverse

populations, and varied eld and experimental methods. In addition,

this research moves beyond individual design elements, which are



7/8

difcult to generalize to broader constructs, and features design-

based attractiveness and strength perceptions that transcend product

categories. Considering the importance of aesthetics to the success of

both new products (Bloch, 1995; Veryzer, 1999) and existing offers

(Antioco, Moenaert, Feinberg, & Wetzels, 2008), the concept of the

aesthetic middle offers reassuring generalizability and a solid theoretical

foundation. Firms introducing new products (Hua & Wemmerlv, 2006)

can use aesthetic middle designs to generate purchase intentions, espe-

cially among new, less informed customers, and turn prospects intoactual customers. Although anecdotal evidence from graphic and indus-

trial designers suggests that manipulating designs to maximize both

attractiveness and strength is common, such efforts may be misguided.

Instead, by using designs that tend toward the aesthetic middle,

managers and designers could increase the effectiveness of marketing

activities without additional resources.

These ndings respond to the existing call for research into multiple

visual elements (e.g., packaging) and the effects on consumer responses

(Park et al., 2013); the ndings also extend this call by using realistic

design stimuli in eld settings; future experimental research should

examine the foundational elements of design attractiveness (e.g., sym-

metry) and design strength (e.g., contrast) to determine foundational

combinationsthat mosteffectivelydrive consumerbehavioral responses.

Furthermore, researchers should examine the effects of aesthetic middle

designs in the context of shopping and consumption environments, such

as evaluations of products in physical environments (e.g., store shelves)

and virtual environments (e.g., websites, simulated environments).

References

Aaker, J. (1997). Dimensions of brand personality. Journal of Marketing Research, 34,347356.

Alba, J. W., & Hutchinson, J. W. (1987). Dimensions of consumer expertise.Journ al of Consu mer Resea rch , 13 , 411454.

Anseel, F., & Duyck, W. (2009).Implicit letter preferences in job choice: An experimentaltest of the role of cognitive load. Journal of Psychology: Interdisciplinary and Applied,143, 207224.

Antioco, M., Moenaert, R. K., Feinberg, R. A., & Wetzels, M. G. M. (2008). Integratingservice and design: The inuences of organizational and communication factorson relative product and service characteristics.Journal of the Academy of MarketingScience,36, 501521.

Arnheim, R. (1974).Art and visual perception: A psychology of the creative eye. Berkeley:University of California Press.

Babin, B. J., Darden, W. R., & Grifn, M. (1994).Work and/or fun: Measuring hedonicand utilitarian shopping value.Journal of Consumer Research,20(4), 644656.

Bafna, S. (2008).How architectural drawings work. The Journal of Architecture,13(5),535564.

Bagozzi, R. P. (1984).A prospectusfor theoryconstructionin marketing.Journal of Marketing,48(1), 1129.

Batra, R. T., Brunel, F., & Chandran, S. (2009). When good looks kill: An examinationof consumer responses to visually attractive product design. In A. L. McGill, & S.Shavitt (Eds.),Adv Consum Res, 36(pp. 698). Duluth, MN: Association for ConsumerResearch.

Beauvois, M. W. (2007).Quantifying aesthetic preference and perceived complexity forfractal melodies.Music Perception,24(3), 247264.

Berlyne, D. E. (1971). Aesthetics and psychobiology. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.

Berlyne, D. E. (1974).Studies in the new experimental aesthetics: Steps toward an objectivepsychology of aesthetic appreciation.New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Bloch, P. H. (1995). Seeking the ideal form: Product design and consumer response.Journal of Marketing,59, 1629.

