Phuong Viet Le-Hoang
Ho Chi Minh City Open University, Vietnam
E-mail:
lehoangvietphuong@gmail.com
Submission: 6/11/2019
Revision: 9/18/2019
Accept: 10/2/2019
ABSTRACT
This
research aims to synthesize the scales of aesthetics, the perceived value of
the consumers for the intention to buy smartphones. At the same time, this
analyzes the relationship between aesthetics, perceived value and intention to
purchase, thereby the study suggests the research model which can be applied in
other places, other contexts, and related fields. The method in this study is
to summarize the systematics theories and compare the relevant studies. As a
result, this research can develop research hypotheses. The main results of the
proposed model are to explore the scales and find out the relationship between
aesthetics, perceived value and intention to buy smartphones directly and
indirectly. Moreover, empirical research can, based on the proposed conceptual
framework, be studied for different countries or technology-related products
such as computers, tablets, and other smart devices.
Keywords: Aesthetics; perceived value; functional value; emotional value;
social value.
1.
INTRODUCTION
According
to Nielsen Vietnam Report (2017), about the behavior of smartphone, the number
of smartphone users compared to the number of regular phone users accounts for
84% in 2017; there is an increase of 6% compared to 2016 (78%). In secondary
cities, 71% of people use smartphones in 93% of mobile phone users. More
notably, in rural areas, while 89% of the population uses mobile phones, 68% of
them own a smartphone. Through the above statistics, it can be seen that
smartphones are no longer a new phenomenon for the Vietnam market.
The
smartphone's hardware is gradually becoming saturated, and there is not much
difference in the same price range, the external design will undoubtedly be one
of the critical factors to impress, persuade users to make buying decisions. It
can be said that the basic principles of aesthetics commonly used in the design
of personal communication devices, entertainment and technology (SWILLEY, 2012;
CHARTERS, 2006).
However,
according to Toufani et al. (2017), the aesthetic factors of the product and
the evaluation of the product's aesthetics may lead to unclear intentions to
buy from individuals. Compared to the research on factors affecting the
evaluation of the aesthetics of a product (HOYER; STOKBURGER-SAUER, 2012), studies
on aesthetics can affect buying decisions are a few (TUREL et al., 2010).
Besides,
smartphones are described as a cultural artifact and expanding the social
relations of users (SHIN, 2012). Therefore, there is the debate that feeling
interest and social practices are becoming more relevant to feel the usefulness
in influencing the intention to buy (LIN; BHATTACHERJEE, 2010).
Moreover,
the research results of Toufani et al. (2017) found that aesthetics has a
direct effect on the intention to buy, but is weaker than the aesthetics
affecting indirectly the intention to buy through perceived value. The reason
is that the nature of digital products is the product that customers need to
spend much time, cost and effort (LI;
GERY, 2000), so they carefully evaluate the value that they can gain from the
aesthetics of smartphones before they intend to buy.
It
can be said that the aesthetics and perceived value of customers are increasingly
concerned, leading to a high level of competition in the smartphone market.
When the hardware war has almost no effect as before, the breakthrough design
is vital for manufacturers to conquer consumers. In this situation, the
aesthetic and perceived value measured from the customer's point of view
becomes essential to get a competitive advantage; and as a result, they
increase the intention of purchasing potential customers.
Therefore,
the study "The relationship between aesthetics, perceived
value and buying intention: a literature review and conceptual framework” will help researchers
understand the importance of factors affecting buying intention; from there, it
is possible to conduct empirical research and provide practical solutions for consumer
behavior.
2.
LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1.1.
The concept of aesthetics
Aesthetics
can be narrowly defined as the theory of beauty, or more broadly, the
philosophy of art. Previously, the philosophy of aesthetics was not recognized
until the early eighteenth century, Alexader Gottlieb Baumgarten - "father
of aesthetics" introduced the meaning of aesthetics terms, in his
research, which is derived from the Greek epistêmê aisthetikê, is also
known as the science of what is perceived and imagined - "The Science of
Consciousness" (BAUMGARTEN, 1735). Besides, the Oxford dictionary
translates that aesthetics is the nature of a thing related to beauty or beauty
enhancement; brought or designed to create joy and satisfaction through
superficial beauty.
The
aesthetics of the product (such as design) can significantly affect consumer
behavior (VERYZER, 1993). An eye-catching product is described as a
communication thing between the designer and the consumer (KRIPPENDORFF; BUTTER, 1984; MONÖ, 1997;
CRILLY et al., 2004).
Considering
the way to approach eye-catching products in the form of text, the writer is
the designer, and the reader is the consumer. Product designers are thought of
in such a way as to evoke the relationship between the product and the consumer's
intentions that may or may not correspond to their original intent to
communicate. Also, aesthetics also refers to the concepts of harmony, beauty
and order in the physical world (WHITE, 1996) with the evaluation of an
object's aesthetics as a conscious perception (VERYZER, 1993).
Thus,
it is not only about appearance, but aesthetics are also related to other
senses (SWILLEY, 2012); these senses act as stimuli for both sensory and
emotional reactions (WANG et al., 2013). Exploiting and digging into a person's
aesthetic reaction (LANDWEHR et al., 2013) can assist in distinguishing
products, creating product preferences.
According
to Bloch et al. (2003) and Charters (2006), the aesthetic appeal of a product
can vary from very high (sculptures or paintings) to very low (detergents).
Visual aesthetics are reflected in many customer experiences, and the most
notable is in fashion and art and unclear but also quite crucial in consumer
electronic products such as personal computers, tablets, and smartphones (YAMAMOTO; LAMBERT, 1994).
Such
products can be designed to meet the aesthetics both in appearance and touch
(SWILLEY, 2012). Very few studies have been done on how aesthetics affect
product purchases with both utilitarian and hedonistic attributes; these are
valuable products in terms of the usefulness of the function as well as its
emotional and social value (HOYER;
STOKBURGER-SAUER, 2012).
In
order to test the importance and impact of aesthetics on this product line,
smartphones are used as a typical example, defined as "an equipped
personal digital support phone." Integrated wireless connectivity and
mobile devices and more likely (PARK;
CHEN, 2007). Such a product can be observed both in terms of its utilitarian
and attracting hedonistic attributes (BRUNNER et al., 2008; SWILLEY, 2012) and
to reflect personal style and preferences of buyers (KATZ; SUGIYAMA, 2005; KATZ; SUGIYAMA, 2006).
