Journal of Business Research 67 (2014) 11541161

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Business Research

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, USA

Western Oregon University, Monmouth, OR 97361, USA
A&F Marketing, Christian-Albrechts-Universitt Kiel, Wilhelm-Seelig-Platz 6/7, 24098 Kiel, Germany
d
New Edge, Inc., 1350 Spaulding Avenue, Richland, WA 99352, USA
b
c

a 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

a b s t r a c t
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 attention). 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 more favorable consumer responses. This research empirically tests the
aesthetic middle principle in two consumer eld studies, using both simple (typeface) and complex (wine
package) designs. In a subsequent controlled experiment, the strongest aesthetic middle effects emerge for 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 stimulate 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 addition, 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

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

E-mail addresses: joan.giese@business.umt.edu (J.L. Giese), malkewik@wou.edu
(K. Malkewitz), uorth@ae.uni-kiel.de (U.R. Orth), pam.henderson@new-edge.com
(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

multiple design properties remains lacking (Orth & Malkewitz, 2008;

Park, Eisingerich, Pol, & Park, 2013).
Seminal response theory suggests that perceived attractiveness corresponds 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 responses, so marketers routinely employ attractive, strong designs to differentiate 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).
Integrating design research with visual 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, tempering either attractiveness or strength may yield a visual representation
closer to the aesthetic middle, prompting more favorable responses. In accordance with research that indicates that variation in motivational goals
leads consumers to attach different relative importance to hedonic and

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

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 attractiveness [strength]/moderate strength [attractiveness]) increase purchase 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, attractiveness 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), typicality, 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-proportioned designs 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 alternative (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 stimuli
and 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

Design-based
perceptions
BELOW the
aesthetic middle

Attractiveness
Strength

1155

through high imageground contrast, larger images, more vivid and saturated 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 (compliance and conformity) research. For example, studies of architectural
drawings (Bafna, 2008) and interior design (Karlsson et al., 2003) indicate that design strength determines behavioral responses. Strength
also is fundamental in customer responses to product shapes in diverse
categories, 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, inuential, or dominant (Brengman & Geuens, 2004). Normative theories
(Cialdini & Goldstein, 2004) suggest that such external cues guide customers, who respond by complying with dominant persuasive stimuli,
such as advertising and packages (Bowman, Heilman, & Seetharaman,
2004). Thus theory and empirical evidence advocate key effects of 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 report that moderate
visual stimuli are more likely to yield approach behavior (Mehrabian &
Russell, 1974; Wirtz, Mattila, & Tan, 2000). Although marketing generally focuses on extreme design characteristics (i.e., the more attractive
or stronger, the better), other disciplines extensively apply the aesthetic
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
(see Fig. 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

The Aesthetic Middle

Design-based
perceptions
ABOVE the
aesthetic middle

Moderate
Attractiveness

Moderate
Attractiveness

High
Attractiveness

High
Attractiveness

Moderate
Strength

High Strength

Moderate
Strength

High Strength

Fig. 1. The principle of the Aesthetic Middle applied to design-based perceptions.

1156

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

Table 1
Study 1 typefaces and descriptive characteristics.

Font

Attractiveness

Strength

Intent to donate mean

(Std. Dev.)

Attractiveness mean

Strength mean

76

Moderate

Moderate

3.79 (2.42)

3.42

3.67

73

High

Moderate

4.59 (2.47)

4.88

2.94

61

Moderate

High

4.79 (2.16)

3.38

5.31

67

High

High

4.25 (2.33)

5.62

5.62

that utilitarian benets achieve a desired threshold. Therefore, in certain 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 with moderatehigh (aesthetic middle) combinations of attractiveness and strength (i.e., moderate attractiveness/
high strength or high attractiveness/moderate strength):

expertise dilutes the impact of attractiveness and strength, diminished aesthetic middle effects are likely too.

2.4. Moderators

H3. Compared with other design combinations, aesthetic middle designs

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 product designs (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 congurations. These knowledge structures lead to more holistic
processing; less accessible design knowledge requires analytic, elemental,
or atomistic processing (Richler, Tanaka, Brown, & Gauthier, 2008). Differences 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 processing should lead to a more muted impact of design-based attractiveness
and strength and therefore a dilution of the aesthetic middle effect:

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 intentions. Thus, aesthetic middle designs should exert a greater inuence
on hedonic than utilitarian product decisions (Chernev, 2004).

H4. Compared with other design combinations, aesthetic middle designs

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:

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 with
extensive 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 information available to make decisions, prospective customers use visual information 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 knowledge, rather than design-based perceptions, to make purchase decisions (Meyers-Levy & Malaviya, 1999; Petty et al., 1983). Because

H5. Aesthetic middle designs inuence purchase intentions, regardless

of cognitive load.

Intent to Donate

H1. Purchase intentions are more favorable for aesthetic middle designs
than for designs with both (a) moderate or (b) high attractiveness and
strength perceptions.

