The popularity of brand accessories, defined as additional appendages of a focal product, such as screen protectors, case covers, and home button stickers for iPhones, is increasing (ABI Research, 2015; Park, Jaworski, & MacInnis, 1986; Patrick & Hagtvedt, 2011). The growth in this market highlights the importance of identifying the factors that influence the success of brand accessories and the functional complementarity between a focal brand and its accessories (Englis & Solomon, 1996; Estelami, 1999; Shocker, Bayus, & Kim, 2004; Solomon, 1988). Complementarity has been conceptualized as the functional relationship between a focal product and its accessory (Estelami, 1999; Herrman, Huber, & Coulter, 1997). Essentially, a higher level of complementarity of accessories with the focal product(s) results in a more positive evaluation of the accessories (Estelami, 1999; Solomon, 1988). Thus, accessories with lower complementarity levels may have a lower likelihood of succeeding in the marketplace.

Although the complementarity of accessories is important, its effectiveness may be limited by the level of aesthetics of the focal brand. Aesthetic brands are designed to fulfill consumers’ need for sensory pleasure (Park, Eisingerich, Pol, & Park, 2013; Postrel, 2003; Schmitt & Simonson, 1997). Prior research shows that functionally and aesthetically related products are used cognitively by consumers to jointly define aesthetic congruity (Englis & Solomon, 1996; Lowrey, Englis, Shavitt, & Solomon, 2001; McCracken, 1988). Further, Englis and Solomon (1996) suggested that products and their accessories are consumed jointly because of the aesthetic pleasure derived from each product.

Scholars have recently raised the possibility of a consumer’s brand schematicity influencing the perceived complementarity of an accessory, which, in turn, influences the accessory’s potential (Puligadda, Ross, & Grewal, 2012). Brand schematicity is a representation of consumers’ information-processing approach, such that brand-schematic consumers are more likely to process product information by focusing on brand information, whereas brand-aschematic consumers use other information, such as product attributes. Thus, we believed that brand-schematic consumers may be more likely to buy brand accessories with high, compared to low, aesthetic appeal in the condition of moderate functional complementarity.

We theorized that the use of aesthetic brands would result in consumers purchasing additional accessories within their consumption environment. Thus, we empirically tested the relationship between the aesthetics levels of focal brands and the evaluation of brand accessories, and explored the moderating roles of functional complementarity and brand schematicity on this relationship.

Aesthetic Brands

The aesthetic appeal of products and services has long been recognized as a key determinant of marketing and sales success (Bloch, 1995; Kumar & Garg, 2010; Park et al., 2013; Schmitt, 1999). Aesthetics comes from the Greek word aesthesis, referring to sensory experience (Krishna, Elder, & Caldara, 2010). In a marketplace where consumers often take product quality and competitive pricing for granted, aesthetics has become an important criterion by which consumers evaluate and differentiate products when making purchase decisions (Krishna et al., 2010; Kumar & Garg, 2010). Prior researchers have suggested that aesthetic offerings have a powerful influence on consumer decisions as consumers often base their brand decisions on aesthetics (Bloch, 1995; Norman, 2003; Patrick & Hagtvedt, 2011; Postrel, 2003). An aesthetic response is defined as engaging in the interpretation of the symbolic value of an aesthetic product (Chattaraman, Rudd, & Lennon, 2010). In particular, aesthetic responses involve an affective reaction to stimuli and, in a corporate context, positive responses to products’ aesthetics provide a sustainable competitive advantage (Schmitt & Simonson, 1997; Vieira, 2010).

A large proportion of aesthetics research in consumer psychology has been focused on advertising and product design, especially for product categories where aesthetics has traditionally served as a central product feature (Hatch, 2012; Patrick & Hagtvedt, 2011; Patrick & Peracchio, 2010). Specifically, aesthetics has predominantly been investigated in the visual domain, but other senses, for example, smell and taste, and—we believe more importantly—the interaction of these senses, must also be examined (Schmitt & Simonson, 1997). Complete appreciation of the beauty of an experience comes from the combination of visual and other sensory inputs. Further, the need for visual aesthetics to accord with consumer preferences appears to be increasing for a wider selection of products (Bloch, Brunel, & Arnold, 2003), with Chattaraman et al. (2010) having revealed that contextual cues affect consumer responses in relation to aesthetic judgments.

