Product Design Scale

What it measures

Measures consumers' holistic perceptions of product design as a three-dimensional construct grounded in Gestalt theory. The aesthetics dimension (3 items) reflects perceived beauty and visual appeal. The functionality dimension (3 items) captures perceptions of the product's ability to perform and fulfil its purpose. The symbolism dimension (3 items) assesses the perceived self-expressive message that the product communicates about the consumer's identity to themselves and others. Developed across three independent samples (6,418 U.S. consumers; 1,083 and 583 European consumers) using multiple consumer product categories. The scale requires no prior product use, making it suitable for concept tests, prototype evaluations, and competitive benchmarking. Items are administered with the stem 'The product…'; for the functionality and symbolism items, respondents are instructed to judge the product 'only from looking at it.'

Response format

5-point scale (1 = strongly agree, 5 = strongly disagree)

Scale items

• The product is visually striking.
• The product is good looking.
• The product looks appealing.
• The product is likely to perform well.
• The product seems to be capable of doing its job.
• The product seems to be functional.
• The product would help me in establishing a distinctive image.
• The product would be helpful to distinguish myself from the mass.
• The product would accurately symbolize or express my achievements.

Full scale items shown. Always cite the original source when using this scale in research.

Usage notes & scoring

Three dimensions of 3 items each: Aesthetics (items A3, A4, A7), Functionality (F3, F4, F5), Symbolism (S4, S5, S6) as labelled in the original item pool. Composite reliabilities: aesthetics = .92, functionality = .95, symbolism = .93. Average variances extracted: aesthetics = .79, functionality = .86, symbolism = .83; all exceed recommended thresholds. Three-factor model showed best fit across alternative model comparisons (AIC criterion). Discriminant validity established against Voss, Spangenberg, and Grohmann's (2003) HED/UT scale: the three-factor PDS explained 69% of variance in an overall product design judgment criterion vs. 43% for the HED/UT model. Structural equation modelling (bootstrapping, 10,000 repetitions) showed all three dimensions positively influence willingness to pay and word of mouth; functionality and symbolism directly increase purchase intention (symbolism standardised path = .25, strongest direct effect); aesthetics effect on purchase intention is fully mediated by brand attitude. All three dimensions positively influence purchase intention and WOM indirectly through brand attitude. Note: scale anchors are reverse of conventional Likert format (1 = strongly agree, 5 = strongly disagree).

Citation

Homburg, C., Schwemmle, M., & Kuehnl, C. (2015). New product design: Concept, measurement, and consequences. Journal of Marketing, 79(3), 41–56.

Keywords