Consumer Reactionsto Technological Attributesin Product Design: A Technology Acceptance Model Perspective

Ahmet ŞEKERKAYA, (İstanbul Üniversitesi, İşletme Fakültesi, Pazarlama Bölümü, İstanbul, Türkiye.)
Feyza Nur ÖZKAN, (İstanbul Üniversitesi, İşletme Fakültesi, Pazarlama Bölümü, İstanbul, TÜRKİYE)
Gözde Güsan KÖSE, (Marmara Üniversitesi, İşletme Fakültesi, İşletme Bölümü, Pazarlama Bölümü, İstanbul,)
Doğan AKARSU (İstanbul Üniversitesi, Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Pazarlama Uzmanı, İstanbul, TÜRKİYE)
Bogazici Journal: Review of Social, Economic and Administrative Studies
3 1
Yıl: 2020 Cilt: 34 Sayı: 2 Sayfa Aralığı: 151 - 176 Metin Dili: İngilizce DOI: 10.21773/boun.34.2.4 İndeks Tarihi: 06-06-2021

Consumer Reactionsto Technological Attributesin Product Design: A Technology Acceptance Model Perspective

Öz:
This study aims firstly to determine the differences in effects between perceived usefulness and ease of use, attitude, and behavioral intention towards a product. The focus will be on the use of a technological attribute in product design in the frame of the technology acceptance model. Secondly, this study aims to examine whether or not these effects differ according to product type.Four different questionnaire forms were designed using the scenario technique and experimental design. The research data were collected from 504 people by a face-to-face survey method. The data were subjected to MANOVA and Multiple Group Structural Equation Modeling. As a result of this research, it was found that the effects among the variables within the technology acceptance model were significant. When theobtained model is evaluated according to the product design and product type, it is concluded that the model differs in the case of using a technological attribute in product design, but does not differ according to product type, and the model was valid for all product types
Anahtar Kelime:

ÜrünTasarımındakiTeknolojikÖzelliklere Yönelik TüketiciTepkileri: BirTeknoloji Kabul Modeli Perspektif

Öz:
Bu çalışmanın amacı, ürün tasarımında teknolojik özellik kullanımının teknoloji kabul modeli çerçevesinde ürünün algılanan faydası, ürünün algılanan kullanım kolaylığı, ürüne yönelik tutum ve davranışsal niyet arasındaki etkilerde oluşturduğu farklılıkların belirlenmesidir. Ayrıca bu etkilerin ürünün beğenmeli ve özellikli ürün olma durumuna göre farklılaşıp farklılaşmadığının belirlenmesi de araştırmanın amaçları arasında yer almaktadır. Deneysel tasarım yöntemiyle senaryo tekniğinden yararlanılarak dört farklı anket formu oluşturulmuştur. Yüz yüze anket metoduyla 504 kişiden toplanan veriler MANOVA analizi ve Çoklu Grup Yapısal Eşitlik Modeli ile test edilmiştir. Araştırma sonucunda teknoloji kabul modeli kapsamındaki değişkenler arasındaki etkilerin anlamlı olduğu bulunmuştur. Elde edilen modelin ürün tasarımına ve ürünün türüne göre değişiklik gösterip göstermediği değerlendirildiğinde ise ürün tasarımı açısından modelin farklılaştığı ancak ürün türüne göre farklılık göstermediği ve modelin tüm ürün türleri için geçerliliğinikoruduğu sonucuna ulaşılmıştır.
Anahtar Kelime:

Belge Türü: Makale Makale Türü: Araştırma Makalesi Erişim Türü: Erişime Açık
  • Ajzen, I., Brown, T. C.and Carvajal, F. (2004). “Explaining the Discrepancy Between Intentions and Actions: The Case of Hypothetical Bias in Contingent Valuation,”Society for Personality and Social Psychology, 30(9):1108-1121.
  • Alessi, A. (2000).The Dream Factory. Milan: Electa-Alessi.Anderson, P.,and Tushman, M. L. (1990). “Technological Discontinuities and Dominant Designs: A Cyclical Model of Technological Change,” Administrative Science Quarterly,35(4): 604-633.
  • Arora, S. A.and Arora, A. (2017). “WYSIWYG—Seeing is Believing: Consumer Responses to Levels of Design Newness, Product Innovativeness, and the Role of Country-of-Origin,”Journal of International Consumer Marketing, 29(3):135-161.
  • Benner, M. J.,and Tushman, M. L. (2003). “Exploitation, Exploration, and Process Management : The Productivity Dilemma,”TheAcademy of Management Review, 28(2): 238-256.
  • Berkowitz, M. (1987). “Product Shape as a Design Innovation Strategy,”Journal of Product Innovation Management, 4:274-283.
  • Bloch, P. H. (1995). “Seeking the Ideal Form: Product Design and Consumer Response,”Journal of Marketing, 59(3):16.
  • Chandy, R. K.,and Tellis, G. J. (2000).“The incumbent’s curse? Incumbency, size, and radical product innovation,”Journal of Marketing, 64(3):1–17.
  • Childers, T. L., Carr, C. L., Peck, J.,and Carson, S. (2001). “Hedonicand utilitarian motivations for online retail shopping behavior,”Journal of Retailing, 77(4):511-535.
  • Creusen, M. E. H.,and Schoormans, J. P. L. (2005). “The different roles of product appearance in consumer choice,”Journal of Product Innovation Management, 22(1):63–81.
  • Creusen, M. E. H., Veryzer, R. W.,and Schoormans, J. P. L. (2010). “Product value importance and consumer preference for visual complexity and symmetry,”European Journal of Marketing, 44(9):1437–1452.
  • Crilly, N., Moultrie, J.,and Clarkson, P. J. (2004). “Seeing things: Consumer response to the visual domain in product design,”Design Studies, 25(6):547–577.
  • Cyr, D., Head, M.,and Ivanov, A. (2006). “Design aesthetics leading to m-loyalty in mobile commerce,”Information and Management, 43(8):950–963.
  • Dabholkar, P. A.,and Bagozzi, R. P. (2002). “An attitudinal model of technology-based self-service: Moderating effects of consumer traits and situational factors,”Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 30(3):184–201.
  • Davis, F. D. (1985). “A technology acceptance model for empirically testing new end-user information systems: Theory and results.”(Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology).
  • Davis, F. (1989). “Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use,and user acceptance of information technology,”MIS Quarterly: Management Information Systems, 13(3):319–339.
  • Davis, F., Bagozzi, R. P.,and Warshaw, P. R. (1989). “User Acceptance of Computer Technology: A Comparison of Two Theoretical Models,”Management Science, 35(8):982–1003.
  • Davis, F., Warshaw, P.,and Bagozzi, R. (1992). “Extrinsic and Intrinsic Motivation to Use Computers in the Workplace,” Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 22(14):1111–1132.
  • Demirbilek, O.,and Sener, B. (2003). “Product design, semantics and emotional response,”Ergonomics, 46(13–14):1346–1360.
  • Dodds, B., W., Monroe, B. K.and Grewal D. (1991). “Effects of Price, Brand, and Store Information on Buyers' Product Evaluations,”Journal of Marketing Research, 28 (3):307-319.
  • Er, H. A. (1997). “Development patterns of industrial design in the Third World: A conceptual model for newly industrialized countries,”Journal of Design History, 10(3):293–307.