Most prior research on aesthetics marketing has been focused on product attributes and not on the aesthetics provided by brands (Brakus, Schmitt, & Zarantonello, 2009; Walsh, Winterich, & Mittal, 2010). While using brands, consumers are exposed to various brand-related stimuli, such as logos, names, and packaging (Brakus et al., 2009; Park et al., 2013), which constitute the major source of consumers’ aesthetic responses. The term aesthetic brand is used in its broadest sense to refer to a brand’s identity with respect to its logo, name, slogan, and marketing communications, all of which are designed to fulfill consumers’ need for sensory pleasure (Jaworski & MacInnis, 1986; Park et al., 2013). Strategies related to aesthetic branding should be aimed at conveying the brand’s effect on sensory satisfaction. For example, the aesthetic experiences associated with consumption are highlighted by using an aesthetically pleasing brand. Further, Postrel (2003) suggested that aesthetic brands can lead consumers to develop emotional bonds.

The Effects of Brand Aesthetics

A novel brand accessory strategy entails the introduction of new accessories that are considered as additional appendages of, and that can be used in conjunction with, the focal product. For example, Barbie’s dress, cosmetics, and cars serve to accessorize the experiential benefit of the doll itself (Park et al., 1986). Brand accessories that are formed by adding new attributes to a focal product can reinforce the focal brand concept (Park et al., 1986; Shocker et al., 2004; Solomon, 1988). An added accessory’s functionality will enhance the value of the focal product, causing it to be perceived as more functional than the original base product (Norman, 2003; Park et al., 1986; Shocker et al., 2004). Additionally, having a variety of brand accessories available reduces consumers’ satiation regarding a focal brand (Englis & Solomon, 1996; Park et al., 1986). By emphasizing the stimulation of aesthetic pleasure, aesthetic brands encourage frequent consumption (Park et al., 1986; Zuckerman, 1994), which may, in turn, lead to satiation unless consumption is controlled. Thus, consumers who buy an aesthetic brand are motivated to lessen their satiation, for example, by searching for a variety of accessories (Englis & Solomon, 1996; Zuckerman, 1994). That is, an aesthetic brand can satisfy a variety of consumers’ aesthetic needs by offering new accessories (Park et al., 1986).

Meanwhile, the Diderot effect, a force that encourages an individual to maintain an aesthetic consistency in his/her complement of products (McCracken, 1988; Patrick & Hagtvedt, 2011), has important implications for developing a brand accessory strategy. McCracken (1988) suggested that these products need to be in harmony: goods match, in large part, because their symbolic properties bring them together (Englis & Solomon, 1996; McCracken, 1988). Thus, the Diderot effect can serve as an opportunity to change consumers’ tastes and create new patterns of consumption. A consequence of aesthetic sensibilities is that consumers are able to assess aesthetic congruity (Hagtvedt, Patrick, & Hagtvedt, 2008; Patrick & Hagtvedt, 2011), which provides sensory pleasure through evaluation of a stimulus (Aggarwal & McGill, 2007; Englis & Solomon, 1996). The meaning of an aesthetic brand is best communicated when it is complemented by an accessory that carries the same significance as the focal brand (Aggarwal & McGill, 2007; Hagtvedt et al., 2008; Lowrey et al., 2001; McCracken, 1988). In other words, having a variety of accessories can create associations that clearly convey a brand’s aesthetic benefits (McCracken, 1988; Solomon, 1988). The nature of an aesthetic brand is, therefore, another factor that promotes aesthetic congruity among products (Patrick & Hagtvedt, 2011). Even when a product category is not technically sophisticated, consumers may continue to derive added value from its accessories (Holbrook & Hirschman, 1982). Hence, we proposed the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 1: The purchase intention will be greater for brand accessories added to a brand with a high, compared to low, aesthetic appeal.

