Consumer-Based Assessment of Product Creativity: …...tools to measure product creativity. The overall conclusion of this review and reappraisal is that whereas product creativity

Consumer-Based Assessment of Product Creativity:A Review and Reappraisal

Diana HornSchool of Industrial Engineering, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 47907

Gavriel SalvendySchool of Industrial Engineering, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 47907;Department of Industrial Engineering, Tsinghua University, Beijing, P.R. China

ABSTRACT

In the current value-based economy, organizations compete to match customer needs and require-ments by adding various types of value to products or programs. One example of this added valueis product creativity, which is defined as the originality and appropriateness of a product that elicitsa positive affect compatible with the consumer or judge. In this article, the authors review currentresearch on creativity, product development, and consumer behavior and reappraise the currenttools to measure product creativity. The overall conclusion of this review and reappraisal is thatwhereas product creativity shows relevance to consumer behavior, a more detailed model of prod-uct creativity and measurement tool needs to be developed and validated before fully understandingthe impact of product creativity on consumer attitudes and purchase intentions. © 2006 Wiley Peri-odicals, Inc.

1. INTRODUCTION

The changing market demand structure has caused a transition from the product-based tovalue-based competition. Companies are forced to compete through marketing and prod-uct strategies that not only offer appropriate services but also provide value to the con-sumer. This shift creates the need for a better understanding of consumer values anddemands. Various business strategies, such as customer relationship management and totalquality management focus on capturing consumer requirements to produce products thatprovide consumer satisfaction, engagement, and acceptance (Hart, Hultink, Tzokas, &Commandeur, 2003; Rodriguez, Ricart, & Sanchez, 2002). Productivity methods and prod-uct decisions focus on consumer expectations and perceptions of value; namely, how con-sumers actually view the value of products. Several types of opportunities contribute valueto the consumer’s overall product experience, such as product ergonomics, quality, aes-thetics, emotion, identity, impact, and core technology (Cagan & Vogel, 2002).

In addition to these value opportunities, most would also agree that creativity also addsvalue to products and that creative products have made a positive impact on society. Product

Correspondence to: Diana Horn, SA Technologies, 3750 Palladian Village Drive., Suite 600, Marietta, GA30066. E-mail: [email protected]

Human Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing, Vol. 16 (2) 155–175 (2006)© 2006 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.Published online in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com). DOI: 10.1002/hfm.20047

155

creativity offers potential value for consumers by not only adding quality and aestheticsto product features, but product creativity also allows consumers to feel an emotionalimpact and identity with the product. When researchers or organizations attempt to exam-ine the impact of product creativity, however, there is much disagreement primarily becauseof the lack of a precise definition for product creativity. This confusion deters organiza-tions from better understanding how product creativity influences consumer attitudes andpurchase decisions as well as how to enhance the creativity of products further. Currentresearch has stressed the need for, yet lack of appropriate measures of product creativity(Alber & Runco, 1999; Christiaans, 2002). To measure product creativity, one must beable to define product creativity; hence, the debatable definitions have not provided asolid foundation for the development and validation of product creativity measures.

Creativity researchers emphasize the need for more encompassing outcome measuresof creativity to better develop the knowledge and theory in the field of creativity (Mayer,1999). The necessity for outcome measures of creativity stems from three major justifi-cations: to better understand the process of creativity, the outcome must first be mea-sured; enhancement of creativity is explained though measurement of creativity outcome;and fundamentally the concept of creativity does not exist without a measure of its out-come (Besemer & O’Quin, 1987; Plucker & Renzulli, 1999). This research addressesproduct creativity as an outcome of creative people and creative processes. This studydoes not concentrate on the components of the creative process or the attributes of thecreative persons involved but specifically looks at the final creative product. The purposeof this study is to review current research on creativity, product development, and con-sumer behavior to develop a more precise definition of product creativity and better under-standing of how to measure the impact of product creativity.

2. CREATIVITY

2.1. What is Creativity?

In keeping with the unstructured nature of creativity, researchers have not agreed upona clear-cut definition and model of creativity. Although this construct is sometimes saidto be nonmeasurable and indefinable, we will attempt to better understand creativity byconcentrating on how creativity is reflected in products. We chose this approach becausecreativity is generally associated with the judgment of a product, such as thoughts, writ-ing, art, or inventions. To begin this challenge, literature and previous studies on thetheories, dimensions, and measurements of creativity must first be reviewed.

Two attributes, original and valuable, are commonly mentioned in most studies of cre-ativity. In The Handbook of Creativity, Mayer (1999) concludes from a review of thevarious authors’ definitions that creativity is the “creation of new and useful products,including ideas as well as concrete objects” (p. 450). He proceeds to highlight a fewmajor issues that are necessary to develop the definition of creativity. First, creativity canbe viewed as a property of a person (a trait or characteristic), cognitive process (a set ofcommon processes), or product (a result of a process). Second, creativity can be seen asa personal or a social phenomenon, meaning that a creative product is with respect to theindividual’s judgment or to the society’s judgment. Third, creativity can be associatedwith abilities that only a select group of individuals possess or can be associated withcommon cognitive processes, making all humans capable of creativity. Finally, creativity

156 HORN AND SALVENDY

Human Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing DOI: 10.1002/hfm

can be domain-general (an ability that can be used in a range of settings) or domain-specific (different abilities are required in different settings). Support for the differentsides of each issue is shown throughout the Handbook of Creativity (Sternberg, 1999).Researchers select different combinations of these issues depending on the problem stud-ied and the method selected to investigate the problem.

For the purpose of this study, creativity is broadly defined as the individual or groupprocess that results in an artifact (solution, thought, product, art, music, etc.) that is judgedas original and useful. Therefore, the definition of product creativity begins with theinvolvement of the product’s novelty and appropriateness. The focus of this study is noton the origination or process of creation, but more on the outcome. Thus, the followingreview of literature will primarily focus on the results associated with creativity and notthe process. Although one cannot exist without the other, the main justification for thisreverse-engineering approach is that to understand the process better one must first havea solid grasp of the nature of the outcome. Before further defining product creativity, areview of the creativity and product development literature creates a framework for devel-oping the construct to be assessed in this study.

2.2. Theories of Creativity

Three major types of theories explain what combination of elements is necessary for cre-ativity to exist. The first major type of theory, implicit theory, claims that individuals holdcertain constructs, such as cognitive and personality elements, which in combination leadto creative production (Plucker & Renzulli, 1999). Depending on the type of field oractivity, variations occur with the constructs selected to judge creativity.

A second theory, system theory, involves explicit factors such as environmental or socialaspects, with examples as follows. Amabile (1982) proposes that task, motivation, domain-relevant knowledge and abilities, and creativity-relevant skills link with stages in creativeproblem solving. Gruber and Davis (1988) suggest that the development and deviation ofpurpose, knowledge, and affect lead to creative products. A third type of system theorydeveloped by Csikszentmihalyi (1988, 1999) states that creativity results from the inter-actions between the individual, the field (society or judges of creativity), and the domain(culture or environment where creativity exists). This system theory claims that creativitycannot exist without the combination of these three elements.

Finally, investment theory, compares creativity to an investment strategy, where anindividual or group uses the strategy to buy low (hold onto an unknown idea with poten-tial) and sell high (persist until the idea becomes accepted, then goes to another idea)(Sternberg & Lubart, 1996). The individual uses resources such as intellectual abilities,knowledge, styles of thinking, personality, motivation, and environment to select andinvest in appropriate ideas. Of these three major types of creativity theories, the systemstheory approaches the concept of creativity from the product or outcome point of view.Csikszentmihalyi’s systems theory shows that creativity is dependent on not only the indi-vidual but also the environment and society, which goes alongside the definition of cre-ativity selected for this study.

2.3. Measurement of Creativity

The measurement of creativity is dependant on both the measurement tool as well asthe perspective one takes to view creativity. When constructing any type of creativity

PRODUCT CREATIVITY 157


measurement, one must first determine what aspect needs to be measured; only then canthe appropriate type of measurement tool be selected.