Bloch, P. H., Brunel, F. F., & Arnold, T. J. (2003). Individual differences in the centrality ofvisual product aesthetics: Concept and measurement. Journal of Consumer Research,

29, 551565.Bornstein, R. F., & D'Agostino, P. R. (1992).Stimulus recognition and the mere exposure

effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology ,63, 545552.Bowman, D., Heilman, C. M., & Seetharaman, P. B. (2004).Determinants of product-use

compliance behavior.Journal of Marketing Research,41, 324338.Brengman, M., & Geuens, M. (2004).The four dimensional impact of color on shopper's

emotions. Advances in Consumer Research,31, 122131.Campbell, M. C., & Goodstein, R. C. (2001). The moderating effect of perceived risk

on consumers' evaluations of product incongruity: Preference for the norm.Journal of Consumer Research,28, 439449.

Chernev, A. (2004).Goal-attribute compatibility in consumer choice.Journal of ConsumerPsychology,14, 141150.

Chitturi, R., Raghunathan, R., & Mahajan, V. (2007). Form versus function: Howthe intensities of specic emotions evoked in functional versus hedonic trade-offsmediate product preferences.Journalof Marketing Research, 44(November), 702714.

Chitturi, R., Raghunathan, R., & Mahajan, V. (2008). Delight by design: The role ofhedonic versus utilitarian benets.Journal of Marketing,72(May), 4863.

Chowdhury, T., Ratneshwar, S., & Mohanty, P. (2009).The time-harried shopper: Exploringthe differences between maximizers and satiscers.Marketing Letters,20, 155167.

Cialdini, R. B., & Goldstein, N. J. (2004).Social inuence: Compliance and conformity.Annual Review of Psychology,55, 591621.

Cox, D., & Cox, A. D. (2002).Beyondrst impressions: The effects of repeated exposureon consumer liking of visually complex and simple product designs. Journal of the

Academy of Marketing Science,30(2), 119130.Creusen, M. E., & Schoormans, J. P. (2005).The different roles of product appearance in

consumer choice.Journal of Product Innovation Management,5(22), 6381.

De Wulf, K., Odekerken-Schrder, G., & Iacobucci, D. (2001). Investments in consumerrelationships: A cross-country and cross-industry exploration.Journal of Marketing,65, 3350.

Dhar, R., & Novemsky, N. (2008). Beyond rationality: The content of preferences.Journal of Consumer Psychology,18, 175178.

Doyle, J. R., & Bottomley, P. A. (2004). Font appropriateness and brand choice.Journa l o f Busines s R esearch ,57, 873880.

Haugtvedt, C. P. (1997). Beyond fact or artifact: An assessment of Fishbein andMiddlestadt's perspectives on attitude change processes. Journal of ConsumerPsychology,6, 99.

Hekkert, P., Snelders, D., & van Wieringen, P. C. (2003).Most advanced, yet acceptable:Typicality and novelty as joint predictors of aesthetic preference in industrialdesign.British Journal of Psychology,94, 111124.

Henderson, P. W., & Cote, J. A. (1998). Guidelines for selecting or modifying logos.Journal of Marketing,62, 1430.

Henderson, P. W., Giese, J. L., & Cote, J. A. (2004).Impression management using type-face design.Journal of Marketing,68, 6072.

Higgins, T. E. (2001). Promotion and prevention experiences: Relating emotions tononemotional motivational states. In J. P. Forgas (Ed.),Handbook of Affect and Social

Cognition(pp. 186211). London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Holbrook, B. M. (1999). Consumer value: A framework for analysis and research.

New York: Routledge.Horsky, S., & Honea, H. (2009). Do we judge a book by its cover and a product by its

package? How affective expectations are contrasted and assimilated into theconsumption experience. In A. L. McGill, & S. Shavitt (Eds.), Adv Consum Res, 36(pp. 699700). Duluth, MN: Association for Consumer Research.

Hsiao, K., & Chen, L. (2006).Fundamental dimensions of affective responses to productshapes.International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics,36(6), 553564.

Hua, S. Y., & Wemmerlv, U. (2006). Product change intensity, product advantage, andmarket performance:An empirical investigation of the PC industry.Journal of ProductInnovation Management,23, 316329.

Jae, H., & Viswanathan, M. (2012). Effects of pictorial product warnings on low-literateconsumers.Journal of Business Research ,65, 16741682.