In
summary, the definition of aesthetics is as follows: "Aesthetics is the
science of recognizing the beauty of each through experience with senses,
self-perception about a specific product”. Based on this definition, the study
continues to explore and research the factors of aesthetics and the impact of
these factors on consumer’s intention to buy smartphones.
2.1.2.
Properties of Aesthetics
The
aesthetic category has an extensive appearance; it reflects the general
inherent in nature, society, material and spiritual. In the process of labor
activities of society with the active participation of consciousness, people
improve reality and the world around them. Mac et al. (1977) define that
animals only mold and measure their species and that humans can produce by any
measure and they can apply any metrics that are suitable for all subjects, so
people can also mold materials according to the rules of beauty.
The above premise helps us
understand more about the origin of aesthetics and beauty, and they always come
from reality. Indeed, aesthetic factors are indispensable in all practical
activities of people. The decision still does not exclude the meaning of using,
and the intention to purchase such items is still in order to meet a specific
practical purpose.
The aesthetic properties expressed
as a principle that must necessarily take into account when building material
values. Through studies of Swilley (2012) and previous studies (Wehmeyer, 2008;
Cox and Cox, 2002; Bell et al., 1991), this paper uses the attributes listed in
Table 1. to describe aesthetic attributes including color, design, overall
appearance, feeling, material, beauty, and style.
Dimension |
Items |
Color |
1.
Signals, such as colors strongly influence decisions to buy goods. 2.
Consumer perception of an object can be revealed through their color choices. 3.
Product colors can attract buyers and increase sales. 4.
Aesthetics are affected by color. 5. The color of the product determines its quality. |
Design |
1. The
design of a product is a competitive advantage and also a success factor in
the market. 2.
Design and aesthetics have a close relationship with each other. |
Overall
appearance |
1. The
appearance of the product attracts individuals. 2. The
appearance of a product has a substantial impact on consumers' evaluation of
the quality and function of that product. |
Touch/ |
1.
Impact on the evaluation of retail products. 2.
Touching may affect customers' buying decisions, even if there is no product
description. 3. The
material is vital in product evaluation. 4.
Touching increases the information for purchasing decisions. |
Beauty |
1.
Aesthetic value and utilitarian value, or beauty and use, need not be
distinct. |
Style |
1. The
ratio of the faces of a product that may affect the intention to buy,
interest and it is related to market demand. 2.
Product design can become a distinct advantage when it is suitable for
cultural and social trends. |
Sources: Bell et al. (1991), Cox and Cox
(2002), Swilley
(2012), Toufani
et al.
(2017) and Wehmeyer, (2008)
2.2.
Buying
intention
The intention to purchase can be defined as a pre-planned
plan to purchase some goods or services in the future, which may not always
lead to implementation because it is affected by performance (WARSHAW; DAVIS, 1985).
In other words, what consumers think will buy in their
minds represents the intention to buy (BLACKWELL et al., 2001). Also, the
intention to buy can also determine the ability to lead to the actual purchase
of the customer, and through the determination of the intensity of the
intention to buy, the ability to buy certain products will be stronger when
intention to buy more strongly (DODDS et al., 1991; SCHIFFMAN; KANUK, 2000).
The intention to buy shows that consumers will follow the
buying decision process: perceiving demand, seeking information, evaluating
alternatives, purchasing decisions, and evaluating after purchasing (ZEITHAML,
1988; DODDS et al., 1991; SCHIFFMAN; KANUK, 2000).
Furthermore, the effort required to acquire smartphones
and consumer understanding of the benefits of using smartphones is also two
factors that have a significant effect on the intention to buy (IBRAHIM et al.,
2013). Perceptual value is one of the factors that can stimulate the intention
to buy; perceived value comes from relative advantages and product compatibility
compared to the effort required to get a product. Efforts could be product
prices and search times, leading to purchasing actions (MONROE; KRISHNAN,
1985; ZEITHAML, 1988).
Moreover, the intention to purchase can also be
considered as a measure to predict consumer purchasing behavior (BONNIE et al.,
2007). Besides, the intention to purchase is known as consumer trends for an
audience; it is often measured by the intention to buy (KIM; KIM, 2004). The
idea of purchasing intent for specific products or services is
the final decision step in the decision-making process about buying intent,
which is agreed by most previous researchers. (AGARWAL; TEAS, 2002;
EREVELLES, 1993; FISHBEIN, 1967; HAN, 1990; PECOTICH et al., 1996).
Also, manufacturers are often interested in buying
intentions because it can help them segment the market and, at the same time,
support their decision-making as to where the product should be introduced
(SEWALL, 1978; SILK; URBAN, 1978). Unlike that, the intention
to purchase can be used to predict future demand (ARMSTRONG et al., 2000).
Finally, there is a positive relationship between advantages, prices, social
impacts and product compatibility to purchase (JONGEPIER et al., 2011; JUHA,
2008; YUE; STUART, 2011).
2.3.
Perceived
value
2.3.1.
Concepts of perceived value
Scientific
researchers have used many different terms to define the perceived value of
customers such as perceived value, customer value, value for the customer, customer
perceived value, perceived customer value, consumer value, consumption value,…
It should be
noted that there is no clear definition of perceived value. The perceived value
of customers varies depending on the business, customers and products or services
that customers buy (BAKON; HASSAN, 2013). According to the original study of Zeithaml
(1988): "Perceptual value is the overall consumer appreciation of the
utility of a product or service based on their perception of what is received
and what it must take out." Zeithaml (1988) also found that some consumers
perceive value when products or services have low prices, while others perceive
value when the product or service has a balance between quality and price. It
can be said that for different customers, the components of perceived value
also differ (ASGARPOUR et al., 2015).
Also, Woodruff
(1997) defines that customer perceived value as a customer 's preference by
evaluating product characteristics and efficiency from product use to achieving
the customers' goals. This concept incorporates the desired value with the
value received and emphasizes the value that comes from the customers'
perception, love, and appreciation.
