Consumers' product purchase decisions typically involve comparing competing products' visual features and functional attributes. Companies strive for “product differentiation” (Liu et al., 2013, “Product Family Design Through Ontology-Based Faceted Component Analysis, Selection, and Optimization,” ASME J. Mech. Des., 135(8), p. 081007; Thevenot and Simpson, 2009, “A Product Dissection-Based Methodology to Benchmark Product Family Design Alternatives,” ASME J. Mech. Des., 131(4), p. 041002; Kota et al., 2000, “A Metric for Evaluating Design Commonality in Product Families,” ASME J. Mech. Des., 122(4), pp. 403–410; Orfi et al. 2011, “Harnessing Product Complexity: Step 1—Establishing Product Complexity Dimensions and Indicators,” Eng. Econ., 56(1), pp. 59–79; and Shooter et al. 2005, “Toward a Multi-Agent Information Management Infrastructure for Product Family Planning and Mass Customisation,” Int. J. Mass Customisation, 1(1), pp. 134–155), which makes consumers' product comparisons fruitful but also sometimes challenging. Psychologists who study decision-making have created models of choice such as the cancellation-and-focus (C&F) model. C&F explains and predicts how people decide between choice alternatives with both shared and unique attributes: The shared attributes are “canceled” (ignored) while the unique ones have greater weight in decisions. However, this behavior has only been tested with text descriptions of choice alternatives. To be useful to designers, C&F must be tested with product visuals. This study tests C&F under six conditions defined by: The representation mode (text-only, image-only, and image-with-text) and presentation (sequentially or side-by-side) of choice alternatives. For the products tested, C&F holds for only limited situations. Survey and eye-tracking data suggest different cognitive responses to shared text attributes versus shared image features: In text-only, an attribute's repetition cancels its importance in decisions, while in images, repetition of a feature reinforces its importance. Generally, product differences prove to attract more attention than commonalities, demonstrating product differentiation's importance in forming consumer preferences.

References

References
1.
Tversky
,
A.
,
1977
, “
Features of Similarity
,”
Psychol. Rev.
,
84
(
4
), pp.
327
352
.10.1037/0033-295X.84.4.327
2.
Houston
,
D. A.
, and
Sherman
,
S. J.
,
1995
, “
Cancellation and Focus: The Role of Shared and Unique Features in the Choice Process
,”
J. Exp. Soc. Psychol.
,
31
(
4
), pp.
357
378
.10.1006/jesp.1995.1016
3.
Houston
,
D. A.
,
Sherman
,
S. J.
, and
Baker
,
S. M.
,
1989
, “
The Influence of Unique Features and Direction of Comparison on Preferences
,”
J. Exp. Soc. Psychol.
,
25
(
2
), pp.
121
141
.10.1016/0022-1031(89)90008-5
4.
Houston
,
D. A.
,
Sherman
,
S. J.
, and
Baker
,
S. M.
,
1991
, “
Feature Matching, Unique Features, and the Dynamics of the Choice Process: Predecision Conflict and Postdecision Satisfaction
,”
J. Exp. Soc. Psychol.
,
27
(
5
), pp.
411
430
.10.1016/0022-1031(91)90001-M
5.
Sütterlin
,
B.
,
Brunner
,
T. A.
, and
Opwis
,
K.
,
2008
, “
Eye-Tracking the Cancellation and Focus Model for Preference Judgments
,”
J. Exp. Soc. Psychol.
,
44
(
3
), pp.
904
911
.10.1016/j.jesp.2007.09.003
6.
Sanbonmatsu
,
D. M.
,
Kardes
,
F. R.
, and
Gibson
,
B. D.
,
1991
, “
The Role of Attribute Knowledge and Overall Evaluations in Comparative Judgment
,”
Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Processes
,
48
(
1
), pp.
131
146
.10.1016/0749-5978(91)90009-I
7.
Brunner
,
T. A.
, and
Opwis
,
K.
,
2008
, “
The WReSt Heuristic: The Role of Recall as Well as Feature-Importance in and Beyond the Cancellation and Focus Model
,”
Soc. Cognit.
,
26
(
1
), pp.
25
43
.10.1521/soco.2008.26.1.25
8.
Brunner
,
T. A.
, and
Wänke
,
M.
,
2006
, “
The Reduced and Enhanced Impact of Shared Features on Individual Brand Evaluations
,”
J. Consum. Psychol.
,
16
(
2
), pp.
101
111
.10.1207/s15327663jcp1602_1
9.
Sylcott
,
B.
,
Cagan
,
J.
, and
Tabibnia
,
G.
,
2011
, “
Understanding of Emotions and Reasoning During Consumer Tradeoff Between Function and Aesthetics in Product Design
,”
Proceedings of the ASME 2011 International Design Engineering Technical Conferences and Computers and Information in Engineering Conference
, Washington, DC, Aug. 28–31, pp.
165
176
.
10.
Dagher
,
A.
, and
Petiot
,
J.-F.
