Despite significant interest from consumers, sustainable products often struggle to find success in the marketplace. This failure is frequently attributed to the perception that consumers remain unwilling to sacrifice product attributes such as form, function, or price in order to adopt a product whose environmental impact is less than that of a competing product. This work aims to better understand how knowing a product's environmental impact affects preference for that product's disparate attributes. Three products of various monetary investments and numbers of relevant features were explored through a conjoint analysis experiment that uncovers consumer preference for discrete form, function, and price attributes. In this work, single use spoons, reusable water bottles, and home washing machines were used for analysis. These three products were decomposed into form, function, and price attributes that were varied in discrete levels. After a form-only ratings-based conjoint analysis study was conducted to find high, medium, and low preference form designs for each participant, two separate form–function–price discrete choice studies were conducted for each of the three products. These two discrete choice trials were identical in all aspects except in the second trial participants were provided with calculated environmental impact values for all design configurations; the presented environmental impact information was a dependent variable based on a life cycle analysis calculation using the current product configuration being shown to the participant. Further, adding this information raises the decision to one of a social or moral choice. Results show that when participants are provided with this additional piece of information, their preference for form, function, and price attributes of a product is greatly impacted. In particular, we find that for the products chosen here, the importance of functional attributes increases in the context of environmental impact metrics, while the importance of form decreases and the importance of price decreases modestly. In other words, placing the preference judgment within a social or moral choice context changes decisions about product preferences.

References

References
1.
Perry
,
W.
,
Broers
,
A.
,
El-Baz
,
F.
, and
Harris
,
W.
,
2008
,
Grand Challenges for Engineering
,
National Academy of Engineering
,
Washington, DC
.
2.
Bennett
,
J.
, and
Blamey
,
R.
,
2001
, “
Yea-Saying and Validation of a Choice Model of Green Product Choice
,”
The Choice Modeling Approach to Environmental Valuation
,
J.
Bennett
, and
R.
Blamey
, eds.,
Edward Elgar
,
Cheltenham, UK
, pp.
178
201
.
3.
MacDonald
,
E.
,
Allison
,
J. T.
, and
Whitefoot
,
K.
,
2010
, “
An Investigation of Sustainability, Preference, and Profitability in Design Optimization
,”
ASME
Paper No. DETC2010-29055.10.1115/DETC2010-29055
4.
Olson
,
E.
,
2012
, “
It's Not Easy Being Green: The Effects of Attribute Tradeoffs on Green Product Preference and Choice
,”
J. Acad. Mark. Sci.
,
41
(
2
), pp.
171
184
.10.1007/s11747-012-0305-6
5.
Cagan
,
J.
, and
Vogel
,
C.
,
2013
,
Creating Breakthrough Products
,
Financial Times Press
,
Upper Saddle River
.
6.
She
,
J.
, and
MacDonald
,
E. F.
,
2013
, “
Trigger Features on Prototypes Increase Preference for Sustainability
,”
ASME
Paper No. DETC2013-12973.10.1115/DETC2013-12973
7.
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
8.
Luce
,
R.
, and
Tukey
,
J.
,
1964
, “
Simultaneous Conjoint Measurement: A New Type of Fundamental Measurement
,”
J. Math. Psychol.
,
1
(
1
), pp.
1
27
.10.1016/0022-2496(64)90015-X
9.
Louviere
,
J.
,
Hensher
,
D.
, and
Swait
,
J.
,
2000
,
Stated Choice Methods
,
Cambridge University Press
,
Cambridge
.10.1017/CBO9780511753831
10.
Green
,
P. E.
, and
Wind
,
Y.
,
1975
, “
New Way to Measure Consumers' Judgments
,”
Harv. Bus. Rev.
,
53
(
4
), pp.
107
117
.
11.
Green
,
P.
,
1974
, “
On the Design of Choice Experiments Involving Multifactor Alternatives
,”
J. Consum. Res.
,
1
(
2
), pp.
61
68
.10.1086/208592
12.
Luce
,
R. D.
,
1977
, “
The Choice Axiom After Twenty Years
,”
J. Math. Psychol.
,
15
(
3
), pp.
215
233
.10.1016/0022-2496(77)90032-3
13.
Kelly
,
J. C.
,
Maheut
,
P.
,
Petiot
,
J.-F.