As briefly mentioned, creativity is divided into four major components: person, pro-cess, product, and press (Rhodes, 1961; Richards, 1999). A person’s creative nature isobtained through observation of specific personality traits or characteristics (for exam-ple: active imagination, flexibility, or curiosity). The process of creativity refers to thecombination and demonstration of specific cognitive processes that are associated withproducing creative thoughts or products (for example, divergent thinking or problem rec-ognition). A product is often the basis for comparison of processes and environments thatlead to or influence creativity production. The level of creativity in a product is oftenstudied and related to the environmental or personality features of an individual. Thepress of creativity refers to the circumstances in which a person or product exists thatinfluences creativity. Table 1 lists the major attributes and general dimensions associatedwithin each of the four categories of creativity (Cropley, 2000; Plucker & Renzulli, 1999;Rhodes, 1961; Richards, 1999).

Numerous methods for measuring creativity exist: psychometric, experimental, bio-graphical, biological, computation, and contextual (Mayer, 1999). The different measure-ment tools are used to capture specific goals or aspects of creativity; most tools, however,are utilized separately. Comparisons of measurements only generally occur within thetype of measurement tools. The selection of measurement tools is also relevant to theunderlying assumptions of the definition of creativity. Some measurement tools such asbiographical methods often assume that high-level creativity is limited to a select groupof individuals. Thus, in the conclusion of the Handbook of Creativity Handbook, Mayer

TABLE 1. The Four P’s of Creativity

Category Associated dimensions

Person Active imagination, flexibility, curiosity, independence, acceptance of owndifference, tolerance for ambiguity, trust in own senses, openness to subconsciousmaterial, ability to work on several ideas simultaneously, ability to restructureproblems, ability to abstract from the concrete

Process Fluency of ideas, uncensored perception and encoding of information, problemrecognition and construction, unusual combination of ideas, construction of broadcategories, recognizing solutions, transformation and restructuring of ideas, seeingimplications, elaborating and expanding ideas, self-directed evaluation of ideas

Product Originality, relevance, usefulness, complexity, understandability, pleasantness,elegance

Press Supervisory encouragement, workload pressure, freedom of choice, sufficientresources, organizational impediments

Note: The data are from “Defining and Measuring Creativity: Are Creativity Tests Worth Using?” by A.J. Crop-ley, 2000, Roeper Review, 23(2), pp. 77–79. Copyright 2000. Adapted with permission; “Psychometric Approachesto the Study of Human Creativity” by J.A. Plucker and J.S. Renzulli, 1999. In R.J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbookof creativity (pp. 39– 46). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Copyright 1999 by Cambridge Uni-versity Press. Adapted with permission; “An Analysis of Creativity” by M. Rhodes, 1961, Phi Delta Kappan, 42,pp. 306–307. Copyright 1961. Adapted with permission; “Four Ps of Creativity” by Richards, 1999. In M.Runco & S.R. Pritzker (Eds.), Encyclopedia of creativity (pp. 733–742). Boston: Academic Press. Copyright1999 by Academic Press. Adapted with permission.



(1999) states that further study of creativity should combine methods of measurement tocapture a broader understanding of creativity.

3. PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT

In general, products are defined as any good, service, place, organization, idea, or resourcethat is produced or created. With respect to this study, a product refers to objects that aremanufactured primarily for the end user to consume. Ideas, concepts, and services are notthe main focus of this research; the primary concentration is on physical consumer prod-ucts. Product development then alludes to the process of creating, improving, and pro-ducing such products. The main objectives of product development from the businesspoint of view include lower production costs, higher quality, and quicker time to market,which contribute to consumer satisfaction and profit (Cagan & Vogel, 2002; Roozenburg& Eekels, 1995).

3.1. Product Development Process

The objectives of product design are achieved through five major stages of product devel-opment: planning, design, testing and verification, production, and marketing and eval-uation (Cushman & Rosenburg, 1991; Wickens, Gordon, & Liu, 1998). The planningstage includes activities such as front-end analysis, need identification, problem defini-tion, and information gathering. The design stage involves the conceptualization and syn-thesis of information to produce a product and support materials for that product. Ballay(1987) claims that the process of designing includes criteria formulation, space organi-zation, details and structure placement, appearance decisions, and release packaging. Test-ing and verification occur alongside the design stage, which provides feedback to thedesign development. The production or implementation of preferred designs is followedby marketing and evaluations of the product.

The stages of product development can be viewed as sequential (one activity must becompleted before the next one occurs) or iterative (activity or processes overlap or occurat the same time). Currently, the trend is to take a more iterative approach that involvesconcurrent activities from various departments with dynamic consumer information sys-tems because the iterative approach is argued to contain a more realistic reflection ofdesign (Bailey, 1996).

3.2. Customer Centricity

When viewing the process of product development, customer requirements play a crucialrole in several stages of development. The concept of customer centricity comes from theshift in product-based competition to value-based competition (Mello, 2002). Organiza-tions are focusing beyond manufacturing efficiency and cost reduction methods to thecustomer demands and expectations. By incorporating customer requirements into thedesign process, the associated value is added to the design. Several business strategiesand methods that attempt to reach this goal of customer centricity exist. Total qualitymanagement is a process of capturing and incorporating user requirements into productdesign through a series of associations between the consumer demands and product char-acteristics (Soin, 1999). Six sigma approaches product design by aiming to reach certainlevels of quality based on consumer demands (Barney & McCarthy, 2002). Customerrelationship management is another strategy that integrates customer behaviors and



expectations into the center of all business operations (Peppers & Rogers, 2001). User-centered design focuses on enhancing human abilities, overcoming limitations, and encour-aging human acceptance in product development (Rouse, 2001). As these examples show,customer centricity plays an important role in design development and selection.

Capturing consumer requirements involves decisions about how much and what typeof information to gather. These decisions are based on segmentation, strategy, and resourcesavailable. Customer information includes customer experience (previous relationship withthe product /company), expectations (what the customer wants from the product /company), and environment (the customer context). Numerous methods for gatheringcustomer data exist, these include interviews, questionnaires, feedback, databases, andscenarios (Rouse, 2001). Selection of the methods depends on both the type of informa-tion desired and the perspective of the customer. Once the customer requirements havebeen captured, the analysis and integration of that data produce knowledge for designconstraints and problem formulation as well as criterion for design selection. One limi-tation to capturing consumer needs is the consumer’s difficulty expressing opinions abouttechnologies or products unknown to the consumer (Bruce & Cooper, 2000). This limi-tation serves as a reminder that capturing user needs is only one of several informationsources feeding into the product development process.

3.3. Product Classifications

Current product classification systems exist for various purposes. For example, the Euro-pean Union utilizes the Classification of Products by Activities for input and output analy-sis, the Common Procurement Vocabulary for procurement transactions of similar products,and the NACE (Nomenclature generale des activites economiques dans les Commu-nautes europeennes [General Industrial Classification of Economic Activities within theEuropean Communities]) to classify economic activities and production (Russow, 2003).The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS), which replaced the U.S.Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) system, is used by the United States, Mexico,and Canada for statistical analysis of industry activities. This list of manufacturing sec-tors includes food; beverage and tobacco; textiles; textile product; apparel; leather andallied product; wood product; paper; printing and related support activities; petroleumand coal products; chemical; plastics and rubber products; nonmetallic mineral products;primary metal; fabricated metal product; machinery; computer and electronic product;electrical equipment, appliance, and component; transportation equipment; furniture andrelated products; and miscellaneous (U.S. Census Bureau, 2003). Consumer Reports, thehost of the largest nonprofit educational and consumer product testing center in the world,has nine classification of products: autos, appliances, electronics and computers, homeand garden, health and fitness, personal finance, babies and kids, travel, and food (Con-sumer Reports, 2004).