  • Fishbein, M.,and Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, Attitude, Intention, and Behavior: An Introduction to Theory and Research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
  • Fornell, C.,and Larcker, D. F. (1981). “Structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error: Algebra and statistics,” Journal of Marketing Research, 18(3): 382-388.
  • Gentry, L.,and Calantone, R. (2002). “A Comparison of Three Models to Explain Shop-Bot Use on the Web,”Psychology and Marketing, 19(11):945–956.
  • GfK (Growth from Knowledge -Research Company) (2017) Press Release dated 24 Nov. 2017 Retrieved.from: https://www.gfk.com/fileadmin/user_upload/dyna_content/TR/GfK_TEMAX_Q3_2017_Basin_Bulteni_.pdf
  • Goldenberg, J., Mazursky, D.and Solomon, S., (1999). “Toward identifying the inventive templates of new products: A channeled ideation approach,”Journal of Marketing Research, 36 (May): 200–10.
  • Gümüş, B., and Gegez, E. E. (2020). “Design Newness Effects on Consumers’ Hearts and Minds, and The Moderating Roles of Involvement and Risk Perceptions,” Pazarlama ve Pazarlama Araştırmaları Dergisi, 26 (Mayıs):305-331.
  • Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J.,and Anderson, R. E. (2010). Multivariate Data Analysis.7th ed., Location:Pearson Education.
  • Hauser, J., Tellis, G. J.,and Griffin, A. (2006). “Research on innovation: A review and agenda for marketing science,”Marketing Science, 25(6):687–717.
  • Henderson, R. M.,and Clark, K. B. (1990). “Architectural Innovation: The Reconfiguration of Existing Product Technologies and the Failure of Established Firms,”Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(1):9.
  • Hill, R. J., Fishbein, M.,and Ajzen, I. (1977). “Belief, Attitude, Intention and Behavior: An Introduction to Theory and Research,”Contemporary Sociology, 6(2):244.
  • Hollins, B.,and Pugh, S. (1990). Successful product design: What to do and when. London: Butterworths.
  • Holton, R. H. (1958). “The distinction between convenience goods, shopping goods, and specialty goods,”Journal of Marketing, 23(1), 53-56
  • Hsiao, K. L. (2013). “Android smartphone adoption and intention to pay for mobile internet:Perspectives from software, hardware, design, and value,”Library Hi Tech, 31(2):216–235.
  • Hu, L. T.,and Bentler, P. M. (1999). “Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives,”Structural equation modeling: a multidisciplinary journal, 6(1):1-55.
  • İslamoğlu, A.H.and Altunışık, R. (2013).Tüketici Davranışları(Consumer Behavior). İstanbul: Beta Basın Yayım.
  • Jensen, R. (1999), The Dream Society: How the coming shift from information to imagination will transform your business. New York: McGraw-Hill.
  • Kavak, B., andSığındı, T.,(2012). “Pazarlama’daki Ürün Sınıflandırmasınaİlişkin Bir Yazın İncelemesi,”Hacettepe Üniversitesi İktisadi Ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 30(1), 49-67.
  • Kim, K. J., Shin, D. H.and Park E., (2015). “Can Coolness Predict Technology Adoption? Effects of Perceived Coolness on User Acceptance of Smartphones with Curved Screens,”Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 18(9):528-533.
  • Kitapçı, O., and Dörtyol, I. T. (2009). “Tüketici Satin Alma Karar Sürecinde Aile Bireylerinin Etkileri: KadınınDeğişen Rolü Sivas İlinde Bir Uygulama,”Çukurova Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 18(2): 331-348.
  • Ko, E., Sung, H.and Yoon, H. (2008). “The Effect of Attributes of Innovation and Perceived Risk on Product Attitudes and Intention To Adopt Smart Wear,”Journal of Global Academy of Marketing Science, 18(2):1–23.
  • Kohli, R.,and Krishnamurti, R. (1987). “Heuristic Approach To Product Design,”Management Science, 33(12):1523–1533.
  • Kotler, P., andArmstrong, G. (2012). Principles of Marketing,14th Edition.New Jersey: Pearson Prentice Inc.