, and
Papalambros
,
P. Y.
,
2011
, “
Incorporating User Shape Preference in Engineering Design Optimisation
,”
J. Eng. Des.
,
22
(
9
), pp.
627
650
.10.1080/09544821003662601
14.
Sylcott
,
B.
,
Cagan
,
J.
, and
Tabibnia
,
G.
,
2011
, “
Understanding Consumer Tradeoffs Between Form and Function Through Metaconjoint and Cognitive Neuroscience Analyses
,”
ASME J. Mech. Des.
,
135
(
10
), p.
101002
.10.1115/1.4024975
15.
Reid
,
T. N.
,
Gonzalez
,
R. D.
, and
Papalambros
,
P. Y.
,
2010
, “
Quantification of Perceived Environmental Friendliness for Vehicle Silhouette Design
,”
ASME J. Mech. Des.
,
132
(
10
), p.
101010
.10.1115/1.4002290
16.
Ewing
,
G.
, and
Sarigiii
,
E.
,
2000
, “
Assessing Consumer Preference for Clean-Fuel Vehicles: A Discrete Choice Experiment
,”
J. Public Policy Mark.
,
19
(
1
), pp.
106
118
.10.1509/jppm.19.1.106.16946
17.
Skerlos
,
S. J.
,
Morrow
,
W. R.
, and
Michalek
,
J. J.
,
2006
, “
Sustainable Design Engineering and Science: Selected Challenges and Case Studies
,”
Sustainability Science and Engineering
, Vol.
1
,
M. A.
Abraham
, ed.
Elsevier
,
New York
, pp.
477
525
.
18.
Alriksson
,
S.
, and
Oberg
,
T.
,
2008
, “
Conjoint Analysis for Environmental Evaluation—A Review of Methods and Applications
,”
Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. Int.
,
15
(
3
), pp.
244
257
.10.1065/espr2008.02.479
19.
Guagnano
,
G. A.
,
2001
, “
Altruism and Market-Like Behavior: An Analysis of Willingness to Pay for Recycled Paper Products
,”
Popul. Environ.
,
22
(
4
), pp.
425
438
.10.1023/A:1006753823611
20.
MacDonald
,
E. F.
,
Gonzalez
,
R.
, and
Papalambros
,
P. Y.
,
2009
, “
Preference Inconsistency in Multidisciplinary Design Decision Making
,”
ASME J. Mech. Des.
,
131
(
3
), p.
031009
.10.1115/1.3066526
21.
PreConsultants
,
2000
, “
Eco-Indicator 99 Manual for Designers
,”
Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and the Environment
,
Amersfoort
.
22.
Sylcott
,
B.
,
Michalek
,
J. J.
, and
Cagan
,
J.
,
2013
, “
Towards Understanding the Role of Interaction Effects in Visual Conjoint Analysis
,”
ASME
Paper No. DETC2013-12622.10.1115/DETC2013-12622
23.
Kuhfeld
,
W. F.
,
2010
, “
Marketing Research Methods in SAS: Experimental Design, Choice, Conjoint, and Graphical Techniques
,” SAS Technical Papers No. MR-2010.
24.
Tovares
,
N.
,
Cagan
,
J.
, and
Boatwright
,
P.
,
2014
, “
Experiential Conjoint Analysis: An Experience-Based Method for Eliciting, Capturing, and Modeling Consumer Preference
,”
ASME J. Mech. Des.
,
36
(
10
), p.
101404
.10.1115/1.4027985
25.
Train
,
K.
,
2003
,
Discrete Choice Methods With Simulation
,
Cambridge University Press
,
Cambridge
, Chap. 6.10.1017/CBO9780511753930
26.
Kahneman
,
D.
, and
Tversky
,
A.
,
1979
, “
Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk
,”
Econometrica
,
47
(
2
), pp.
263
291
.10.2307/1914185
27.
Greene
,
J.
,
Sommerville
,
B.
,
Nystrom
,
L.
,
Darley
,
J.
, and
Cohen
,
J.
,
2001
, “
An fMRI Investigation of Emotional Engagement in Moral Judgment
,”
Science
,
293
(
5537
), pp.
2105
2108
.10.1126/science.1062872
28.
Bras
,
B.
,
2013
, “
Recurring and Unresolved Problems in Sustainable Design
,”
ASME
Paper No. DETC2013-13459.10.1115/DETC2013-13459
You do not currently have access to this content.