3.4. Product Characteristics

Products are thought to have certain perceived characteristics that contribute to productsuccess or failure. Such characteristics include good value (financial), excellent productquality, meet user’s need, unique features or solve problems others do not, visible ben-efits, safe, efficient, satisfying to use, durable and serviceable (Cagan & Vogel, 2002;Cooper, 1996; Cushman & Rosenberg, 1991). These characteristics are thought to provide



value to the product. One classification system for the values that consumers expect inproducts is called value opportunities (Cagan & Vogel, 2002). This systems explains sixmajor components that contribute to value, which include emotion (sensuality, power,and sense of adventure), aesthetic (visual, tactile, and auditory), product identity (per-sonality, sense of impact, and social), ergonomics (ease of use, safety, and comfort), coretechnology (enabling and reliable), and quality (craftsmanship and durability).

In addition to these value opportunities, product characteristics can be described inother ways. Product form and function are two characteristic dimensions associated withproduct usability (Han, Yun, Kim, & Kwahk, 2000; Han, Yun, Kwahk, & Hong, 2001).Product form includes the image and impression of the product, while product functiondescribes more of the product performance. Product form and function leads to satisfac-tion of needs and creates values for consumers (Roozenburg & Eekels, 1995).

Alongside the different methods for classifying product characteristics, numerous mea-sures exist for monitoring the success of products. Four types of product-related mea-sures include problem formulation, appropriateness of solution, product performance, andfinally consumer response (Rouse, 2001). These types of measures are employed by mar-keting, engineering, and sales and service involvement in the development process. Com-mon examples of product measures related to consumer response include consumersatisfaction, usability, safety, aesthetics, quality and overall value.

4. CREATIVITY IN PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT

4.1. Four P’s in Product Development

Creativity plays a crucial role in product development. As previously described, the fourP’s of creativity (person, process, product, and press) each have different perspectives ofcreativity. As with most processes, product development incorporates the need for cre-ativity in various ways. Creativity of a person in product development includes the indi-vidual developers/designers as well as the characteristics of the team. Creativity as partof the process of product development involves both problem and solution generation.The level of product creativity has both internal (developers) and external (consumers)evaluations. Finally, characteristics of the press or environment of product developmentsuch as the communication structure and level of risk play a role in facilitating creativity.

4.2. Perspectives of Product Creativity

So what does “product creativity” really mean? David Garvin (1984) asked this samequestion about product quality. He utilizes several approaches to defining quality: tran-scendent, product-based, user-based, and manufacturing-based. He emphasized the needfor concurrent definitions to capture the multiple components involved in producing qual-ity products. Recognition of the different perspectives of quality throughout the designprocess reduces the potential for conflicting communication among collaborators. Gen-erally emulating this comprehensive approach, in the following section we attempt todefine product creativity systematically.

From the transcendent approach, product creativity is said to be innately imaginative.Product creativity is absolute and universally identifiable, a reflection of high originalityand resolution. However, this approach also supports the notion that no precise definition



of product creativity exists. Product creativity can only be understood after one is exposedto product with such characteristics.

According to a product-based approach, product creativity is an exact and quantifiablevariable. Variations in product creativity are directly related to differences in levels ofspecific attributes or characteristics of a product. This approach leads to the developmentof vertical dimensions in product creativity and ranking of desired attributes. Differencesin the quantities of attributes produce differences in levels of product creativity. The over-all implication in this approach is that product creativity is not exclusively a subjectiveevaluation, but has measurable objective attributes.

The user-based approach centers on the premise that individuals have varying experi-ence with and expectations of products, which, in turn, influence their assessment of prod-uct creativity. This approach coincides with consensual assessment of product creativity,which proposes that judgments of product creativity can only be subjective. For example,Amabile’s (1982) concept of knowing a creative product when one sees it reflects thisview of individual judgment, which is also similar to the belief that “beauty is in the eyeof the beholder.” One difficulty that results from this approach is how to combine indi-vidual judgments of product creativity into a functional definition practical to the designprocess.

While the user-based approach views product creativity from the consumer demandperspective, a manufacturing-based approach looks at product creativity from the productsupply point of view. With this approach, the primary concern moves from customer opin-ions to developer judgments. Product creativity is defined in terms of constraints andavailable resources. The level of problem solving and divergent thinking associated withthe design process also plays a role in determining the product creativity. Both technicaland physical aspects of the design process are judged against the manufacturers or design-ers standard of innovation. The manufacturing approach focuses more on the process thatleads to cost reduction or enhanced production.

Garvin’s (1984) conclusion to defining product quality is also appropriate to definingproduct creativity: The need for concurrent definitions exists because of the dynamicnature of product development and the need to shift approaches throughout the develop-ment process. Thus, to study and measure product creativity, the context and perspectiveof interest must be determined so that the true nature of creativity can be understood. Thisresearch focuses on determining the consumer perceptions of product creativity; hence, amore user-based approach is taken. Product creativity is defined in terms of user percep-tion of products, based on experience and expectations. In sum, product creativity is thenfurther defined to be the subjective judgment of products to be novel and appropriate.

4.3. Innovation

Alongside defining the construct of creativity, innovation can be explained in terms of theprocess, product, person or environment. For example, the process of innovation is saidto be the behavioral and social processes that enable individuals or groups to make desiredchanges or avoid results of inaction (West & Rickards, 1999). Whereas the innovativeperson is defined as the degree to which the individual adopts new ideas relatively earlycompared to others in the social environment (Rogers, 2003).

As noted by researchers in the field, the operational definition of product innovation(as opposed to the process or personal characteristics) and the associated dimensions thatcharacterize innovation are not made clear in the literature (Danneels & Kleinschmidt,



2001; Gatignon & Robertson, 1991). The assumption that product innovation is a sub-jective assessment of a unidimensional construct is sometimes made, whereas the mea-surement of innovation is often seen in terms of newness such as the typology developedby Booz, Allen, and Hamilton (1982), which distinguishes between newness to firm andnewness to customer. Product innovation is defined in various ways as shown below. Thelast definition listed by Rogers is the definition of innovation adopted in this study. Inno-vation is defined as

“new things and ideas and new ways of behaving and interacting with things” (Arnould,Price, & Zinkhan, 2002, p. 573); “a new product or service that is perceived by consum-ers within a market segment to have effects upon established consumption patterns” (Gati-gnon & Robertson, 1991, p. 323); “a measure of the potential discontinuity a product(process or service) can generate in the marketing and/or technological process” (Garcia& Calantone, 2002, p.113); and “an idea, practice, or object that is perceived as new byan individual or other unit of adoption” (Rogers, 2003, p.12).

Two major types of classifications exist for product innovation. Robertson (1971) claimsthat innovation is based on a continuum, where continuous innovation causes a minorchange in user behavior; dynamically continuous innovation either causes minor changesin very important behavior or major changes in unimportant behavior; and discontinuousinnovation causes major changes in very important behavior. Hirschman (1981) distin-guishes two types of innovations: symbolic (producing new social meaning) and techno-logical (producing new tangible features in a product category). Different combinationsof the level of these types (high and low) lead to different adoption processes and meanings.

Innovation is also assessed in terms of impact on the user. Rogers (2003) explains theneed for five dimensions to evaluate innovations: the relative advantage; compatibilitywith users’ needs, values, and behaviors; ability to try without risk; observability in soci-ety; and complexity. These dimensions are associates with the consumer diffusion para-digm. In this paradigm, several factors influence the rate of diffusion and adoption of theinnovation across time and space, which include the value, cost, and uncertainty of theinnovation; marketing strategies; competitive activities; as well as the communication,resistance, and integration of the society in which the innovation exists (Arnould et al.,2002; Gatignon & Robertson, 1991).

The distinction between product innovation and product creativity is seen in the com-parison of the construct definitions and the factors associated with each construct (seeTable 2). Comparing the definitions shows that both product innovation and creativity aregenerally associated with the newness of the product. The distinction between the inno-vation newness and creativity newness is better understood when looking at the factorsfor each construct. The list of product innovation factors in Table 2 comes from Garciaand Calantone’s (2002) review of empirical literature on product innovation measurement.