  • Kotler, P., andKeller, K. L. (2012). Marketing Management,14th Edition.Location: Editorial Pearson.
  • Krippendorff, K. (1989). “Product semantics: A triangulation and four design theories,”Product semantic '89.Helsinki: Finland: University of Industrial Arts.
  • Kulviwat, S., Bruner II, G. C., Kumar, An, Nasco, S. A.and Clark, T., (2007). “Toward a Unified Theory of Consumer Acceptance Technology,”Psychologyand Marketing, 24(12): 1059–1084.
  • Lavie, T.and Tractinsky, N., (2004). “Assessing dimensions of perceived visual aesthetics of web sites,”International Journal Human-Computer Studies, 60:269–298.
  • Lee, S., Ha, S.,and Widdows, R. (2011). “Consumer responses to high-technology products: Product attributes, cognition, and emotions,” Journal of Business Research, 64(11):1195–1200.
  • Levy, D. S., and Lee, C. K. C. (2002).“The Influence of Family Members on Housing Purchase Decisions,” Journal of Property Investment and Finance, 22(4): 320-338.
  • Lin, C., Shih, H.,and Sher, P. J., (2007). “Integrating technology readiness into technology acceptance: The TRAM model,”Psychology and Marketing, 24:641–657.
  • Luchs, M.,and Swan, K. S. (2011). “Perspective: The emergence of product design as a field of marketing inquiry,”Journal of Product Innovation Management, 28(3):327–345.
  • Luck, D. J. (1959). “On the nature of specialty goods,”Journal of Marketing, 24(1), 61-64.
  • Malhotra, N. K. (2010). Marketing Research: An Applied Orientation.6th ed., New Jersey:Pearson Education.
  • Mandler, G. (1982) The Structure of Value: Accounting for taste. In: Clark, M.S. and Fiske, S.T., Eds., Affect and Cognition, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, 3-36.
  • Moreau, C. P., Lehmann, D. R.and Markman, A. B., (2001). “Entrenched knowledge structures and consumer response to new products,”Journal of Marketing Research,38 (February): 14–29.
  • Mugge, R.,and Dahl, D. W. (2013). “Seeking the ideal level of design newness: Consumer response to radical and incremental product design,”Journal of Product Innovation Management, 30(S1), 34–47.
  • Mumcu, Y.,and Kimzan, H. S. (2015). “The Effect of Visual Product Aesthetics on Consumers’ Price Sensitivity,”Procedia Economics and Finance, 26(15):528–534.
  • Murphy, P. E., andEnis, B. M.,(1986). “Classifying products strategically,”Journal of Marketing, 50(3), 24-42.
  • Mutlu, B.,and Er, A. (2003). “Design Innovation: Historical and Theoretical Perspectives on Product Innovation by Design,”Proceedings of the 5th European Academy of Design Conference, (April), 1–22. Retrieved from http://www.ub.edu/5ead/PDF/1/MutluEr.pdf
  • Nanda, P., Bos, J., Kramer, K. L., Hay, C.,and Ignacz, J. (2008). “Effect of smartphone aesthetic design on users’ emotional reaction: An empirical study,”TQM Journal, 20(4):348–355.
  • Nanda, D., Clark, H., and Billy,B. (2006).“Exploring Family Roles in Purchasing Decisions During Vacation Planning: Review and Discussions for Future Research,”Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing, 20(3/4): 107-125.
  • Nussbaum, B. (1988). “Smart Design,”Business Week, (April 11), 102–17.
  • Okudan, G. E.and Tauhid, S. (2008). “Concept selection methods –a literature review from 1980 to 2008,”International Journal of Design Engineering (IJDE), 1(3):243 –277.
  • Özbek, V., Alnıaçık, Ü., Koc, F., Akkılıç, M. E.,and Kaş, E. (2014). “The Impactof Personality on Technology Acceptance: A Study on Smart Phone Users,”Procedia -Social and Behavioral Sciences, 150(July):541–551.
  • Özbek, V., andKoç, F. (2009). “Kırsal Kesimdeve Kentlerde Yaşayan Ailelerin DayanıklıTüketim MallarıSatın Alma KararlarınınKarşılaştırılmasınaYönelik Bir Araştırma,”Balikesir University Journal of Social Sciences Institute, 12(21): 139-156.