,
2007
, “
Study of the Correlations Between User Preferences and Design Factors: Application to Cars Front-End Design
,”
The International Conference on Engineering Design, ICED’07, Cité des Sciences et de l'Industrie
,
Paris
, Aug. 28–31.
11.
Orsborn
,
S.
,
Cagan
,
J.
, and
Boatwright
,
P.
,
2009
, “
Quantifying Aesthetic Form Preference in a Utility Function
,”
ASME J. Mech. Des.
,
131
(
6
), p.
061001
.10.1115/1.3116260
12.
MacDonald
,
E. F.
,
Gonzalez
,
R.
, and
Papalambros
,
P.
,
2009
, “
The Construction of Preferences for Crux and Sentinel Product Attributes
,”
J. Eng. Des.
,
20
(
6
), pp.
609
626
.10.1080/09544820802132428
13.
Reisen
,
N.
,
Hoffrage
,
U.
, and
Mast
,
F. W.
,
2008
, “
Identifying Decision Strategies in a Consumer Choice Situation
,”
Judgment and Decis. Making
,
3
(
8
), pp.
641
658
.
14.
Dhar
,
R.
, and
Sherman
,
S. J.
,
1996
, “
The Effect of Common and Unique Features in Consumer Choice
,”
J. Consum. Res.
,
23
(
3
), pp.
193
203
.10.1086/209477
15.
Su
,
Y.
,
Rao
,
L. L.
,
Li
,
X. S.
,
Wang
,
Y.
, and
Li
,
S.
,
2012
, “
From Quality to Quantity: The Role of Common Features in Consumer Preference
,”
J. Econ. Psychol.
,
33
(
6
), pp.
1043
1058
.10.1016/j.joep.2012.07.002
16.
Just
,
M. A.
, and
Carpenter
,
P. A.
,
1976
, “
Eye Fixations and Cognitive Processes
,”
Cognit. Psychol.
,
8
(
4
), pp.
441
480
.10.1016/0010-0285(76)90015-3
17.
Duchowski
,
A. T.
,
2007
,
Eye Tracking Methodology: Theory and Practice
,
Springer
,
London
.10.1007/978-1-4471-3750-4
18.
Reid
,
T.
,
MacDonald
,
E.
, and
Du
,
P.
,
2013
, “
Impact of Product Design Representation on Customer Judgment
,”
ASME J. Mech. Des.
,
135
(
9
), p.
091008
.10.1115/1.4024724
19.
Du
,
P.
, and
MacDonald
,
E.
,
2014
, “
Eye-Tracking Data Predict Importance of Product Features and Saliency of Size Change
,”
ASME J. Mech. Des.
,
136
(
8
), p.
081005
.10.1115/1.4027387
20.
She
,
J.
,
2013
, “
Designing Features That Influence Decisions About Sustainable Products
,” Ph.D. thesis, Iowa State University, Ames, IA.
21.
Rayner
,
K.
,
1998
, “
Eye Movements in Reading and Information Processing: 20 Years of Research
,”
Psychol. Bull.
,
124
(
3
), pp.
372
422
.10.1037/0033-2909.124.3.372
22.
Lohse
,
G. L.
, and
Johnson
,
E. J.
,
1996
, “
A Comparison of Two Process Tracing Methods for Choice Tasks
,”
Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Processes
,
68
(
1
), pp.
28
43
.10.1006/obhd.1996.0087
23.
Glaholt
,
M. G.
, and
Reingold
,
E. M.
,
2011
, “
Eye Movement Monitoring as a Process Tracing Methodology in Decision Making Research
,”
J. Neurosci. Psychol. Econ.
,
4
(
2
), pp.
125
146
.10.1037/a0020692
24.
Shimojo
,
S.
,
Simion
,
C.
,
Shimojo
,
E.
, and
Scheier
,
C.
,
2003
, “
Gaze Bias Both Reflects and Influences Preference
,”
Nat. Neurosci.
,
6
(
12
), pp.
1317
1322
.10.1038/nn1150
25.
Russo
,
J. E.
, and
Rosen
,
L. D.
,
1975
, “
Eye Fixation Analysis of Multialternative Choice
,”
Mem. Cognit.
,
3
(
3
), pp.
267
276
.10.3758/BF03212910
26.
Russo
,
J. E.
, and
Dosher
,
B. A.
,
1983
, “
Strategies for Multiattribute Binary Choice
,”
J. Exp. Psychol.: Learn. Mem. Cognit.
,
9
(
4
), pp.
676
696
.10.1037/0278-7393.9.4.676
27.
Chevrolet
,” Accessed Dec. 4,
2014
, http://www.chevrolet.com/flash.html
28.
Global-Tradekey
,” Accessed Apr. 21,
2013
, http://www.global-tradekey.com/company/G02189/C64201.htm
29.
iMotions
,” Accessed Dec. 4,
2014
, http://imotionsglobal.com/
30.
Pernice
,
K.
, and
Nielsen
,
J.
,
2009
, “
How to Conduct Eyetracking Studies
,” Nielsen Norman Group, Fremont, CA.
You do not currently have access to this content.