Factors relating to the newness of product innovation address the product’s newness tothe customer (firm or market), the newness of technology, and the customer’s level of expe-rience with the product. In contrast, the factors relating to the newness of product creativityaddress the product’s originality and surprise as well as how the newness is expressed orthe style associated with the newness (elegance, organic nature, expertise of design). Thus,the newness measures of product innovation are much broader and do not require thespecific newness measures of product creativity. For example, at one point in time thehand sanitizers that do not require water could be considered innovative in part becausethe product was new. However, the hand sanitizers may not have been considered cre-ative because the product newness may not be elegant or have an imaginative design.



Another distinction between the product innovation and product creativity factors isthe measurement of behavioral or societal impact. Innovative products are associated witha certain level of societal change; whereas the judgment of a creative product does notdepend on societal impact. For example, Web sites could easily be described as creative,but not necessarily innovative because the creativity of the Web site does not require animpact on society or change in behavior. In conclusion, the main argument for developinga product creativity measure as distinct from product innovation is to capture a more-specific consumer perception of product newness (not dependent on the societal impact)that is related to the originality and imagination of the product design, not simply a mea-sure of being different.

5. CONSUMER BEHAVIOR

5.1. Perception

Measurement of product creativity cannot be fully discussed, without review of researchon consumer behavior with respect to how consumers perceive and interact with prod-ucts. Consumer’s perception of product quality has been a recent focus of attention inconsumer behavior literature. The major dimensions of product quality include: perfor-mance, features, reliability, conformance, durability, serviceability, aesthetics, tangibles,assurance, empathy, value, involvement, and responsiveness (Chueh & Kao, 2004; Crosby,DeVito, & Pearson, 2003; Parasuraman, Berry & Zeithaml, 1991). Crosby et al. (2003)stress the importance of time-based measurements to capture perception of quality. Thesestudies generally support that consumer perception is a contributing factor to consumerbehaviors such as purchasing or word of mouth, as well as consumer attitudes such assatisfaction, loyalty, and trust.

TABLE 2. Comparison of Product Innovation and Product Creativity

Product innovation Product creativity

“an idea, practice, or object that is perceived asnew by an individual or other unit of adoption”(Rogers, 2003, p. 12).

The extent to which a product exhibits noveltyand appropriateness, elicits arousal and pleasure,and is compatible with the judge’s preferences.

Innovation factors Creativity factors

• Product newness to firm• Product newness to customers

• Novelty (element of originality and surprise inthe product)

• Product newness to market• Technical uncertainty

• Elaboration and synthesis (the elegance, organicnature, and expertise of the design)

• Technical inexperience (newness)• Technical cost

• Resolution (how well the product fills the needor works to resolve the problem)

• Discontinuity of benefits • Centrality (the interest in the product)• Customer benefits • Applicability (the importance of the product)• Product superiority • Pleasure (the enjoyment from the product)• Change in behavioral patterns • Arousal (the stimulation from the product)• Business experience

Note: “Innovation factors” are from “A Critical Look at Technological Innovation Typology and InnovativenessTerminology: A Literature Review” by R. Garcia and R. Calantone, 2002, The Journal of Product InnovationManagement, 19(1), pp. 119–132. Copyright 2002. Adapted with permission.



The information-processing model explains the general flow of how consumers per-ceive product characteristics, which begins with exposure to the stimulus or product (Mower& Minor, 2001; Proctor & Van Zandt, 1994). The consumer captures information aboutthe product from visual, auditory, haptic, and other senses. This sensed information thengoes through a manipulation stage, which is controlled by the consumer’s allocation ofattention, memory, and level of involvement with the product. The information is orga-nized and the consumer forms meaning of the product. Product comprehension is a resultof both perceptual organization and interpretation of information. This perceptual pro-cessing then leads the consumer to respond and make decisions about the product.

5.2. Expectation

Expectations influence the consumer’s overall product evaluation and assessment. Theexpectancy/disconfirmation model compares actual (perceived) performance to expectedperformance. This paradigm claims that three possible outcomes: zero discrepancy is whenproducts perform as expected; positive discrepancy is when products perform to be greaterthan expected; and negative discrepancy is when products perform less than expected,which leads to dissatisfaction (Oliver, 1980). Thus, a contributing factor to achievingemotional satisfaction is if the product performs above what is expected. A meta-analysisof academic studies on customer satisfaction reported that disconfirmation is one of themost strongly related factors to customer satisfaction (Szymanski & Henard, 2001). Prod-uct expectancies are influenced by the nature of the product, promotional factors, effectsof other products, and individual characteristics of the consumer (Mower & Minor, 2001).Cue utilization and heuristics influence the formation of expectations (Van Raaij, 1991).The expectancies towards a product also influence the consumer decision-making process.

5.3. Decision Making

The consumer decision process begins with problem recognition, then search, alternativeevaluation, choice, and finally postacquisition evaluation (Bettman, Luce, & Payne, 1998).Decision-making hierarchies of effect explain the formation order of consumer beliefs,attitudes, and behaviors. The four hierarchies and the order of effects include high-involvement (beliefs, attitude, behavior), low-involvement (beliefs, behavior, affect), expe-riential (affect, behavior, beliefs), and behavioral influence (behavior, beliefs, affect) (Ray,1973). These hierarchies illustrate that consumer interactions with products are depen-dent on the type of involvement with products and influence the order of how consumersform beliefs, attitudes, and behaviors towards products. These hierarchies also help explainthe influence of persuasion methods on attitude, belief, and behavior changes.

Consumer situations, or the context of consumption, also influence the decision-making process. Such environmental factors include physical surroundings (physical andspatial aspects of the environment), social surroundings (influence from other people),time (amount of time), task definition (reason or need for consumption), and antecedentstates (mood or physiological state of consumer) (Belk, 1975). Consumer behaviors anddecisions are influenced by the situations in which products are consumed.

5.4. Affect

As mentioned above, affect functions in the decision-making process. Research indicatesthat the affective process also influences the product evaluation in that consumers may



tend to overlook weaknesses or have a less analytical assessment because of positive feel-ings (Cohen &Areni, 1991). Concerning the present study, affect refers to a valance feelingstate (which includes emotions and moods) that consumers may experience from the prod-uct. Emotions are intense, psychological urges as compared to mood, which is a less intense,more fleeting state associated with a specific situation (Mower & Minor, 2001).

Both the associated arousal level and the degree of pleasantness experienced from theproduct influences emotions (Cohen & Areni, 1991; Gardner, 1985; Liu, 2003). Researchshows that these two dimensions are correlated to product evaluation and purchase (Sher-man & Smith, 1987). There are four combinations resulting from the two dimensions:pleasant-high arousal (e.g., joy, delight, excitement), pleasant-low arousal (e.g., serene,contented, and relaxing), unpleasant-high arousal (e.g., anger, disgust, annoying), andunpleasant-low arousal (e.g., depressing, gloomy, shame). In conclusion, affect is a con-tributing factor of that leads to consumer attitudes.

5.5. Consumer Attitudes

Two models explain the prediction of consumer attitudes. Attitude-toward-the-object modelstates that overall attitude is the summation of the strength of the belief that an object hasa particular attribute multiplied by the level of goodness or badness of that attribute (Fish-bein & Ajzen, 1975). This model implies that consumer attitude is formed from salientattributes, belief that products possess attributes, and the extent to which attributes aregood or bad. The model does not include a specific measure of importance because itassumes the evaluation ratings become more extreme as importance increases (Mower &Minor, 2001).