Extendibility of Brand Accessories

Another important determinant in predicting the success of brand accessories is the level of complementarity to the focal product. Here, the extendability of brand accessories is defined as the varying levels of new accessories that may be added to a focal product. Shocker et al. (2004) suggested that when a product complements, rather than acts as a substitute for, other products, the seller can increase their profits by providing a combination of products that serve the needs of specific market segments. Additionally, Estelami (1999) found that consumers demonstrated higher purchase intention for bundles of functional, rather than nonfunctional, complementary products.

Functional complementary products are those in which individual items function as a system (e.g., computer and keyboard; camera and lens), whereas nonfunctional complementary products are those in which the items are not functionally related to each other (Estelami, 1999; Herrman et al., 1997). Although the functional complementarity of an accessory is important, its effects may be limited because of the aesthetic levels of the focal brand. Accessories related to focal products with high, compared to low, aesthetic levels are more likely to show functional complementarities (Krishna et al., 2010; Norman, 2003; Park et al., 1986). As such, functional complementarity is considered less important in brands with high than low aesthetic appeal. Therefore, when the aesthetics level of a focal brand is low, consumers may focus on functional complementarities with the focal brand and, therefore, be less open to the extendability of brand accessories. However, when the aesthetics level of a focal brand is high, consumers are motivated to seek a variety of accessories. Thus, consumers evaluate the accessories of a brand with higher aesthetics more favorably than they do those of brands with lower aesthetics, in the context of moderately functional complementarity, and are more likely to accommodate a wider range of brand accessories. Hence, we proposed the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 2: The extendibility of accessories for brands with high aesthetic appeal will be higher than that for brands with low aesthetic appeal.

Brand Schematicity

Brands must engage a wide range of consumers’ mental systems, including perception, awareness, cognition, and emotion (Ramsøy & Skov, 2014). Brand schematicity refers to a generalized consumer predisposition to processing information using a brand association (Puligadda et al., 2012). Easy access to brand information in their memory (Keller, 1993; Puligadda et al., 2012) means that brand-schematic, compared to brand-aschematic, consumers should pay more attention to brand information. Therefore, brand-schematic consumers are more receptive to brand information, perceive brands as more important, and etch brand images more clearly in their memory.

Functional complementarity and aesthetic congruity are equally important for the success of brand accessories because they determine the degree of perceived holistic complementarity between a focal product and its accessory (Aggarwal & McGill, 2007; Shocker et al., 2004). Both dimensions provide information about the extendability of accessories of a brand; however, aesthetic congruity taps into brand-related information, whereas functional complementarity involves product-specific attributes information. Thus, they are mutually exclusive: all brand-related information is subsumed by aesthetic congruity, and the functional complementarity dimension contains nonbrand-related information. Because brand-schematic consumers preferentially attend to, organize information around, and use brand information, they tend to be more receptive to the meaning of aesthetic congruity (Puligadda et al., 2012), whereas brand-aschematic consumers are likely to possess a less nuanced aesthetic congruity.

We posited that brand schematicity would moderate the influence of brand aesthetic congruity, but not functional complementarity, on brand accessory evaluations. Further, brand-schematic consumers organize information around, possess richer awareness of, and rely more on brand images than brand- aschematic consumers do. That is, brand-schematic, compared to brand- aschematic, consumers are able to consider a wider array of brand accessories, which we expect to enhance the extendability of accessories with aesthetic branding. As a result, we formed the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 3: Brand-schematic, versus brand-aschematic, consumers will be more likely to purchase accessories of brands with high, versus low, aesthetics in the context of moderate functional complementarity.

Method

Participants

Undergraduate students (N = 260; men = 65.2%, women = 34.8%; M_age = 20.3 years, SD = 2.41) at a large university in Korea agreed to take part in an online experiment in exchange for course credits. Each participant was randomly assigned to one of the six experimental conditions that are described below.