Janiszewski, C., & Meyvis, T. (2001).Effects of brandlogo complexity,repetition, and spac-ing on processing uency and judgment.Journal of Consumer Research,28, 1832.

Johar, G. V., Moreau, P., & Schwarz, N. (2003).Gender typed advertisements and impressionformation: The role of chronic and temporary accessibility. Journal of ConsumerPsychology,13, 220229.

Johnson, E. J., & Russo, J. E. (1984). Product familiarity and learning new information.Journal of Consumer Research,11, 542550.

Kang, Y. S., & Herr, P. M. (2006).Beauty and the beholder: Toward an integrative modelof communication source effects.Journal of Consumer Research,33, 123130.

Karlsson, B. S., Aronsson, N., & Svensson, K. A. (2003). Using semantic environmentdescription as a tool to evaluate car interiors. Ergonomics,46, 14081432.

Keller, K. L. (1993).Conceptualizing, measuring, and managing customer-based brandequity.Journal of Marketing,57, 122.

Kirmani, A., & Rao, A. R. (2000). No pain, no gain: A critical review of the literature onsignaling unobservable product quality.Journal of Marketing,64, 6679.

Kivetz, R., & Simonson, I. (2002). Earning the right to indulge: Effort as a determinant of cus-tomer preferences toward frequency program rewards.Journal of Marketing Research,

39(May), 155170.Kotler, P., & Rath, G. A. (1984). Design: A powerful but neglected strategic tool.

The Journal of Business Strategy,5, 1621.Landwehr, J., & Orth, U. (2010).Intrinsic, prime, and individual inuences on contextual

designuency. In D. R. Deeter-Schmelz (Ed.), Developments in marketing science,33,Coral Gables, FL: Academy of Marketing Science.

Leder, H., Belke, B., Oeberst, A., & Augustin, A. (2004).A model of aesthetic appreciationand aesthetic judgments.British Journal of Psychology,95(4), 489508.

Lee, S.,Ha, S.,& Widdows, R. (2011). Consumer responses to high-technology products:Product attributes, cognition, and emotions. Journal of Business Research, 64,11951200.

Leeang, P. S. H., & Wittink, D. R. (2000). Building models for marketing decisions:Past, present and future. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 17(23),105126.

Limon, Y., Kahle, L. R., & Orth, U. R. (2009).Package design as a communications vehiclein cross-cultural value-shopping.Journal of International Marketing,17, 3057.

Mehrabian, A., & Russell, J. (1974). An approach to environmental psychology.Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

Meyers-Levy, J., & Malaviya, P. (1999). Consumers' processing of persuasive advertisements:An integrative framework of persuasion theories. Journal of Marketing,63, 4560.

Muller, B., Kocher, B., & Crettaz, A. (2013). The effects of visual rejuvenation throughbrand logos.Journal of Business Research,66, 8288.

Nohl, W. (2001). Sustainable landscape use and aesthetic perceptionpreliminaryreections on future landscape aesthetics. Landscape and Urban Planning, 54,223237.