The behavioral intentions model also known as the theory of reasoned action claimsthat behavior results from intentions to behave (Ajzen, 1988). This theory includes a con-struct called subjective norm, which is what a consumer believes what others think thatthe consumer should do. The model assesses consumer attitude towards the act of pur-chasing the product, not on the product itself. This difference focuses on how the con-sumer perceives the consequences of the purchase, not the attributes of the product (Mower& Minor, 2001). With knowledge of consequences of purchase, impeding factors may bemore easily understood. The formation of consumer satisfaction–dissatisfaction is a resultof the general flow of usage, expectancy confirmation–disconfirmation (productperformance–quality evaluation) and emotional response. Traditional measures of con-sumer satisfaction utilize Likert scales and include both satisfaction and dissatisfactionstatements to eliminate bias (Mower & Minor, 2001).

From this review of consumer behavior literature, product creativity is defined as thesubject judgment of a product to exhibit novelty and appropriateness that elicits arousaland pleasure and is compatible with the judge’s preferences. The assessment of productcreativity is dependent not only on the attributes of the product, but also the impact andinvolvement that the product has on the consumer (or judge of the product).

6. MEASURING PRODUCT CREATIVITY

6.1. Methods of Measurement

As briefly discussed before, the measurement of creativity depends on the type of tooland method utilized to capture creativity. When specifically looking at measuring the



creativity of a product, three types of approaches exist: indirect measurement, global judg-ments, and criterion-based measurement (O’Quin & Besemer, 1999). Indirect measuresof product creativity include peer and teacher nomination, measures of eminence, self-reported achievements. These types of measurements often associate the judgment ofoutcomes or activities with the overall assessment of the person’s creativity. The globaljudgment of product creativity is not concerned with the specific reasons or factors thatdetermine how creative a product is, but more focused on the overall assessment andrelation to other items such as the creativity of a person or potential success of a personin a particular field. Measurements with specific criteria that determine product creativityfocus more on the characteristics that make a product creative. Criterion for assessmentof product creativity has been proposed for both specific domains, as well as generalcriteria applied to various domains.

6.2. Theoretical Development

Before describing current tools that measure product creativity, a review of the theoreti-cal progress for creativity measurement provides added understanding of the approach tomeasuring creativity. The theoretical expansion begins with Guilford’s address to the Amer-ican Psychological Association in 1950 with his emphasis on the need for research oncreativity and the association between creativity and divergent thinking (Guilford, 1950).In the 1960s, research began to focus on developing structural approaches to investigat-ing creativity. Rhodes’ (1961) proposed four P’s of creativity (as previously described):person, process, press, and product. He suggested that the object approach begins withthe product then the person, process, and press, meaning that to understand the person orprocess, the product must first be addressed. Donald MacKinnon (1968) proposed fivecriteria of product creativity: originality, adaptiveness (solve a problem), elegance andother aesthetic quality, transcendence (transform reality), and realization (developmentand communication to others). He also supported the implicit judgment of creativity orthe thought that humans can implicitly assess the creativity of a person or object.

Then in the 1980s, specific classifications and measurement tools for creativity of prod-ucts began to develop. Briskman (1980) proposed that creative processes and personsdepend on the product or outcome evaluation. Two major approaches to measuring cre-ativity of products were developed during this period. Amabile (1982) proposed and testedthe consensual assessment technique (CAT) for measuring creativity of the product. Thismeasurement is based on the concept that creativity is understood when one sees, and thatno universal criterion exists. Thus, creativity is a subject judgment that is independentlyassessed by judges.

The other major technique to measure the creativity of products, the Creative ProductSemantic Scale developed by Besemer and O’Quin (1986, 1987) was based on the Cre-ative Product Analysis Matrix (CPAM; Besemer & Treffinger, 1981). This matrix andscale proposed that perception of product creativity is in three dimensions: novelty, res-olution, and elaboration and synthesis. Following the initial development, researchershave tested these tools with various products. These two measurement tools and otherrelated tools will be discussed in more detail in the following section.

6.3. Examples of Product Creativity Measurement Tools

6.3.1. Rating scales. The first major type utilizes rating scales to score different dimen-sions or criterion of the creative nature of products. The ratings scales are generally anchored



with semantic pairs or level-based (i.e. low � high) for each construct of creativity. TheCreative Product Semantic Scale (CPSS), developed by Besemer and O’Quin (1986, 1987,1999; O’Quin & Besemer, 1989, 1999) measures product creativity based on three maindimensions of the Creative Product Analysis Matrix: novelty, resolution, and elaborationand synthesis (Besemer & Treffinger, 1981). This matrix was developed from an analysisand synthesis of literature on general product creativity including creative art, writing,scientific work, and consumer products. Each of the three dimensions are measured withseveral semantic pairs. For example, originality is measured with 10 semantic pairs, includ-ing astonishing–commonplace, astounding–common, shocking–ordinary, startling–stale, surprising–customary, unexpected–expected. Table 3 provides a general comparisonof the CPSS and other creative product measurement tools. Table 4 provides a more-specific comparison of these measurement tools by describing the empirical results ofstudies that utilized the tools. All of the studies shown in Table 4 indicated constructvalidity through literature support; however, none of the studies reported valid predictivevalidity.

As seen in Table 4, the CPSS was tested in several domains with small (one to four)sets of products. Nonexpert judges input ratings for each semantic pair for a set of prod-ucts. The CPSS started with 110 single adjectives with 4-point scale ratings; it has beentested, however, and modified to 55 bipolar items with 7-point scale ratings (Besemer,1998; Besemer & O’Quin, 1986, 1987, 1999; O’Quin & Besemer, 1989, 1999). The scorefor each subscale is calculated by averaging the scores from the semantic pair within eachsubscale. The CPSS has shown adequate internal reliability, with reported measures rang-ing from 0.69 to 0.91. The construct validity of this measure is only explained by thetheoretical literature foundation. One further study (not listed in Table 5) tested the pre-dictive validity of the CPSS, but reported poor-to-fair fit (from R2 adjusted � 0.06 to0.22) for ability to predict willingness to buy (Besemer, 2000).

The CPSS was derived from an earlier measurement tool called the Creativity ProductInventory (Taylor & Sandler, 1972). The Creativity Product Inventory was developed tomeasure the creativity of scientific products. The inventory contains seven dimensions:generation (the newness that the product produces or causes), reformulation (the intro-duction of significant change or modification), originality (infrequency of the usefulness,uncommonness, or statistical occurrence), relevancy (solution to the problem), hedonics(attractiveness), complexity (intricacy of information), and condensation (simplifies andintegrates) (Taylor, 1973). Each dimension is scored by expert judges based on a 7-pointLikert scale, except generation, which was scored by the total number of items produced.Testing of this tool reported interrater reliability of 0.87 to 0.97, with no reported pre-dictive validity (Taylor & Sandler, 1972).

Another example of a rating-scale measurement tool is the Student Product Assess-ment Form (Reis & Renzulli, 1991). This tool utilizes several dimensions (see Table 4) toassess the creativity of student products such as writing, art, or scientific work. The toolcontains 15 items with 5-point Likert scales. Testing of this instrument reported interraterreliability of greater than 0.80 for all items except one. The instrument was also qualita-tively evaluated from 50 national experts and experienced teachers for construct validity.