Besides,
according to Turel et al. (2010), perceived value is also an important premise
affecting consumers' intention to buy. The higher the perceived value, the
stronger the intention to purchase (MONROE AND KRISHNAN, 1985). Sweeny and
Soutar (2001) have identified three aspects of perceived value that are later
widely used, namely functional value, social value, and emotional value.
Similarly, Moliner et al. (2007) consider perceived value with the functional
or quality value of products or services, social value or social impact and
emotional value or personal experience.
In summary,
although there are many different views of researchers about the relationship
between perceived value and customer choice or intention to buy, in general,
perceived value will affect customer behavior. In this study, the group applied
three aspects of perceived value according to Sweeny and Soutar (2001).
However, to better understand the perceived value of customer aesthetics,
prices will be removed.
2.3.2.
Dimension of perceived
value
Perceptual values
are described in this study through three dimensions as follows:
2.3.3.
Functional value
Functional values are related to the benefits associated
with product ownership. According to Sheth et al. (1991), functional values are
evaluated by reasons for the purchase and use of products based on the physical
attributes and actual needs of users. Functional values are measured by a table
describing the selected properties; in which reliability and durability are
considered properties with functional values (SHETH et al., 1991).
Many studies explore how functional values affect
consumers' intention to buy. Research by Johnston (2012) shows that battery
life is essential to customers' intention to buy smartphones. In terms of
durability and reliability, Karjaluoto et al. (2005) found a positive
relationship between smartphone purchase and its reliability. Customers
evaluate smartphone reliability based on fault and durability issues (SANDS; TSENG, 2010).
It means that durability and low error rates will enhance
smartphone reliability thereby increasing functional value (BAKON; HASSAN, 2013).
Also, Sweeny and Soutar (2001) consider performance or quality as a functional
value of the product, and they define that the functional value is usefulness
derived from perceived quality and expectations on product performance, such as
durability and technical quality (FIOL et al., 2009; 2011). Lay Yee et al.
(2013) also found that most smartphone users will consider the first product
technology feature.
What is more, the study of Toufani et al. (2017) removed
the possibility that functional values can increase social value and emotional
value. To explain the relationship between these three values requires much
more research. Besides, the smartphone technology features are increasingly
standardized can explain the decline in the effect of functional values on
intention to buy (KIM et al., 2013), especially when any smartphone has similar
functions that may lead to more emphasis on other aspects of perceived value
(TOUFANI et al., 2017).
Based on the analysis above, the smartphone manufacturers
should study the features that meet the needs of customers, such as higher
image resolution, better and faster-operating systems,... to improve revenue
and profit.
2.3.4.
Social value
Defined as a sense of usefulness from an individual's
association with one or more specific social groups (SHETH et al., 1991), the
social value can enhance individuals' value (SWEENEY; SOUTAR, 2001)
based on the perception of social product assessment (FIOL et al., 2011).
Customers may prefer to buy a product due to the social image that the product
conveys (GIMPEL, 2011).
The most important social value that can be gained from
buying and using smartphones is the transmission of images (BODKER et al.,
2009). Some people believe that by possessing aesthetics products highly, they
can improve their social relationships (HOLBROOK, 1999). According to Gimpel
(2011), the decision to buy smartphones is significantly related to conveying
the message that they are the leaders of the latest technology trends.
Research by You et al. (2011) also shows that there is a
significant positive relationship between the decision to buy smartphones and
social images. At the same time, customers feel the importance of buying new
smartphones depending on the image. According to another study, 35.6% of 1814
respondents said that the trend in the community is one of the essential
criteria affecting the decision to buy smartphones (OSMAN, 2012).
In the decision-making process, consumers tend to be
always affected by social groups. Depending on different factors, consumers may
listen and trust in different social groups, specifical experts in certain
areas. According to Farzana (2012), purchasing behavior is shaped by others,
especially by family members when purchasing products that consumers must
carefully consider among many choices. Besides, social value also includes
reflecting the personality and social status.
Bodker et al. (2009) found that many customers prefer to
buy smartphones because it conveys their interests. Customers also buy smartphones
because it is compatible with their lifestyle, working style and habits (KHAN; HYUNWOO,
2009). Some customers repurchase smartphones because they reflect the wealth
and high social status (GIMPEL, 2011).
However, Jongepier's (2011) study showed the opposite,
77% of respondents disagreed or strongly disagreed with statements that people
buy smartphones to impress others. Jongepier (2011) is also the one who
discovered that 50% of customers do not think smartphones are a symbol of
higher social status.
2.3.5.
Emotional value
Emotional value is a sense of usefulness from the ability
of emotional arousal or emotional state (SHETH et al., 1991). The aesthetic
characteristics of an object can create emotional reactions (FRIJDA; SCHRAM, 1995) with
product design used as a way of attracting consumers' attention and providing
products information and increasing the feelings of beauty (TRACTINSKY et al.,
2000). Gimpel (2011) claims that aesthetics, such as beauty and art, can add to
the emotional value of a product.
It can be said that the experience positively contributes
emotional value to smartphone users. According to Sweeney and Soutar (2001),
emotional value is the most critical predictor of purchase intentions and word
of mouth behavior. Although consumers may not intentionally seek spiritual
benefits when using them, positive emotions are unintentionally evoked from
experience that plays a vital role in decision making at the next level.
(SWEENY; SOUTAR, 2001).
User experience is the most important factor for
smartphone buyers (CLN, 2010); 94 % of customers buy and use smartphones
because they enjoy using smartphones (Jongepier, 2011). If the user experience
is positive and exciting, it will create an emotional attachment and positively
affect the intention to buy smartphones (YOU et al., 2011). Also, many
customers buy the smartphone due to the comfort that they received from using
it (KHAN; HYUNWOO, 2009).
Similarly, Gimpel (2011) shows that customers buy smartphones
because of the convenience, excitement, and fun that it brings when they use
it. Moreover, the design and aesthetics such as the beauty and artistry of
smartphones increase the purchasing power of smartphones (BODKER et al., 2009;
CROTHERS, 2011). Other research also shows that 24% of customers buy and use
smartphones due to physical design (POWER; ASSOCIATES, 2012).