  • Park, Y.,and Chen, J. V. (2007). “Acceptance and adoption of the innovative use of smartphone,”Industrial Management and Data Systems, 107(9):1349–1365.
  • Petkova, A.,and Rindova, V. (2006). “When is a New Thing a Good Thing ? Technological Change, Product Form Design,”International Conference in Lisbon, 18(2):217–232.
  • Porter, M.E., (1980). Competitive Strategy.New York, NY: Free Press.
  • Radford, S. K.,and Bloch, P. H. (2011). “Linking innovation to design: Consumer responses to visual product newness,”Journal of Product Innovation Management, 28(S1):208–220.
  • Rindova, V. P.,and Petkova, A. P. (2007). “When isa new thing a good thing? Technological change, product form design, and perceptions of value for product innovations,”Organization Science, 18(2):217–232.
  • Sadik-Rozsnyai, O., andBertrandias, L. (2019). “New technological attributes and willingness to pay: the role of social innovativeness,”European Journal of Marketing, 53(6): 1099-1124.
  • Schmitt, B., Simonson, A., (1997). Marketing Aesthetics: The Strategic Management of Brands, Identity, and Image. New York:Free Press.
  • Talke, K., Salomo, S., Wieringa, J. E.,and Lutz, A. (2009). “What about design newness? Investigating the relevance of a neglected dimension of product innovativeness,”Journal of Product Innovation Management, 26(6):601–615.
  • TSKB -Türkiye Sınai Kalkınma Bankası(Industrial DevelopmentBank of Turkey)(2018) Sectoral Report dated February 2018. Retrieved from: http://www.tskb.com.tr/i/assets/document/pdf/beyaz-esya-sektorel-gorunum-subat-2018.pdf
  • TÜİK -Türkiye İstatistik Kurumu (Turkish Statistical Institute)(2018) Marriage Statistics. Retrieved from: https://biruni.tuik.gov.tr/medas/?kn=112&locale=tr
  • Tzou, R. C.,and Lu, H. P. (2009). “Exploring the emotional, aesthetic, and ergonomic facets of innovative product on fashion technology acceptance model,”Behaviour and Information Technology, 28(4):311–322.
  • Unger, D.,and Eppinger, S. (2011). “Improving product development process design: A method for managing information flows, risks, and iterations,”Journal of Engineering Design, 22(10):689–699.
  • Van der Heijden, H. (2003).“Factors influencing the usage of websites: The case of a generic portal in The Netherlands,” Information and Management, 40(6): 541–549.
  • Venkatesh, V. (1999). “Creation of favorable user perceptions: Exploring the role of intrinsic motivation,”MIS Quarterly: Management Information Systems, 23(2):239–260.
  • Venkatesh, V.,and Davis, F. D. (2000). “Theoretical extension of the Technology Acceptance Model: Four longitudinal field studies,”Management Science, 46(2):186–204.
  • Verganti, R. (2008). “Design, meanings, and radical innovation: A metamodel and a research agenda,”Journal of Product Innovation Management, 25(5):436–456.
  • Veryzer, R. (1993). “Aesthetic response and the influence of design principles on product preferences,”Advances in Consumer Research, 20(1):224–228.
  • Veryzer, R. W.and Hutchinson J. W., (1998). “The Influence of Unity and Prototypicality on Aesthetic Responses to New Product Designs,”Journal of Consumer Research, 24(4): 374–394.
  • Walsh, V., Roy, R.and Bruce M. (1988). “Competitive by design,”Journal of Marketing Management, 4(2):201-216.
  • Wang, D., Xiang, Z., Fesenmaier, D.R., (2014). “Adapting to the mobile world: a model of smartphone use,”Ann. Tourism Res,48:11–26.
  • Yang, H., Yu, J., Zo, H.,and Choi, M. (2016). “User acceptance of wearable devices: An extended perspective of perceived value,”Telematics and Informatics, 33(2):256–269.
  • Yücel, U. A.and Gülbahar Y., (2013), “Technology Acceptance Model: A Review of the Prior Predictors, Ankara University,”Journal of Faculty of Educational Sciences, 46(1):89-109.