6.3.2. Subjective assessments. In addition to rating-scales, researchers have testedother approaches to measuring the creativity of products. The Consensual AssessmentTechnique (CAT) (see Table 4 and Table 5) developed by Amabile (1982) takes anothermethod of capturing product creativity. This method is based on the consensual definition



TAB

LE

3.C

ompa

riso

nof

Pro

duct

Cre

ativ

ity

Mea

sure

men

tToo

ls

Met

hod

ofm

easu

rem

ent

Ref

eren

ceD

imen

sion

sIn

put

Out

put

Cre

ativ

eP

rodu

ctS

eman

tic

Sca

leB

esem

er,1

998;

Bes

emer

&O

’Qui

n,19

86,1

987,

1999

;O

’Qui

n&

Bes

emer

,19

89,1

999;

Whi

te,

Che

n,&

Sm

ith,

2002

Nov

elty

(sur

pris

ing,

orig

inal

);re

solu

tion

(log

ical

,use

ful,

valu

able

,and

unde

rsta

ndab

le);

and

elab

orat

ion

and

synt

hesi

s(o

rgan

ic,w

ell-

craf

ted,

eleg

ant)

Init

iall

y:11

0ad

ject

ive

scor

eson

Lik

ert-

type

scal

e(1

–4)

Init

iall

y:S

core

from

tota

lof

12su

bsca

les

(110

wor

ddi

vide

din

to12

subs

cale

s),

all

even

lyw

eigh

ted

Cur

rent

ly:

55bi

pola

rit

ems

scor

eson

Lik

ert-

type

scal

e(1

to7)

Cur

rent

ly:

Sco

res

from

9su

bsca

les

(eac

hsu

bsca

lesc

ore

isth

eav

erag

esc

ore

of4-

to5-

item

pair

scor

es)

Con

sens

ual

Ass

essm

ent

Tech

niqu

e

Am

abil

e,19

82;

Bri

nkm

an,1

999;

Che

n,K

asof

,Him

sel,

Gre

enbe

rger

,Don

g,&

Xue

,200

2

Cre

ativ

ity

(alo

ngsi

deot

her

dim

ensi

ons

such

asli

king

,tec

hnic

algo

odne

ss,s

illi

ness

,ae

sthe

tics

,and

liki

ng)

Ope

ncr

iter

ion

onL

iker

t-ty

pesc

ale

(1–5

)M

ean

scor

e,di

stin

ctfr

omot

her

dim

ensi

ons

Stu

dent

Pro

duct

Ass

essm

ent

For

mR

eis

&R

enzu

lli,

1991

Sta

tem

ent

ofpu

rpos

e;pr

oble

mfo

cusi

ng;

leve

lof

reso

urce

s;di

vers

ity

ofre

sour

ces;

appr

opri

aten

ess

ofre

sour

ces;

logi

c,se

quen

ce,a

ndtr

ansi

tion

;ac

tion

orie

ntat

ion;

audi

ence

;ov

eral

las

sess

men

t(o

rigi

nali

tyof

the

idea

,ach

ieve

dob

ject

ives

stat

edin

plan

,ad

vanc

edfa

mil

iari

tyw

ith

subj

ect,

qual

ity

beyo

ndag

e/gr

ade

leve

l,ca

re/a

tten

tion

tode

tail

,ti

me/

effo

rt/e

nerg

y,or

igin

alco

ntri

buti

on)

15It

emsc

ores

onL

iker

t-ty

pesc

ale

(1to

5)S

core

from

9fa

ctor

rati

ngs,

one

subs

cale

of7

item

s.E

lim

inat

ion

ofno

tap

pli-

cabl

eit

ems.

Cre

ativ

ity

Pro

duct

Inve

ntor

y

Tayl

or&

San

dler

,197

2G

ener

atio

n,re

form

atio

n,or

igin

alit

y,re

leva

ncy,

hedn

onic

s,co

mpl

exit

y,an

dco

nden

sati

on6

Item

son

Lik

ert-

type

scal

e(1

–7);

1it

emop

en-e

nded

Sco

refr

om6

item

s,to

tal

num

ber

ofit

ems

gene

rate

d,an

din

ters

cale

corr

elat

ion



TAB

LE

4.C

ompa

riso

nof

Em

piri

cal

Res

ults

from

Pro

duct

Cre

ativ

ity

Mea

sure

men

tS

tudi

es

Met

hod

ofm

easu

rem

ent

Ref

eren

ceD

omai

nN

umbe

rof

judg

esN

umbe

rof

prod

ucts

Inte

rnal

cons

iste

ncy

Inte

rrat

erre

liab

ilit

y

Cre

ativ

eP

rodu

ctB

esem

er&

O’Q

uin,

1987

Ope

ners

,art

wor

k,ca

rtoo

ns35

,18,

19,1

8S

tude

nts

3,1,

3,3

.71

to.8

2N

otin

clud

edS

eman

tic

Sca

leB

esem

er&

O’Q

uin,

1986

T-sh

irts

133

Stu

dent

s2

.69

to.9

1N

otin

clud

edB

esem

er,1

998

Nov

elch

airs

128

Stu

dent

s3

.77

to.8

7N

otin

clud

edB

esem

er&

O’Q

uin,

1999

Nov

elch

airs

185

Stu

dent

s3

.78

to.8

5N

otin

clud

edM

odif

ied

vers

ion

Whi

te,C

hen,

&S

mit

h,20

02A

dver

tise

men

ts18

9S

tude

nts

15N

otin

clud

edN

otin

clud

ed

Con

sens

ual

Ass

essm

ent

Tech

niqu

e

Am

abil

e,19

82P

aper

and

glue

“sil

ly”

desi

gns

22,1

11,9

5,10

,40

,48,

Stu

dent

s1/

Stu

dent

Not

incl

uded

0.72

to0.

88

Bri

nkm

an,1

999

Ope

nan

dcl

osed

mel

odie

s3

Exp

ert

judg

es64

Not

incl

uded

0.84

,0.7

7,0.

76C

hen,

etal

.,20

02D

raw

ings

14S

tude

nts

wit

hno

form

altr

aini

ng29

4N

otin

clud

ed0.

76to

0.98

Stu

dent

Pro

duct

Ass

essm

ent

For

mR

eis

&R

enzu

lli,

1991

Sci

enti

fic,

crea

tive

wri

ting

,so

cial

stud

ies,

audi

ovis

ual,

and

inte

rdis

cipl

inar

ypr

oduc

ts

4Te

ache

rs20

Not

incl

uded

All

but

1it

em�

0.80

Cre

ativ

ity

Pro

duct

Inve

ntor

yTa

ylor

&S

andl

er,1

972

Pro

duct

sco

nstr

ucte

dfr

omse

lect

edm

ater

ials

2T

rain

edju

dges

16N

otin

clud

ed0.

87to

0.97



of creativity, which claims that a product is creative to the degree in which appropriateobservers agree that it is creative (Hennessey & Amabile, 1999). In the CAT, expert judgesrate products (produced for the evaluation) relative to one another with independentlyselected dimensions. The judges are asked to report creativity scores on a 5-point Likertscale for each dimension selected, as well as other items such as technical goodness.Analysis of correlations between creativity dimensions and other items allows the testerto make conclusions about relationships between the product creativity and other factors.Studies of the CAT report inter-rater reliabilities of .72 to .98 (Amabile, 1982; Baer, 1994;Brinkman, 1999; Chen et al., 2002). By the definition of product creativity the CAT claimsto have construct validity with high interrater reliability. No predictive validity is reportedin these studies.

6.4. Comparison of Measurement Tools

Comparison of the CPSS and CAT, which are the most predominate tools, reveals strengthsand weakness for each method. Table 5 provides a comparison of the two tools. The majorreasoning for and goal of the CAT is to connect product creativity with social conditionsgiven that creativity is only a subject judgment. Unlike the CAT, the CPSS is not focusedon the association with the person or process involved, but addresses more objective

TABLE 5. Comparison of Product Creativity Measurement Tools

Comparison Consensual Assessment Technique Creative Product Semantic Scale

Reasoning • Ultimately product creativity judgmentscan only be subjective.

• Product creativity has measurabledimensions.

Goal • Connection between the level ofproduct creativity and variations insocial treatments.

• Synthesize objective judgment ofproduct creativity, not focused onprocess or person involved.

Assumption • Given appropriate judges, it is possibleto obtain reliable evaluations ofproduct creativity.

• Creativity of a product is partiallyobjective.

• Creativity is recognizable, but notnecessarily characterizable.

• People can agree on perception ofcreativity.

• Various levels of creativity exist,which observers can agree upon.

Opposition • High correlation with other attributes.Is there a difference?

• Based on definition, which does notincorporate clear assessment criteria.