There are also many customers who decide to buy because
their emotions rise when they appreciate the aesthetics of smartphones (GIMPEL,
2011). Finally, usefulness also creates emotional value through the use of
smartphones. The properties function as external memory with the ability to
store thousands of photos, GPS brings a sense of security, ... creates a
feeling of familiarity for customers (GIMPEL, 2011).
For companies both large and small, when they sell
products or services, they are mostly selling emotions to potential customers.
Regardless of the type of product, over time, the subconscious of customers
will form certain expectations about the product. Therefore, it is always
necessary to create a new product design so that customers can always find
products that are in tune with themselves emotionally.
Variable |
References |
Scale Items |
Functional value |
Sheth
et al. (1991); Callarisa Fiol et al. (2009; 2011); Sweeny and Soutar (2001);
Toufani et al. (2017); Bakon and Hassan (2013); Lay Yee et al. (2013) |
1.
Reliability 2.
Durability 3.
Good function |
Social value |
Sheth
et al. (1991); Sweeney and Soutar (2001); Toufani et al. (2017); Bodker et
al. (2009); Gimpel (2011); Farzana (2012) |
1.
Recognizing social approval from others 2.
Improve a person's perception 3.
Make a good impression on others 4.
Many people I know buy these products |
Emotional
value |
Sheth
et al. (1991); Sweeney and Soutar (2001); Toufani et al. (2017); Gimpel
(2011); Bodker et al. (2009); Crothers (2011) |
1.
Give me a feeling of happiness 2.
Give me a sense of pride 3.
Feel good when having a product with a premium design 4.
Beautiful design helps our world become a better place to live |
3.
HYPOTHESES DEVELOPMENT
Figure
1 describes an object's aesthetic connection with different sensing values, and
these values continue to affect the intention to buy smartphones. The
multi-dimensional model of perceived value is chosen because in some cases, the
perceived usefulness or perceived function may be less relevant when the
technology products have strong emotional attractions. (TUREL et al., 2010).
Therefore, the multi-dimensional approach about sensory value can capture the
perception of both the value of the feature and the emotional value of an
object.
Recognizing
the aesthetics becomes more and more important in consumer marketing, Wang et
al. (2013) suggested that the aesthetic factors that are visual stimuli affect
behavior reactions via SOR model (Stimulus - Organism - Response), these
stimuli evoke both cognitive and emotional behavioral responses (JACOBY, 2002).
Cue theory (RICHARDSON et al., 1994; LEE;
LOU, 1995; LEE;
LOU, 1996) confirmed the influence of these stimulating factors on consumer
perceived values and the product is described as a series of external and
internal signals.
While
external signals related to attributes that are not part of the physical
product (such as brand name, packaging, and price), internal signals are
associated with inherent properties of a product (such as its material, design,
and appearance) and they have a close relationship with the product's aesthetic
assessment and can increase consumer perceived value for the product.
In
order to determine whether aesthetics can affect a buyer's decision through
three different aspects of perceived value, it is necessary to check whether
each aspect influences the intention to purchase, due to that perceived value
cannot be considered a quadratic scale consisting of three aspects. Some
studies confirm that consumer perceived value has a direct impact on buying
intent or willingness to buy, for both products and services (CHEN; DUBINSKY, 2003; ASHTON et
al., 2010; LEELAKULTHANT;
HONGCHARU, 2012).
Although
this is the expected direction, aesthetic principles are used in designing new
technology products; the goal is to satisfy customers directly through the
experience of beauty and appearance (Kumar and Garg, 2010). As a result, there
is the possibility that aesthetics can create a positive feeling directly
leading to the intention of the buyer to purchase the product.
Figure 1: Proposal conceptual model
Aesthetics
can directly or indirectly affect the intention to purchase (TOUFANI et al.,
2017). Aesthetics can indirectly link to the intention of purchasing goods through
factors that determine the adoption of technology (VAN; HEIJDEN, 2003). As an
aspect of overall value, Turel et al. (2010) show that the indirect linkages of
aesthetics intended to use virtual artifacts such as ringtones. Gallarza and
Gil Saura (2006) applied aesthetics to understand how it affects satisfaction
and intention to purchase in tourism. Aesthetics are also used to measure its
impact on customer decisions when shopping online (MATHWICK et al., 2001).
Also, aesthetics are directly related to purchasing intentions (LEE; KOUBEK, 2010; TZOU; LU, 2009). Therefore,
hypothesis H1 is:
·
H1: Aesthetics has a
positive effect directly on intention to buy smartphones.
Contrary
to the aesthetics view that may hinder usefulness, Tractinsky et al. (2000) argue
that the sense of beauty affects the sense of usefulness and Tractinsky (2004)
claims to have set “a beautiful phrase” that can be used to confirm Tractinsky
et al. (2000) ’s research. Similarly, Shin (2012) argues that usefulness and
aesthetics are interdependent, the research finds that customers feel the more
beautiful smartphones, the more useful than devices with higher performance but
lower aesthetics.
Aesthetics
affected consumer decisions through functional attributes of products in
different information system contexts such as using websites (HEIJDEN, 2003),
the interaction between people - computers (TUCH et al., 2012) and mobile
commerce (CYR et al., 2006). Although customers can assume that products with
attractive designs have superior functions (CHAIKEN; MAHESWARAN, 1994), there
are very few studies in the field of mobile devices that study the relationship
between aesthetics and functional properties (SHIN, 2012) to validate the
influence of aesthetics on functional values. Therefore, hypothesis H2 is:
·
H2: Aesthetics has a
positive effect on the functional value of smartphones.
According to consumer value theory
of Sheth et al. (1991), social value is choosing images with clearly visible
products such as clothing, cars, and jewelry, ... Those things towards their
image. An evaluation of an object's aesthetics can be made through interaction
with society (LEDER et al., 2004). In other words, the satisfaction of
aesthetics affects social value (MORTON et al., 2013). Therefore, hypothesis H3
is:
·
H3: Aesthetics has a
positive effect on the social value of smartphones.
The
aesthetic characteristics of a product can stimulate positive emotional
reactions that lead to an emotional connection (SÁNCHEZ-FERNÁNDEZ; INIESTA-BONILLO, 2007;
NANDA et al., 2008). Emotional values can become popular among individuals who
value beauty because the beauty of an object can convey the feeling that they
can meet their needs (HOLBROOK, 1999). Therefore, hypothesis H4 is:
·
H4: Aesthetics has a
positive effect on the emotional value of smartphones.