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0005http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0005http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0005http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0005http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0005http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0005http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0005http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0005http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0010http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0010http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0010http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0010http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0010http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0010http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0010http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0015http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0015http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0015http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0015http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0015http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0015http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0015http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0015http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0020http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0020http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0020http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0020http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0020http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0020http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0020http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0020http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0020http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0020http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0020http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0020http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0025http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0025http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0025http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0030http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0030http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0030http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0030http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0030http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0030http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0030http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0030http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0035http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0035http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0035http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0035http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0035http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0035http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0035http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0035http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0040http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0040http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0040http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0040http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0040http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0040http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0040http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0045http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0045http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0045http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0045http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0045http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0045http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0385http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0385http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0385http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0385http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0385http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0385http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0385http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0385http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0050http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0050http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0050http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0055http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0055http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0055http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0060http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0060http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0060http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0060http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0060http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0060http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0060http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0065http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0065http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0065http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0065http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0065http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0065http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0065http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0065http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0070http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0070http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0070http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0070http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0070http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0070http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0070http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0070http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0075http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0075http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0075http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0075http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0075http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0075http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0075http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0075http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0080http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0080http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0080http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0080http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0080http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0080http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0080http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0080http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0085http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0085http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0085http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0085http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0085http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0085http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0085http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0085http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0090http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0090http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0090http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0090http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0090http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0090http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0090http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0090http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0095http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0095http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0095http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0095http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0095http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0095http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0095http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0095http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0095http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0095http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0095http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0100http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0100http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0100http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0100http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0100http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0100http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0100http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0100http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0100http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0100http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0105http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0105http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0105http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0105http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0105http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0105http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0105http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0105http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0105http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0105http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0110http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0110http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0110http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0110http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0110http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0110http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0110http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0110http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0110http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0115http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0115http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0115http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0115http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0115http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0115http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0115http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0115http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0115http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0115http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0115http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0120http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0120http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0120http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0120http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0120http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0120http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0120http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0120http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0125http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0125http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0125http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0125http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0125http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0125http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0125http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0125http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0130http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0130http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0130http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0130http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0130http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0130http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0130http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0135http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0135http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0135http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0135http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0135http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0135http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0135http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0140http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0140http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0140http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0140http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0140http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0140http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0140http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0145http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0145http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0145http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0145http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0145http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0145http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0145http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0145http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0145http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0150http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0150http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0150http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0150http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0150http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0150http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0150http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0155http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0155http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0155http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0155http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0155http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0155http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0155http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0155http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0160http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0160http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0160http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0160http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0160http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0160http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0160http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0165http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0165http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0170http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0170http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0170http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0170http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0170http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0170http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0170http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0175http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0175http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0175http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0175http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0175http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0175http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0175http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0175http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0180http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0180http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0180http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0180http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0180http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0180http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0180http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0180http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0180http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0185http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0185http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0185http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0185http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0185http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0185http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0185http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0185http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0190http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0190http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0190http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0190http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0190http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0190http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0190http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0190http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0190http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0190http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0195http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0195http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0195http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0195http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0195http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0195http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0195http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0195http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0195http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0200http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0200http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0200http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0200http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0200http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0200http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0200http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0205http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0205http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0205http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0205http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0205http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0205http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0205http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0205http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0210http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0210http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0210http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0210http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0210http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0210http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0210http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0210http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0215http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0215http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0215http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0215http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0215http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0215http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0215http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0215http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0220http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0220http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0220http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0220http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0220http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0220http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0220http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0220http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0225http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0225http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0225http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0225http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0225http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0225http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0225http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0225http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0230http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0230http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0230http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0230http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0230http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0230http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0230http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0390http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0390http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0390http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0390http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0390http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0390http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0390http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0390http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0390http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0390http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0390http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0240http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0240http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0240http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0240http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0240http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0240http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0240http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0240http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0245http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0245http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0245http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0245http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0245http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0245http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0245http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0245http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0245http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0250http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0250http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0250http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0250http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0250http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0250http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0250http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0250http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0250http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0250http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0250http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0255http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0255http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0255http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0255http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0255http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0255http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0255http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0255http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0260http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0260http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0265http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0265http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0265http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0265http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0265http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0265http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0265http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0265http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0270http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0270http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0270http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0270http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0270http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0270http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0270http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0270http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0275http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0275http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0275http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0275http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0275http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0275http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0275http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0275http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0275http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0275http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0275http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0275http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0275http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0275http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0275http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0275http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0270http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0270http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0265http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0265http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0260http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0260http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0255http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0255http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0250http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0250http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0250http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0245http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0245http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0245http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0240http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0240http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0390http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0390http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0390http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0230http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0230http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0225http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0225http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0225http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0220http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0220http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0215http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0215http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0210http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0210http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0205http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0205http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0200http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0200http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0195http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0195http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0195http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0190http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0190http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0185http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0185http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0180http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0180http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0180http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0175http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0175http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0170http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0170http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0170http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0170http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0165http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0165http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0160http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0160http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0160http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0155http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0155http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0150http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0150http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0145http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0145http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0145http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0140http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0140http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0140http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0135http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0135http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0130http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0130http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0125http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0125http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0125http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0120http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0120http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0115http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0115http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0115http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0110http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0110http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0105http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0105http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0100http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0100http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0095http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0095http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0095http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0090http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0090http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0085http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0085http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0085http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0080http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0080http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0075http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0075http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0070http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0070http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0065http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0065http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0065http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0060http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0060http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0055http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0055http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0050http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0050http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0385http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0385http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0045http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0045http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0045http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0045http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0040http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0040http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0035http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0035http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0030http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0030http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0025http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0025http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0020http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0020http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0020http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0020http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0015http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0015http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0015http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0010http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0010http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0005http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0148-2963(13)00207-5/rf0005