• Harder to apply to cutting edgetechnology. What judge is appropriate?

• Claims to be objective, but usessubjective (not objective) criteria(the judge’s intuition).

• Not appropriate for determiningindividual differences.

• Restricts or biases judgment ofcreativity.

• Comparable only with a sample.



judgments of product creativity. The techniques are based on several assumptions. TheCPSS assumes that product creativity is partially objective. The CAT makes several assump-tions: given appropriate judges, product creativity can be assessed; creativity is recog-nizable, but not necessarily characterizable; people can agree on perception of creativity;and various levels of creativity exist, which observers can agree upon. The CAT is alsolimited to several constraints such as the requirement for expert judges.

Both tools also have distinct weakness. The overall arguments against the CAT includetime-demand impracticality; lack of appropriateness for individual differences or cutting-edge technology; and high correlation with other factors. The CPSS main weaknesses arefound in the instrument’s definition of creativity and its lack of criteria to assess creativityand in the defined constructs of creativity may be more subjective, than objective in natureand may cause judgment bias. The comparison of these two types of measurement toolsfor product creativity reveal that both are limited in application and utility for determin-ing product creativity.

A recent study by Christiaans (2002) questioned the need for creativity as a designcriterion. This study tested if both the CPSS and CAT techniques are valid and reliablemethods for design evaluation. The study showed that creativity is highly correlated withattractiveness and interest but not significantly correlated with technical goodness whenevaluating computer cabinets and telephone booths. Moderately high interrater reliabilityratings were reported for the scores of creativity ratings using the CAT (0.79 to 0.88). Thestudy showed that creativity is highly correlated with attractiveness and interest but notsignificantly correlated with technical goodness when evaluating computer cabinets andtelephone booths. Using the CPSS, the study showed that the novelty dimension discrim-inates clearly between high and low product creativity. Further testing of the differencesbetween high and low creativity obtained from oral descriptions resulted in five catego-ries of explanations, which are described as follows. (a) Expectation pattern is the pro-cess of comparing product with an internal representation. (b) Integration of various relevantcriteria is the successful synthesis and integration. (c) Form and function are distinct aspectsof design creativity. (d) Impact on the observer is the design’s ability to illicit the atten-tion and fantasy of the judge. (e) Finally, the commitment of the designer is the reflectionof attention to details and careful consideration reflected in the design. This study con-cludes that assessment of creativity depends on subjective judgment as long as no abso-lute criterion of creativity exists. This study confirms the previously discussed weaknessof current measurement tools.

7. CONCLUSION

In conclusion, this review and reappraisal of literature on creativity, product develop-ment, and consumer behavior defines product creativity as the subjective judgment of aproduct to exhibit novelty and appropriateness that elicits arousal and pleasure and iscompatible with the judge’s preferences. The review of product creativity measurementmethod, theory, and examples reveals the need for more valid, applicable, and predictivemeasures of product creativity. Measurement of product creativity needs to go beyondjust a measure of the perception of product creativity, but namely include more measure-ment dimensions to capture the consumer’s assessment of product creativity. The role ofproduct creativity in consumer attitudes and the potential impact can only be seen thoughvalidated measurements of product creativity.



REFERENCES

Alber, R.S., & Runco, M.A. (2001). A history of research on creativity. In R.J. Sternberg (Ed.),Handbook of creativity (pp. 16–31). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Ajzen, I. (1988). Attitudes, personality, and behavior. Chicago: Dorsey Press.Amabile, T.M. (1982). Social psychology of creativity: A consensual assessment technique. Journal

of Personality & Social Psychology, 43(5), 997–1013.Arnould, E., Price, L., & Zinkhan, G. (2002). Consumers. St. Louis: McGraw Hill.Baer, J. (1994). Performance assessments of creativity: Do they have long-term stability? Roeper

Review, 17(1), 7–11.Bailey, R.W. (1996). Human performance engineering: Designing high quality professional user

interfaces for computer products, applications, and systems (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ:Prentice Hall.

Ballay, J.M. (1987). An experimental view of the design process. In W.B. Rouse & K.R. Boff (Eds.),System design: Behavioral perspectives on designers, tools, and organizations (pp. 27– 44). NewYork: Elsevier.

Barney, M., & McCarthy, T. (2002). The new six sigma: A leader’s guide to achieving rapid busi-ness improvement and sustainable results. New York: Pearson Higher Education.

Belk, R.W. (1975). Situational variables and consumer behavior. Journal of Consumer Research,2(3), 157–164.

Besemer, S.P. (1998). Creative product analysis matrix: Testing the model structure and a compar-ison among products—three novel chairs. Creativity Research Journal, 11(4), 333–346.

Besemer, S.P. (2000). To buy or not to buy: Predicting the willingness to buy from creative productvariables. Korean Journal of Thinking & Problem Solving, 10(2), 5–18.

Besemer, S.P., & O’Quin, K. (1986). Analyzing creative products: Refinement and test of a judginginstrument. Journal of Creative Behavior, 20(2), 115–126.

Besemer, S.P., & O’Quin, K. (1987). Creative product analysis: Testing a model by developing ajudging instrument. In S.G. Isaksen (Ed.), Frontiers of creativity research: Beyond the basics(pp. 341–357). Buffalo, NY: Bearly Limited.

Besemer, S.P., & O’Quin, K. (1999). Confirming the three-factor creative product analysis matrixmodel in an American sample. Creativity Research Journal, 12(4), 287–296.

Besemer, S.P., & Treffinger, D.J. (1981). Analysis of creative products: Review and synthesis. Jour-nal of Creative Behavior, 15(3), 158–178.

Bettman, J.R., Luce, M.F., & Payne, J.W. (1998). Constructive consumer choice processes. Journalof Consumer Research, 25(3), 187–217.

Booz, Allen, Hamilton, Inc. (1982). New product management for the 1980s. New York: Author.Brinkman, D. (1999). Problem finding, creativity style and the musical compositions of high school

students. Journal of Creative Behavior, 33(1), 62– 68.Briskman, L. (1980). Creative product and creative process in science and art. Inquiry, 23,

83–106.Bruce, M., & Cooper, R. (2000). Creative product design: A practical guide to requirements capture

management. New York: Wiley.Cagan, J., & Vogel, C.M. (2002). Creating breakthrough products. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pren-

tice Hall.Chen, C., Kasof, J., Himsel, A.J., Greenberger, E., Dong, Q., & Xue, G. (2002). Creativity in draw-

ings of geometric shapes: A cross-cultural examination with the consensual assessment tech-nique. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 33(2), 171–187.

Christiaans, H.H.C.M. (2002). Creativity as a design criterion. Creativity Research Journal, 14(1),41–54.

Chueh, T.Y. & Kao, D.T. (2004, March). The moderating effects of consumer perception to theimpacts of country-of design on perceived quality. Journal of American Academy of Business,Cambridge, 4, 70–74.

Cohen, J.S., & Areni, C.S. (1991). Affect and consumer behavior. In T.S. Roberston & H. Kassar-jian (Eds.), Handbook of consumer behavior (pp. 188–240). Upper Saddle River, NJ: PrenticeHall.

Consumer Reports (2004). Ratings: Expert testing of thousands of consumer products. RetrievedFebruary 10, 2004, from http://www.consumerreports.org



Cooper, R.G. (1996). New products: What separates the winners from the losers. In M.D. Rosenau,A. Griffin, G.A. Castellion, & N.F. Anschuetz (Eds.), The PDMA handbook of new productdevelopment (pp. 3–18). New York: Wiley.

Cropley, A.J. (2000). Defining and measuring creativity: Are creativity tests worth using? RoeperReview, 23(2), 72–79.

Crosby, L.B., DeVito, R., & Pearson, J. (2003, Winter). Manage your customer’s perception ofquality. Review of Business, 24, 18–24.

Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1988). Society, culture, and person: A systems view of creativity. In R.J.Sternberg (Ed.), The nature of creativity (pp. 325–339). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1999). Implications of a systems perspective for the study of creativity. InR.J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of creativity (pp. 35– 61). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univer-sity Press.