Functional
values relate to consumer perception of the quality and function of products or
services (YANG;
JOLLY, 2009; CALLARISA et al., 2011). There is support for consumers'
perception (CALLARISA et al., 2009) on functional values that have a strongly
positive relationship with the intention to purchase (BHASKARAN; SUKUMARAN, 2007) and the
use of a product (BUTLER et al., 2016). According to Sheth et al. (1991),
consumer choice is a function of many independent consumer values, including
functional values. Therefore, the hypothesis H5 is:
·
H5: The functional value
has a positive effect on the intention to buy smartphones.
Social
values derive from a product's ability to reinforce the social concept (SWEENEY; SOUTAR, 2001). People
often prefer to buy products that are accepted by social groups or follow
social rules (WANG, 2010; LEE, 2014). A positive sense of social value leads to
stronger purchasing intentions (VIGNERON;
JOHNSON, 1999; KIM et al., 2013). While many studies have examined the role of
social value in purchasing decisions (SWEENEY; SOUTAR, 2001; CALLARISA et al.,
2009), there has been little research to find out whether the target has
aesthetics can create a sense that it has social value and then will affect the
decision to purchase. Therefore, the hypothesis H6 is:
·
H6: Social value has a
positive effect on the intention to buy smartphones.
Emotional
value has been identified as an essential influence when purchasing goods
(HEIJDEN, 2003). The more positive in the emotion, the more likely it is that
the intention to purchase will happen (TZOU; LU, 2009). An attractive aesthetic
audience that can create emotional values, and an emotional connection with a
product (LEE;
KOUBEK, 2010) can lead to purchasing intentions (HSIAO, 2013 ). Therefore, the
hypothesis H7 is:
·
H7: Emotional value has a
positive effect on the intention to buy smartphones.
4.
CONCLUSION AND DIRECTIONS FOR FUTURE
RESEARCH
The
current research on products in Vietnam is still very new. Especially in the
field of advanced technology in general and in the field of smartphones in
particular. Currently, the phone market in Vietnam is very diverse, and
smartphones come from many different brands such as Apple, Samsung, Nokia,
Sony, HTC, Oppo, LG, Asus, Lenovo, ... with the variety of designs and full of
features. Therefore, this study explores what factors affect the intention to
buy smartphones of customers. Since then, businesses and marketers can focus on
improving products and attracting customers to achieve more business benefits.
Therefore,
this research contributed in turn to study the theory as well as proposed
models to find the factors affecting the intention to buy smartphones in
Vietnam. Besides, the study also builds, synthesizes and develops to improve
the scales that affect the intention to purchase smartphones. Through
theoretical research, this paper proposes the relationship between aesthetics
and the intention to buy smartphones directly. At the same time, this research
also compares the indirect relationship between aesthetics and the intention to
buy smartphones through the perceived value of customers.
The
next step after developing hypotheses and modeling is to test hypotheses in the
context of Vietnam. Factors affecting the intention to buy smartphones will be
analyzed in detail in the study in Vietnam. The model in this study is the
model applied in Vietnam, and this model will set the stage for other studies
in Vietnam in general and in the world in the study of aesthetic factors and
perceived value.
At
the same time, this study further supports the theory for aesthetics, intention
to buy products, perceived value, functional value, emotional value, and social
value. Also, the model in the study provides other researchers to conduct
empirical studies in many different research contexts. Based on the next
empirical studies in the future, the company will know the direct effect of
aesthetics or the indirect effect of aesthetics on intention to buy smartphones
via the functional vale, social value and emotional value.
REFERENCES
AGARWAL, S.; TEAS, R. K. (2002) Cross-national
applicability of a perceived quality model. Journal of Product & Brand
Management, v. 11, n. 4, p. 213-236.
ARMSTRONG, J. S.; MORWITZ, V. G.; KUMAR, V. (2000)
Sales forecasts for existing consumer products and services: Do purchase
intentions contribute to accuracy. International Journal of Forecasting,
v. 16, n. 3, p. 383-397.
ASGARPOUR, R.; ABU, B. A.; HAMID; SULAIMAN Z. B. (2015) A Review on
Customer Perceived Value and Its Main Components. Global Journal of Business
and Social Science Review, v. 1, n. 2, p. 632-640.
ASHTON,
A. S.; SCOTT, N.; SOLNET, D.; BREAKEY, N. (2010) Hotel restaurant dining: the
relationship between perceived value and intention to purchase. Tourism and Hospitality Research, v.10,
n. 3, p. 206-218.
BAKON, K. A.; HASSAN, Z. (2013) Perceived Value of
Smartphone and Its Impact on Deviant Behaviour: An Investigation on Higher
Education Students in Malaysia. International Journal of Information Systems
and Engineering, v. 2, n. 1, p. 38-55.
BAUMGARTEN,
A. G. (1735) Aesthetica/Ästhetik. edited by Dagmar Mirbach, 2 vols. (Hamburg: Felix Meiner
Verlag, 2007); partial translation in Alexander Gottlieb Baumgarten and Hans
Rudolf Schweizer, Ästhetik als Philosophie der sinnlichen
Erkenntnis: Eine Interpretation der “Aesthetica” A.G. Baumgartens mit
teilweiser Wiedergabe der lateinischen Textes und deutscher Übersetzung (Basel:
Schwabe, 1973)
BELL, S. S.; HOLBROOK, M. B.; SOLOMON, M. R. (1991)
Combining esthetic and social value to explain preferences for product styles
with the incorporation of personality and ensemble effects. Journal of Social Behavior
& Personality, v. 6, n. 6, p. 243-274.
BHASKARAN,
S.; SUKUMARAN, N. (2007) Contextual and methodological issues in COO studies. Marketing Intelligence & Planning,
v. 25, n. 1, p. 66-81.
BLACKWELL, R. D.; MINIARD, P. W.; ENGEL, J. F.
(2001) Consumer behavior 9th. Mason, Ohio: South-Western.
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, v. 29, n.
4, p. 551-565.
