PLEASE WRITE FROM YOUR OWN THOUGHTS AND DO NOT COPY. DO NOT MAKE IT SHORT.

THANK YOU.

Today, more than ever, competitors are often able to match each other on product features, quality and price. As a result, many have argued that the key to differentiating offers, creating value and winning and keeping customers is via superior product design. Whether we think of electronics goods, food packages, household or industrial goods, these design investments and increased attention to product visual appearance is evident everywhere around us. However, my colleagues Rishtee Kumar-Batra and Suchi Chandran and I have been wondering if selling a more attractive product is always a winning strategy. In particular, we have been trying to understand if some products might end up looking too good?

A product's visual design is often the first piece of product information that is perceived by consumers and it is key in creating initial impressions, sustaining interest and signaling an owner's identity to others. The accepted common wisdom is that "more beautiful should the better";

in other words, superior-looking products will be more liked by consumers and more successful in the market. The role of physical attractiveness is not only true for products, but it is also true for how we perceive others. For example, in psychology, implicit personality theory research has shown that, in the absence of additional information, more attractive individuals are perceived to be more intelligent and more socially competent. Yet, psychologists have also shown that when someone is considered highly attractive, there is a backfiring effect and perceptions of intelligence and social competence go down.

In our research, we extend these social psychological principles to the study of visual product design. For example, in a study involving the design of kitchen toasters, we show that although design A is perceived as visually less attractive than design B, and design B is perceived as visually less attractive than design C, perceptions of product quality and product performances are highest for design B (the reasonably attractive design), not design C (the highly attractive design). We found this robust pattern of results across multiple product categories (e.g., vacuum cleaners, USB drives, or computer mice). Our results therefore support the proposition that consumers' perceptions are based on two general sets of beliefs: Belief 1 "a beautiful product is a good product," but also Belief 2, "when a product is too beautiful, it can't be as good."

Further, our research into this phenomenon has shown also that Belief 1 is perceptually based and automatic and does not require cognitive efforts, whereas Belief 2 is only at play when consumers have sufficient cognitive resources to engage in this type of more elaborate thinking. We also showed that Belief 2 is invoked when the product brand is not disclosed or when the disclosed brand does not have strong brand equity. For strong brands, we did not find the inverted U-shaped relationship; in these cases the results suggest that "more beautiful is always better."

In conclusion, our research confirms that investments in superior visual product designs generally are good strategies. However, weaker or newer brands should be careful not to overreach. They need to proceed with caution in order to take advantage of their design investments, otherwise they risk a backfiring effect on perceptions of quality and performance.

The research described by Dr. Brunel focuses on perceptions based on general sets of beliefs. What type of decision-making does this describe? Is it cognitive? On what factor is it based?