4
3
2
1
High Attractiveness Moderate Attractiveness High Attractiveness Moderate Attractiveness
High Strength
High Strength
Moderate Strength
Moderate Strength

Typeface Attractiveness and Strength

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

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

Table 2
Study 2 examples of wine package stimuli.

1157

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.

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

and p = .01), in support of H1a. 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), so H1b was
not supported. Nevertheless, preliminary support for tempering one
design dimension (moderate attractiveness or strength) relative to
the 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 typefaces on intention to donate (F(3,110) = 1.73, p = .17). Furthermore, 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 combinations. Although typeface is a subtle design cue, the results were signicant 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 complex 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.

3.1. Stimuli and procedures

4. Study 2

The stimulus selection derived from a database containing 210

typefaces, rated in terms of their attractiveness and strength by consumers (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 1 depicts 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.

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, Study 2 seeks to corroborate
and extend the ndings 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.

Hi
Strength

Moderate
Strength

High
Attractive

Moderate
Attractive

3. Study 1

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 significant 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) increased intentions to 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

4.1. Participants and procedure

Researchers purchased 120 wine packages from multiple retailers to
obtain variance in design attractiveness and strength. In addition, the
selection 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 2 presents 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

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

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 familiar to 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 measure
assessed 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 the manipulation (F(1,151) = 65.96, p = .001) with higher ratings for the attractive 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 design 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 attractiveness/moderate strength (M = 4.52) or moderate attractiveness/high
strength (M = 4.43) prompted higher purchase intentions than designs 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) except
between the two aesthetic middle designs (p = .53). Table 3 presents
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),
as Fig. 3 shows.
Repeating these analyses with the hold-out sample of cases previously
excluded because of their high familiarity scores (n = 76, M = 4.21,

Intent to Purchase

1158

4
3
2
1
High Attractiveness Moderate Attractiveness High Attractiveness Moderate Attractiveness
High Strength
High Strength
Moderate Strength
Moderate Strength

Wine Package Attractiveness and Strength

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

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 interaction 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 not more likely
to be purchased (p > .05) than designs with high or moderate attractiveness and strength. High familiarity thus attenuated the aesthetic middle
effect, in support of H3.
These ndings 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 pretest (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 knowledgeable). 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

Attractiveness

Strength

Cristom
Torij Mor
Badger Mountain
Travaglini
Bella Vida
Barton Guetier
Oswego Hills
Prosperity
Naia
Desert Wind
Angrove's
Silkwood

Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
High
High
High
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
High
High
High

Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
High
High
High
High
High
High

Intent to purchase mean (std. dev.)

Attractiveness mean

Strength mean

91

3.21 (1.69)

4.25

4.18

90

4.52 (1.45)

6.04

4.48

87

4.43 (1.62)

4.83

5.66

83

3.61 (1.82)

5.62

5.80

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

target population (N = 18) ascertained attractiveness and strength

scores.
5.1. Participants and procedure
Half (n = 66) the participants received a cognitive load manipulation, 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 memory
during 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 evaluations 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 minimizing variance due to noise from other sources, such as age, gender,
or education (Bagozzi, 1984).
The stimuli appeared on an online survey site, accessible only to participants. After a short introduction, participants evaluated designs and
submitted their responses. In the evaluation task, all participants judged
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 on
perceived 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 intentions. 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 intentions was signicant (F(2,118) = 13.30, p = .001). Package designs
with 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

1159

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/moderate
strength (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 for H3.
The ANCOVA results indicated that the effect of the attractiveness 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 available 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 not
depend 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, counterintuitively, that a seemingly suboptimal combination of attractiveness
and strength actually results in superior purchase intentions, this investigation suggests caution be taken when using highly attractive or very
strong 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 motivation 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

1160

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

difcult to generalize to broader constructs, and features designbased 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, especially among new, less informed customers, and turn prospects into
actual customers. Although anecdotal evidence from graphic and industrial 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., symmetry) and design strength (e.g., contrast) to determine foundational
combinations that most effectively drive consumer behavioral 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.
Journal of Consumer Research, 13, 411454.
Anseel, F., & Duyck, W. (2009). Implicit letter preferences in job choice: An experimental
test 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). Integrating
service and design: The inuences of organizational and communication factors
on relative product and service characteristics. Journal of the Academy of Marketing
Science, 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 hedonic
and 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 prospectus for theory construction in marketing. Journal of Marketing,
48(1), 1129.
Batra, R. T., Brunel, F., & Chandran, S. (2009). When good looks kill: An examination
of consumer responses to visually attractive product design. In A. L. McGill, & S.
Shavitt (Eds.), Adv Consum Res, 36 (pp. 698). Duluth, MN: Association for Consumer
Research.
Beauvois, M. W. (2007). Quantifying aesthetic preference and perceived complexity for
fractal melodies. Music Perception, 24(3), 247264.
Berlyne, D. E. (1971). Aesthetics and psychobiology. New York: Appleton-CenturyCrofts.
Berlyne, D. E. (1974). Studies in the new experimental aesthetics: Steps toward an objective
psychology 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 of
visual 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 Consumer
Psychology, 14, 141150.
Chitturi, R., Raghunathan, R., & Mahajan, V. (2007). Form versus function: How
the intensities of specic emotions evoked in functional versus hedonic trade-offs
mediate product preferences. Journal of Marketing Research, 44(November), 702714.