Cushman, W.H., & Rosenburg, D.J. (1991). Human factors in product design. New York: Elsevier.Danneels, E., & Kleinschmidt, E.J. (2001). Product innovativeness from the firm’s perspective: Its

dimensions and their relation with product selection and performance. The Journal of ProductInnovation Management, 18(3) 357–373.

Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior: An introduction to theoryand research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Garcia, R., & Calantone, R. (2002). A critical look at technological innovation typology and inno-vativeness terminology: A literature review. The Journal of Product Innovation Management,19(1), 110–132.

Gardner, M.P. (1985). Mood states and consumer behavior: A critical review. Journal of ConsumerResearch, 12, 281–300.

Garvin, D.A. (1984). What does “product quality” really mean? Sloan Management Review, 26(1),25– 43.

Gatignon, H., & Robertson, T.S. (1991). Innovation decision processes. In T.S. Roberston and H.H.Kassarjian (Eds.), Handbook of consumer behavior (pp. 401– 418). Upper Saddle River, NJ:Prentice Hall.

Gruber, H.E., & Davis, S.N. (1988). Inching our way up Mount Olympus: The evolving-systemsapproach to creative thinking. In R.J. Sternberg (Ed.), The nature of creativity (pp. 243–270).New York: Cambridge University Press.

Guilford, J.P. (1950). Creativity. American Psychologist, 5, 444– 454.Han, S.H., Yun, M.H., Kim, K., & Kwahk, J. (2000). Evaluation of product usability: Development

and validation of usability dimensions and design elements based on empirical models. Inter-national Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 26, 477– 488.

Han, S.H., Yun, M.H., Kwahk, J., & Hong, S.W. (2001). Usability of consumer electronic products.International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 28, 143–151.

Hart, S., Hultink, E.J., Tzokas, N., & Commandeur, H.R. (2003). Industrial companies’ evaluationcriteria in new product development gates. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 20, 22–36.

Hennessey, B.A., & Amabile, T.M. (1999). Consensual assessment. In M. Runco & S.R. Pritzker(Eds.), Encyclopedia of creativity (pp. 347–359). Boston: Academic Press.

Hirschman, E.C. (1981). Technology and symbolism as sources for the generation of innovations.In A.A. Mitchell (Ed.), Advances in consumer research (vol. 9, pp. 537–541).

Liu, Y. (2003). The aesthetic and the ethic dimensions of human factors and design. Ergonomics,46(13/14), 1293–1305.

MacKinnon, D.W. (1968). Creativity: Psychological aspects. In D.L. Sills (Ed.), International Ency-clopedia of the Social Sciences (Vol. 3). New York: Macmillan.

Mayer, R.E. (1999). Fifty years of creativity research. In R.J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of cre-ativity (pp. 449– 460). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Mello, S. (2002). Customer centric product definition. New York: AMACOM American Manage-ment Association.

Mower, J.C., & Minor, M.S. (2001). Consumer behavior: A framework. Upper Saddle River, NJ:Prentice Hall.

Oliver, R.L. (1980). A cognitive model of the antecedents and consequences of satisfaction deci-sions. Journal of Marketing Research, 20, 296–304.

O’Quin, K., & Besemer, S.P. (1999). Creative products. In M. Runco & S.R. Pritzker (Eds.), Ency-clopedia of creativity (pp. 413– 422). Boston: Academic Press.



O’Quin, K., & Besemer, S.P. (1989). The development, reliability, and validity of the revised Cre-ative Product Semantic Scale. Creativity Research Journal, 2(4), 267–278.

Parasuraman, A., Berry, L.L., & Zeithaml, V.A. (1991). Refinement and reassessment of theSERVQUAL scale. Journal of Retailing, 67, 420– 450.

Peppers, D., & Rogers, M. (2001). One to one B2B: Customer development strategies for the business-to-business world. New York: Currency Doubleday.

Plucker, J.A., & Renzulli, J.S. (1999). Psychometric approaches to the study of human creativity. InR.J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of creativity (pp. 35– 61). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univer-sity Press.

Proctor, R.W., & Van Zandt, T. (1994). Human factors in simple and complex systems. Boston:Allyn and Bacon.

Ray, M.L. (1973). Marketing communication and hierarchy-of-effects. In P. Clarke (Ed.), New mod-els for mass communication research (pp. 147–173). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Reis, S.M., & Renzulli, J.S. (1991). The assessment of creative products in programs for gifted andtalented students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 35(3), 128–134.

Rhodes, M. (1961). An analysis of creativity. Phi Delta Kappan, 42, 305–310.Richards, R. (1999). Four Ps of creativity. In M. Runco & S.R. Pritzker (Eds.), Encyclopedia of

creativity (pp. 733–742). Boston: Academic Press.Robertson, T. (1971). Innovative behavior and communication. New York: Holt, Rhinehart & Winston.Rodriguez, M.A., Ricart, J.E., & Sanchez, P. (2002). Sustainable development and the sustainabil-

ity of competitive advantage: A dynamic and sustainable view of the firm. Creativity and Inno-vation Management, 11(3), 135–146.

Rogers, E. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th ed.). New York: Free Press.Rosenburg, N.F.M., & Eekels, J. (1995). Product design: Fundamentals and methods. New York:

Wiley.Rouse, W. (2001). Human-centered product planning and design. In G. Salvendy (3rd ed.), Hand-

book of industrial engineering (pp. 1296–1310). New York: Wiley.Russow, L.C. (2003). Product classification systems. Retrieved September 16, 2003, from

http://faculty.philau.edu/russowl/product.htmlSherman, E., & Smith, R.B. (1987). Mood states of shoppers and store image: Promising inter-

actions and possible behavioral effects. Advances in Consumer Research, 14, 251–254.Soin, S.S. (1999). Total quality essentials. New York: McGraw-Hill.Sternberg, R.J., & Lubart, T.I. (1996). Investing in creativity. American Psychologist, 51, 677– 688.Sternberg, R.J. (Ed.) (1999). Handbook of creativity. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Sternberg, R.J. & Lubart, T.I. (1999). The concept of creativity: Prospects and paradigms. In R.J.

Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of creativity (pp. 3–15). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge UniversityPress.

Szymanski, D.M., & Henard, D.H. (2001). Customer satisfaction: A meta-analysis of the empiricalevidence. Academy of Marketing Science, 29(1), 16–35.

Taylor, I.A. (1973). An emerging view of creative actions. In I.A. Taylor & J.W. Getzels (Ed.),Perspectives in creativity (pp. 297–318). Chicago: Aldine Publishing Co.

Taylor, I.A., & Sandler, B.J. (1972). Use of a creative product inventory for evaluating products ofchemists. In Proceedings of the 80th Annual Convention of the American Psychological Asso-ciation (vol. 7, 311–312). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

U.S. Census Bureau. (2003). North American classification system. Retrieved September 16, 2003,from http://www.census.gov/epcd/www/naics.html

Van Raaij, W.F. (1991). The formation and use of expectations in consumer decision making. InT.S. Roberston & H.H. Kassarjian (Eds.), Handbook of consumer behavior (pp. 401–418). UpperSaddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

West, M.A., & Rickards, T. (1999). Innovation. In M. Runco & S.R. Pritzker (Eds.), Encyclopediaof creativity (vol. 2, pp. 45–55). Boston: Academic Press.

White, A., Chen, F., & Smith, B.L. (2002). Judging advertising creativity using the creative productsemantic scale. Journal of Creative Behavior, 36(4), 241–253.

Wickens, C.D., Gordon, S.E., & Liu, Y. (1998). An introduction to human factors engineering.Menlo Park, CA: Addison Wesley Longman, Inc.



Documents

Consumer-Based Assessment of Product Creativity: …...tools to measure product creativity. The overall conclusion of this review and reappraisal is that whereas product creativity