8/8

Orth, U. R., Campana, D., & Malkewitz, K. (2010). Formation of consumer priceexpectationbased on packagedesign: Attractive andqualityroutes.Journal of MarketingTheory and Practice,18, 2340.

Orth, U. R., & Malkewitz, K. (2008). Holistic package design and consumer brandimpressions.Journal of Marketing,72, 6481.

Osgood, C. E., Suci, G. J., & Tannenbaum, P. H. (1957). The measurement of meaning.Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.

Page, C., & Herr, P. M. (2002). An investigation of the processes by which productdesign and brand strength interact to determine initial affect and quality judgments.

Journal of Consumer Psychology,12, 133147.Park, C. W., Eisingerich, A. B., Pol, G., & Park, J. W. (2013).The role of brand logos in rm

performance. Journal of Business Research,66, 180

187.Petty, R. E., Cacioppo, J. T., & Schumann, D. W. (1983). Central and peripheralroutes to advertising effectiveness: The moderating role of involvement.

Journa l o f C onsumer Resear ch,10 , 134148.Raghubir, P., & Greenleaf, E. A. (2006). Ratios in proportion: What should the shape

of the package be?Journal of Marketing,70, 95107.Rao, A. R., & Monroe, K. B. (1988). The moderating effect of prior knowledge on

cue utilization in product evaluations. Journal of Consumer Research, 15,253264.

Reber, R., Schwarz, N., & Winkielman, P. (2004). Processing uency and aestheticpleasure: Is beauty in the perceiver's processing experience? Personality andSocial Psychology Review,8, 364382.

Richler, J. J., Tanaka, J. W.,Brown, D. D.,& Gauthier, I. (2008). Why does selective attentionto parts fail in face processing? Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory,and Cognition,34, 13561368.

Simonton, K. D. (1990). Lexical choices and aesthetic success: A computer contentanalysis of 154 Shakespeare sonnets.Computers and the Humanities,24, 251264.

Van den Bergh, O., & Vrana, S. R. (1998). Repetition and boredom in a perceptualuency/attributional model of affective judgment. Cognition and Emotion,12, 533553.

Verganti, R. (2006).Innovating through design.Harvard Business Review,84, 114122.Veryzer, R. W., Jr. (1999).A nonconscious processing explanation of consumer response

to product design.Psychology and Marketing,16, 497522.Veryzer,R. W.,Jr., & Hutchinson, J.W. (1998). Theinuenceof unityand prototypicality on

aesthetic responses to new product designs.Journal of Consumer Research,24, 374

395.Voss, K. E., Spangenberg, E. R., & Grohmann, B. (2003).Measuring thehedonic andutilitariandimensions of consumer attitude.Journal of Marketing Research,40, 310320.

Wirth, J., Knsting, J., & Leutner, D. (2009).The impact of goal specicity and goal type onlearningoutcome andcognitiveload. Computersand the Human Behaviour,25, 299305.

Wirtz, J., Mattila, A. S., & Tan, R. L. P. (2000). The moderating role of target-arousalon the impact of affect on satisfaction: An examina

articol despre artefacte in servicii

Documents