APA SEKERKAYA A, Özkan F, Güsan Köse G, AKARSU D (2020). Consumer Reactionsto Technological Attributesin Product Design: A Technology Acceptance Model Perspective. , 151 - 176. 10.21773/boun.34.2.4
Chicago SEKERKAYA AHMET,Özkan Feyza Nur,Güsan Köse Gözde,AKARSU Doğan Consumer Reactionsto Technological Attributesin Product Design: A Technology Acceptance Model Perspective. (2020): 151 - 176. 10.21773/boun.34.2.4
MLA SEKERKAYA AHMET,Özkan Feyza Nur,Güsan Köse Gözde,AKARSU Doğan Consumer Reactionsto Technological Attributesin Product Design: A Technology Acceptance Model Perspective. , 2020, ss.151 - 176. 10.21773/boun.34.2.4
AMA SEKERKAYA A,Özkan F,Güsan Köse G,AKARSU D Consumer Reactionsto Technological Attributesin Product Design: A Technology Acceptance Model Perspective. . 2020; 151 - 176. 10.21773/boun.34.2.4
Vancouver SEKERKAYA A,Özkan F,Güsan Köse G,AKARSU D Consumer Reactionsto Technological Attributesin Product Design: A Technology Acceptance Model Perspective. . 2020; 151 - 176. 10.21773/boun.34.2.4
IEEE SEKERKAYA A,Özkan F,Güsan Köse G,AKARSU D "Consumer Reactionsto Technological Attributesin Product Design: A Technology Acceptance Model Perspective." , ss.151 - 176, 2020. 10.21773/boun.34.2.4
ISNAD SEKERKAYA, AHMET vd. "Consumer Reactionsto Technological Attributesin Product Design: A Technology Acceptance Model Perspective". (2020), 151-176. https://doi.org/10.21773/boun.34.2.4
APA SEKERKAYA A, Özkan F, Güsan Köse G, AKARSU D (2020). Consumer Reactionsto Technological Attributesin Product Design: A Technology Acceptance Model Perspective. Bogazici Journal: Review of Social, Economic and Administrative Studies, 34(2), 151 - 176. 10.21773/boun.34.2.4
Chicago SEKERKAYA AHMET,Özkan Feyza Nur,Güsan Köse Gözde,AKARSU Doğan Consumer Reactionsto Technological Attributesin Product Design: A Technology Acceptance Model Perspective. Bogazici Journal: Review of Social, Economic and Administrative Studies 34, no.2 (2020): 151 - 176. 10.21773/boun.34.2.4
MLA SEKERKAYA AHMET,Özkan Feyza Nur,Güsan Köse Gözde,AKARSU Doğan Consumer Reactionsto Technological Attributesin Product Design: A Technology Acceptance Model Perspective. Bogazici Journal: Review of Social, Economic and Administrative Studies, vol.34, no.2, 2020, ss.151 - 176. 10.21773/boun.34.2.4
AMA SEKERKAYA A,Özkan F,Güsan Köse G,AKARSU D Consumer Reactionsto Technological Attributesin Product Design: A Technology Acceptance Model Perspective. Bogazici Journal: Review of Social, Economic and Administrative Studies. 2020; 34(2): 151 - 176. 10.21773/boun.34.2.4
Vancouver SEKERKAYA A,Özkan F,Güsan Köse G,AKARSU D Consumer Reactionsto Technological Attributesin Product Design: A Technology Acceptance Model Perspective. Bogazici Journal: Review of Social, Economic and Administrative Studies. 2020; 34(2): 151 - 176. 10.21773/boun.34.2.4
IEEE SEKERKAYA A,Özkan F,Güsan Köse G,AKARSU D "Consumer Reactionsto Technological Attributesin Product Design: A Technology Acceptance Model Perspective." Bogazici Journal: Review of Social, Economic and Administrative Studies, 34, ss.151 - 176, 2020. 10.21773/boun.34.2.4
ISNAD SEKERKAYA, AHMET vd. "Consumer Reactionsto Technological Attributesin Product Design: A Technology Acceptance Model Perspective". Bogazici Journal: Review of Social, Economic and Administrative Studies 34/2 (2020), 151-176. https://doi.org/10.21773/boun.34.2.4
Sayfa Oluşturulma Tarihi
23-04-2024 18:6

İLETİŞİM

TÜBİTAK ULAKBİM TR Dizin

Yüzüncüyıl, İşçi Blokları Mahallesi

Muhsin Yazıcıoğlu Caddesi No:51/C

06530 Çankaya / ANKARA +90 (312) 298 92 00

trdizin@tubitak.gov.tr

TÜBİTAK ULAKBİM Ulusal Akademik Ağ ve Bilgi Merkezi Cahit Arf Bilgi Merkezi © Tüm Hakları Saklıdır. Gizlilik Politikası Kullanım Şartları