BODKER, M.; GIMPEL, G.; HEDMAN, J. (2009) The
user experience of Smart Phones: A consumption value approach. Retrieved
from http://technologydiffusion.com/User%20Experience%20of%20Smart%20Phones.pdf
BONNIE, D, B.; TERESA, A. S.; YINGJIAO, X.; RAUL, P.
(2007) Theory of Reasoned Action Purchase Intention of Young Consumers. Clothing
and Textiles Research Journal, v. 25, n. 3, p. 244-257.
BRUNNER,
R.; EMERY, S.; HALL, R. (2008) Do you
matter?: how great design will make people love your company. FT Press.
BUTLER,
K.; GORDON, R.; ROGGEVEEN, K.; WAITT, G.; COOPER, P.; ZAINUDDIN, N. (2016)
Social marketing and value in behaviour? Perceived value of using energy
efficiently among low income older citizens. Journal of Social Marketing, v. 6, n. 2, p. 144-168.
CALLARISA F. L. J.; BIGNE ALCANIZ, E.; MOLINER TENA, M.
A.; SÁNCHEZ GARCÍA, J. (2009) Customer loyalty in clusters: perceived value and
satisfaction as antecedents. Journal of
Business-to- Business Marketing, v. 16, n. 3, p. 276-316.
CALLARISA F. L. J.; MOLINER TENA, M. A.; SÁNCHEZ GARCÍA,
J. (2011) Multidimensional perspective of perceived value in industrial
clusters. Journal of Business &
Industrial Marketing, v. 26, n. 2, p. 132-145.
CHAIKEN,
S.; MAHESWARAN, D. (1994) Heuristic processing can bias systematic processing:
effects of source credibility, argument ambiguity, and task importance on
attitude judgment. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, v. 66, n. 3, p. 460-473.
CHARTERS,
S. (2006) Aesthetic Products and Aesthetic Consumption: A Review. Consumption
Markets & Culture, v. 9, n.
3, p. 235-255.
CHEN,
Z.; DUBINSKY, A. (2003) A conceptual model of perceived customer value in
E-Commerce: a preliminary investigation. Psychology
& Marketing, v. 24, n. 4, p. 323-347.
CLN (2010) Smartphone market. Retrieved from
http://www.clnonline.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1341:smartphonemarket&catid=38:research&Itemid=100
COX, D.; COX, A. D. (2002) Beyond first impressions: The
effects of repeated exposure on consumer liking of visually complex and simple
product designs. Journal of the Academy
of Marketing Science, v. 30, n. 2, p. 119-130.
CRILLY,
N.; MOULTRIE, J.; CLARKSON, P. J. (2004) Seeing things: consumer response to
the visual domain in product design. Design
Studies, v. 25, n. 6, p. 547-577.
CROTHERS, B (2011) Apple, Samsung top J.D. Power
satisfaction survey. Retrieved from
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13924_3-20103501-64/apple-samsung-top-j.d-powersatisfaction-survey/?tag=mncol;txt
CYR,
D.; HEAD, M.; IVANOV, A. (2006) Design aesthetics leading to m-loyalty in
mobile commerce. Information and
Management, v. 43, n. 8, p. 950-963.
DODDS, W. B. (1991) In Search of Value: How Price
and Store Name Information Influence Buyers Product Perceptions. The journal
of services marketing, v. 5, n. 3, p. 27-36.
EREVELLES, S. (1993) The price-warranty contract and
product attitudes. Journal of
Business Research, v. 27, n. 2, p. 171-181.
FARZANA, W. (2012) Consumers’ psychological
factors association with brand equity of high involvement product: Case of laptop.
World Journal Of Social Sciences, v. 2, n. 5, p. 90-101.
FISHBEIN, M. (1967) Attitude and the prediction of
behavior. Readings in attitude theory and measurement, p. 477-492.
FRIJDA, N.; SCHRAM, D. (1995)
Introduction.
Poetics, v. 23, n. 1-2, p. 1-6.
GALLARZA, M. G.; GIL SAURA, I. (2006) Value
dimensions, perceived value, satisfaction and loyalty: an investigation of
university students’ travel behaviour. Tourism Management, v. 27, n. 3,
p. 437-452.
GIMPEL, G. (2011) Value-driven adoption and
consumption of technology: Understanding.
HAN, C. M. (1990) Testing the role of country image
in consumer choice behaviour. European Journal
of Marketing, v. 24, n. 6, p. 24-40.
HOLBROOK, M. B. (1999) Consumer
value: A framework for analysis and research. Routledge, London.
HOYER, W.; STOKBURGER-SAUER, N. (2012) The role of
aesthetic taste in consumer behavior. Journal of the Academy of Marketing
Science. v. 40, n. 1, p. 167-180.
HSIAO, K-L (2013); roid smartphone adoption and
intention to pay for mobile internet: Perspectives from software, hardware,
design, and value. Library Hi Tech, v. 31, n. 2, p. 216-235.
IBRAHIM, I. I.; SUBARI, K. A.; KASSIM, K. M.;
MOHAMOOD, S. K. B. (2013) Antecedent Stirring Purchase Intention of Smartphone
among Adolescents in Perlis. International Journal of Academic Research in
Business and Social Sciences, v. 3, n. 12, p. 84-97.
J. D. POWER AND ASSOCIATES (2012) Press Release:
2012 U.S. wireless Smartphone and traditional mobile
phone satisfaction studies. Retrieved from http://www.jdpower.com/content/press-release/py6kvam/2012-u-s-wireless-
International Journal of Information System and Engineering (IJISE) Volume 1,
Issue 1, September 2013 ISSN: 2289-2265 54
smartphone-and-traditional-mobile-phone-satisfaction-study--v1.htm
JACOBY, J. (2002) Stimulus-organism-response
reconsidered: an evolutionary step in modelling (consumer) behaviour. Journal
of Consumer Psychology, v.12, n. 1, p. 51-57.
JOHNSTON, C. (2012) Report: poor battery life in
4G Smartphones makes for unhappy customers. Retrieved from http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/news/2012/03/reportpoor-battery-life-in-4g-smartphones-makes-for-unhappy-customers.ars
JONGEPIER, J. (2011) Young adopter of
Smartphones: Examining determinants of the adoption decisions. Master
Thesis, p. 1-77. Retrieved from http://oaithesis.eur.nl/ir/repub/asset/10879/EUR%20Master%20Thesis%20JJongepier.pdf
JUHA, M. (2008) Customers' purchase intentions as a
reflection of price perception. Journal of Product & Brand Management,
v. 17, n.3, p. 188-196.