Chitturi, R., Raghunathan, R., & Mahajan, V. (2008). Delight by design: The role of
hedonic versus utilitarian benets. Journal of Marketing, 72(May), 4863.
Chowdhury, T., Ratneshwar, S., & Mohanty, P. (2009). The time-harried shopper: Exploring
the 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). Beyond rst impressions: The effects of repeated exposure
on 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 consumer
relationships: 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.
Journal of Business Research, 57, 873880.
Haugtvedt, C. P. (1997). Beyond fact or artifact: An assessment of Fishbein and
Middlestadt's perspectives on attitude change processes. Journal of Consumer
Psychology, 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 industrial
design. 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 typeface design. Journal of Marketing, 68, 6072.
Higgins, T. E. (2001). Promotion and prevention experiences: Relating emotions to
nonemotional 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 the
consumption 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 product
shapes. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 36(6), 553564.
Hua, S. Y., & Wemmerlv, U. (2006). Product change intensity, product advantage, and
market performance: An empirical investigation of the PC industry. Journal of Product
Innovation Management, 23, 316329.
Jae, H., & Viswanathan, M. (2012). Effects of pictorial product warnings on low-literate
consumers. Journal of Business Research, 65, 16741682.
Janiszewski, C., & Meyvis, T. (2001). Effects of brand logo complexity, repetition, and spacing on processing uency and judgment. Journal of Consumer Research, 28, 1832.
Johar, G. V., Moreau, P., & Schwarz, N. (2003). Gender typed advertisements and impression
formation: The role of chronic and temporary accessibility. Journal of Consumer
Psychology, 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 model
of communication source effects. Journal of Consumer Research, 33, 123130.
Karlsson, B. S., Aronsson, N., & Svensson, K. A. (2003). Using semantic environment
description as a tool to evaluate car interiors. Ergonomics, 46, 14081432.
Keller, K. L. (1993). Conceptualizing, measuring, and managing customer-based brand
equity. Journal of Marketing, 57, 122.
Kirmani, A., & Rao, A. R. (2000). No pain, no gain: A critical review of the literature on
signaling unobservable product quality. Journal of Marketing, 64, 6679.
Kivetz, R., & Simonson, I. (2002). Earning the right to indulge: Effort as a determinant of customer 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
design uency. 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 appreciation
and 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 vehicle
in 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 through
brand logos. Journal of Business Research, 66, 8288.
Nohl, W. (2001). Sustainable landscape use and aesthetic perceptionpreliminary
reections on future landscape aesthetics. Landscape and Urban Planning, 54,
223237.

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

Orth, U. R., Campana, D., & Malkewitz, K. (2010). Formation of consumer price
expectation based on package design: Attractive and quality routes. Journal of Marketing
Theory and Practice, 18, 2340.
Orth, U. R., & Malkewitz, K. (2008). Holistic package design and consumer brand
impressions. 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 product
design 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, 180187.
Petty, R. E., Cacioppo, J. T., & Schumann, D. W. (1983). Central and peripheral
routes to advertising effectiveness: The moderating role of involvement.
Journal of Consumer Research, 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 aesthetic
pleasure: Is beauty in the perceiver's processing experience? Personality and
Social Psychology Review, 8, 364382.

1161

Richler, J. J., Tanaka, J. W., Brown, D. D., & Gauthier, I. (2008). Why does selective attention
to 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 content
analysis of 154 Shakespeare sonnets. Computers and the Humanities, 24, 251264.
Van den Bergh, O., & Vrana, S. R. (1998). Repetition and boredom in a perceptual
uency/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). The inuence of unity and prototypicality on
aesthetic responses to new product designs. Journal of Consumer Research, 24, 374395.
Voss, K. E., Spangenberg, E. R., & Grohmann, B. (2003). Measuring the hedonic and utilitarian
dimensions of consumer attitude. Journal of Marketing Research, 40, 310320.
Wirth, J., Knsting, J., & Leutner, D. (2009). The impact of goal specicity and goal type on
learning outcome and cognitive load. Computers and the Human Behaviour, 25, 299305.
Wirtz, J., Mattila, A. S., & Tan, R. L. P. (2000). The moderating role of target-arousal
on the impact of affect on satisfaction: An examination in the context of service
experiences. Journal of Retailing, 76(3), 347365.
Zaichkowsky, J. L. (1985). Measuring the involvement construct. Journal of Consumer
Research, 12(3), 341352.
Zhao, S., & Meyer, R. J. (2007). Biases in predicting preferences for the whole visual
patterns from product fragments. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 17(4), 292304.