No abstract

When do aesthetic properties convey the concept of premiumness? Is symmetry tied to the perception of premiumness due to symmetry's evolutionary association to quality, an association not present with other aesthetic features like curvature? Usually, symmetry and curvature are preferred features. However, preference itself may not suffice to evoke premiumness. With this in mind, we predicted that symmetry (vs. asymmetry) and high(vs. low) product quality would both increase the perception of premiumness of a product while curvature (curved vs. angular) would only do so when it aligned with product quality. We conducted two preliminary exploratory experiments and four preregistered experiments in which we manipulated product quality, symmetry, and curvature of product packaging and measured preference and premiumness perception. We also conducted four additional experiments using a different product category to assess the generalizability of our results. We found that while both symmetry and curvature affect preference, only symmetry affects premiumness perception. Importantly, our results indicate that the extent to which aesthetic features convey brand premiumness can be product‐specific. We suggest a theoretical model on when visual aesthetic properties convey premiumness. Overall, our study informs how subtle aesthetic elements play a role in value perception, something which firms can capitalize on.

The intrinsic variance of a beauty rating is the essential baseline for evaluating how beauty ratings vary within and across individuals. Given independent repeated measures, it’s easy to estimate the variance of the distribution underlying one judgment. However, in the context of beauty, effects of assimilation, contrast, and recall-memory might produce sequential dependence, spoiling the independence. In seven experiments, we measure how much of the variability across beauty ratings can be attributed to recall memory and sequential dependence. We find that recall memory contributes little to the variability of repeated judgment (less than 0.7 standard deviation on a 7-point Likert scale) for both subjective beauty ratings and an ellipticity judgment with ground truth. We also find that order effects, including assimilation and contrast, become measurable only when the stimuli are very similar, regardless of task. Lastly, we find that, after discounting the small recall-memory contribution, the intrinsic variance of beauty judgment increases slightly with stimulus set size. Our results indicate that the response to a given stimulus in a diverse set is affected by the number and not the value of other stimuli, which parallels Miller’s (1956) 7±2 limit on one-dimensional perceptual categorization. Overall, we show that, provided the stimuli are not very similar, recall memory and sequential dependence hardly affect the intrinsic variability of beauty judgment. Hence, the variance of repeated ratings does estimate the intrinsic variance of beauty judgment of one stimulus in a diverse set.

No abstract