KARJALUOTO, H.; KARVONEN, J.; KESTI, M.; (2005) Factors affecting
consumer choice of mobile phones: Two studies from Finland. Journal of
Euromarketing, v. 14, n. 3, p. 59-82.
KATZ, J. E.; SUGIYAMA, S. (2006) Mobile phones as
fashion statements: evidence from student surveys in the US and Japan. New
Media & Society, v. 8, n. 2, p. 321-337.
KATZ, J. E.; SUGIYAMA, S. (2005) The co-creation of
mobile communications’ public meaning in LING, R.; PEDERSEN, P. (eds.) Mobile
Communications, Re-negotiation of the Social Sphere, p. 63-81, Springer,
London.
KHAN, K.; HYUNWOO, K. (2009) Factors affecting
consumer resistance to innovation- A study of Smartphones. Master Thesis,
p. 1-68. Retrieved from
http://hj.divaportal.org/smash/get/diva2:223332/FULLTEXT02
KIM, Y. H.; KIM, D. J. ; WACHTER, K. (2013) A study
of mobile user engagement (MoEN): Engagement motivations, perceived value,
satisfaction, and continued engagement intention. Decision Support Systems,
v. 56, p. 361-70.
KIM, E. Y.; KIM, Y. K. (2004) Predicting online purchase
intentions for clothing products. European Journal of Marketing, v. 38,
n. 7, p. 883-897.
KRIPPENDORFF, K.; BUTTER, R. (1984) Product
Semantics: Exploring the Symbolic Qualities of Form. Innovation: The Journal
of the Industrial Designers Society of America, v. 3, n. 2, p.
4-9.
KUMAR, M.; GARG, N. (2010) Aesthetic principles and
cognitive emotion appraisals: How much of the beauty lies in the eye of the
beholder?. Journal of Consumer Psychology, v. 20, n. 4, p. 485-494.
LANDWEHR, J. R.; WENTZEL, D.; HERRMANN, A. (2013). Product Design
for the Long Run: Consumer Responses to Typical and Atypical Designs at Different Stages of
Exposure. Journal of Marketing, v.
77, n. 5, p. 92-107.
LAY YEE, K. L.; KOK SIEW, H.; YIN FAH, B. C. (2013)
Factors affecting smartphone purchase decision among Malaysian generation Y. International
Journal of Asian Social Science, v. 3, n. 12, p.
2426-2440.
LEDER, H.; BELKE1, B.; OEBERST, A.; AUGUSTIN, D.
(2004) A model of aesthetic appreciation and aesthetic judgments. British Journal
of Psychology, v. 95, n. 4, p. 489–508.
LEE, M.; LOU, Y-C. (1995/1996) Consumer reliance on
intrinsic and extrinsic cues in product evaluations: A conjoint approach. Journal
of Applied Business Research, v.
12, n. 1, p. 21-28.
LEE, S.; KOUBEK, R. J. (2010) Understanding user
preferences based on usability and aesthetics before and after actual use. Interacting
with Computers, v. 22, n. 6, p. 530-43.
LEE, S. Y. (2014) Examining the factors that influence
early adopters’ smartphone adoption: The case of college students'. Telematics
and Informatics, v. 31, n. 2, p. 308-318.
LEELAKULTHANIT, O.; HONGCHARU, B. (2012) Perceived
customer value regarding eco-cars. The Journal of Global Business Management, v. 8, n. 1, p. 74-79.
LI, Z. G.; GERY, N. (2000) E-tailing—For all
products?. Business Horizons, v. 43, n. 6, p. 49-54.
LIN, C-P.; BHATTACHERJEE, A. (2010) Extending
technology usage models to interactive hedonic technologies: a theoretical
model and empirical test. Information Systems Journal, v. 20, p.
163-181.
MATHWICK, C.; MALHOTRA, N.; RIGDON, E. (2001)
Experiential value: conceptualization, measurement and application in the
catalog and Internet shopping environment. Journal of Retailing, v. 77,
n. 1, p. 39-56.
MOLINER, M. A.; SA ́NCHEZ, J.; RODRI
́GUEZ, R. M.; CALLARISA, L. (2007) Perceived relationship quality and
post-purchase perceived value: An integrative framework. European Journal of
Marketing. v. 41, n. 11/12, p. 1392-1422.
MONÖ, R. (1997) Design for Product Understanding.
Liber, Stockholm, Sweden.
MONROE, K. B.; KRISHNAN, R.
(1985) The effect of price on subjective product evaluations". Perceived Quality, v. 1, p.
209-232.
MONROE; KRISHNAN. (1985) The effect of price on subjective
product evaluations, Lexington:
Lexington Books.
MORTON, A.; RIVERS, C.; CHARTERS, S.; SPINKS, W.
(2013) Champagne purchasing: the influence of kudos and sentimentality. Qualitative
Market Research: An International Journal, v. 16, n. 2, p. 150-164.
NANDA, P.; BOS, J.; KRAMER, K.; HAY, K.; IGNACZ, J.
(2008) Effect of smartphone aesthetic design on users' emotional reaction: An
empirical study. The TQM Journal, v. 20, n. 4, p. 348-55.
NIELSEN (2017) Nielsen Vietnam Smartphone Insight
Report, Q4 – 2017.
Retrieved from
http://www.nielsen.com/content/dam/nielsenglobal/vn/docs/PR_EN/Web_Nielsen_Smartphones%20Insights_EN.pdf
OSMAN, M. (2012) A study of the trend of
Smartphone and its usage behavior in Malaysia. International Journal on New
Computer Architectures and Their Applications, v. 2, n. 1, p. 274-285.
PARK, Y.; CHEN, J. V. (2007)
Acceptance and adoption of the innovative use of smartphone. Industrial
Management & Data Systems, v. 107, n. 9, p. 1349-1365.
PECOTICH, A.; PRESSLEY, M.; ROTH, D. (1996) The
impact of ethnocentrism on the origin effect in the service sector. Journal
of Retailing and Consumer Services, v. 12, n. 4, p. 213-224.
RICHARDSON, P. DICK, A.; JAIN, A. (1994) Extrinsic
and intrinsic cue effects on perceptions of store brand quality. Journal of
Marketing, v. 58, n. 4, p. 28-36.
SÁNCHEZ-FERNÁNDEZ, R.; INIESTA-BONILLO, M. (2007)
The concept of perceived value: a systematic review of the research. Marketing
Theory, v. 7, n. 4, p. 427-51.
SAND, A.; TSENG, V. (2010) Smart Phone reliability:
Apple iPhones with fewest failures, and major Android manufactures not far
behind. p. 1-9. Retrieved from
http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/gadgetlab/2010/11/SquareTrade_Cell_Phone_Co
mparison_Study.pdf
SCHIFFMAN, L. G.; KANUK, L. L. (2000) Consumer
Behavior (7th ed.) Wisconsin: Prentice Hall.
SEWALL, M. A. (1978) Market segmentation based on
consumer ratings of proposed product designs. Journal of Marketing Research,
v. 15, n. 4, p. 557-564.
SHETH, J. N.; NEWMAN, B. I.;
GROSS, B. L. (1991) Why we buy what we buy: A theory of consumption values. Journal of Business Research, v.
22, n. 2, p. 159-170.
SHIN, D-H.
(2012) Cross-analysis of usability and aesthetic in smart devices: what
influences users’preferences?. Cross Cultural Management, v.
19, n. 4, p. 563-587.
SILK, A. J.; URBAN, G. L. (1978) Pre-test-market
evaluation of new packaged goods: A model and measurement methodology. Journal
of Marketing Research, v. 15, n. 2, p. 171-191.
SWEENEY, J. C.; SOUTAR, G. N.
(2001) Consumer perceived value: The development of a multiple item
scale". Journal of Retailing, v. 77, n. 2,
p. 203-220.
SWILLEY, E. (2012) Aesthetic technology: scale
development and measurement. International Journal of Technology Marketing,
v. 7, n. 3, p. 324-341.
TOUFANI, S.; STANTON, J. P.; CHIKWECHE, T. (2017)
The importance of aesthetics on customers’ intentions to purchase
smartphones. Marketing Intelligence & Planning, v. 35, n. 3, p.
316-338.
TRACTINSKY, N.; KATZ, A. S.;
IKAR, D. (2000) What is beautiful is usable. Interacting with Computers, v.
13, n. 2, p. 127-145.
TRACTINSKY, N. (2004) A few notes on the study of
beauty in HCI. Human-Computer Interaction, v. 19, n. 4, p. 351-357.
TUCH, A. N.; ROTH, S. P.; HORNBÆK, K.; OPWIS, K.;
BARGAS-AVILA, J. A. (2012) Is beautiful really usable? Toward understanding the
relation between usability, aesthetics, and affect in HCI. Computers in
Human Behavior, v. 28, n. 5, p. 1596-1607.
TUREL, O.; SERENKO, A.; BONTIS,
N. (2010) User acceptance of hedonic digital artifacts: A theory of consumption
values perspective. Information & Management, v. 47, n. 1,p. 53-59.
TZOU, R.-C.; LU, H.-P. (2009)
Exploring the emotional, aesthetic, and ergonomic facets of innovative product
on fashion technology acceptance model. Behaviour & Information Technology, v. 28, n. 4, p. 311-322.
VAN DER HEIJDEN, H. (2003) User Acceptance of
Hedonic Information Systems. MIS
Quarterly, v. 28, n. 4, p.
695-704.
VERYZER, R. W. (1993) Aesthetic response and the influence
of design principles on product preferences. Advances in Consumer Research,
v. 20, n. 1, p. 224-228.
VIGNERON, F.; JOHNSON, L. W. (1999) A review and a
conceptual framework of prestige-seeking consumer behaviour. Academy of
Marketing Science Review, v. 1, n. 1, p. 1-15.
WANG, Y.; CRUTHIRDS, K.; AXINN, C.; GUO, C. (2013)
In search of aesthetics in consumer marketing: An examination of aesthetic
stimuli from the Philosophy of Art and the Psychology of Art. Academy of
Marketing Studies Journal, v. 17, n. 2, p. 37-55.
WANG, E. S. T. (2010) Impact of multiple perceived
value on consumers' brand preference and purchase intention: a case of snack
foods. Journal of Food Products Marketing, v. 16, n. 4, p. 386-397.
WARSHAW, P. R.; DAVIS, F. D. (1985) Disentangling
behavioral intentions and behavioral expectations. Journal of Experimental
Social Psychology, v. 21, n. 3, p. 213-228.
WEHMEYER, K. (2008) User-device
attachment? scale development and initial test. International Journal of
Mobile Communications, v. 6,
n. 3, p. 280-295.
WHITE, D. A. (1996) It’s
Working Beautifully! Philosophical Reflections on Aesthetics and Organization
Theory. Journal of Organization, v. 3, n. 2,
p. 195–208.
WOODRUFF, R. B. (1997) Customer value: the next
source for competitive advantage. Journal of the Academy of Marketing
Science, v. 25, n. 2, p. 139-153.
YAMAMOTO, M.; LAMBERT, D. R. (1994) The impact of
product aesthetics on the evaluation of industrial products. Journal of
Product Innovation Management, v. 11, n. 4, p. 309-324.
YANG, K.;
JOLLY, L. D. (2009) The effects of consumer perceived value and subjective norm
on mobile data service adoption between American and Korean consumers. Journal of Retailing and
Consumer Services, v. 16, n. 6, p. 502-508.
YOU, J. H.; LEE, J. H.; PARK, C. (2011) Factors
affecting adoption and post-adoption of Smart Phone. 2011 International
Conference on Software and Computer Applications, v. 9, p. 108-112.
YUE, G.; STUART, J., B. (2011) Explaining
purchasing behavior within World of Warcraft. Journal of Computer
Information Systems, v. 52, n. 3, p. 18-30.
ZEITHAML, V. A. (1988) Consumer perceptions of
price, quality and value: a means-end model and synthesis of evidence. Journal
of Marketing, v. 52, p. 2-22.