Study Design and Procedure

To test the hypotheses, we employed a 2 (aesthetics level of focal brand: high vs. low) × 2 (brand schematicity: brand-schematic vs. brand-aschematic consumer) × 3 (functional complementarity of accessory: low vs. moderate vs. high) between-subjects factorial study design.

Each participant completed questionnaires containing manipulations and evaluation questions with regard to brand stimuli. Before starting the main experiment, participants were told that the study purpose was to evaluate a new instant digital camera, and they were instructed to imagine a situation in which they owned the camera. They then rated the aesthetics level of the focal brand, purchase intention for product accessories, and functional complementarity of the accessories after being exposed to visual images of instant digital cameras and accessories. Additionally, we assessed differences in brand schematicity.

Stimulus Development

Participants with varying degrees of brand schematicity were exposed to accessories of different levels of complementarity with the focal brand, ranging from high to low. We conducted two pretests to select a focal product and its brands. We conducted a pretest of the functional complementarity scales (complementarity, interrelated, indispensable) with 32 different participants at the same university. The items of each measure in the pretest and main study were assessed on a 7-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree. In our first pretest, we chose an instant digital camera as the product category because it had a singular functionality and various accessories. To select types of accessories, we checked the lists of digital camera accessory kits on amazon.com and consulted three professional camera experts about digital camera accessories. Based on this, the following three accessories were selected for the main experiment: lens cap (M = 5.54), camera strap (M = 4.25), and gadget bag (M = 3.92). The second pretest was conducted using a separate pilot test group of 15 undergraduate students from same university. In order to measure brand preference, the authors adapted items from MacKenzie, Lutz, and Belch (1986). Brand preference was measured using two items: “I like this brand,” and “This brand is favorable.” In the second pretest, Apple was selected as a high aesthetics brand and Samsung was selected as a low aesthetics brand (n = 15). Further, there was no difference in brand preference between Apple and Samsung (M_Apple = 5.17 vs. M_Samsung = 5.13; t = .095, p > .10). Finally, we used fictitious brand names in the main experiment: iCam to represent the Apple product and Galaxy Cam to represent the Samsung product.

Measures

The dependent variable of purchase intention was assessed using three items (Mackenzie et al., 1986; α = .94): “I might purchase this product,” “I will purchase this product,” and “I am willing to recommend this product to others.” The aesthetic level of the focal brand was measured using three items (Brakus et al., 2009; Krishna et al., 2010; α = .838): “This brand is aesthetically pleasing to me,” “This brand provides sensory pleasure,” and “This brand is aesthetically appealing to me.”

Functional complementarity was measured with three items (Aaker & Keller 1990; Herrman et al., 1997; α = .739): “These two products display complementarity,” “These two products are functionally interrelated,” and “These two product are indispensable to each other.”

Brand schematicity was assessed with five items based on the study by Puligadda et al. (2012): “Product features are more important than brand names in buying decisions,” “When I go shopping, I am always scanning the environment for brand names,” “When I am considering products, the brand name is more important to me than any other information,” “Brands are important to me because they indicate social status,” and “I keep abreast of the brands people around me are using” (α = .734).

Data Analysis

To test the proposed hypotheses, an analysis of variance (ANOVA) was conducted using SPSS version 21.

Results

Manipulation Checks

Manipulation checks were conducted with respect to the aesthetics level of the focal brand and its functional complementarity. First, the group exposed to the Apple product gave a higher aesthetics level evaluation compared to the group exposed to the Samsung product (M_Apple = 4.82 vs. M_Samsung = 4.13; F = 33.334, p < .01). We also found significantly different levels of functional complementarity (from high to low to high: M_cap = 4.25, M_strap = 3.35, M_bag = 3.04; F = 32.387, p < .001). Participants who scored 4.0 or below were categorized as brand-aschematic consumers, and those who scored above this median split level were categorized as brand-schematic consumers. The observed between-groups difference was significant (M_schematic = 4.80 vs. M_aschematic = 3.24; F = 473.367, p < .001).

Hypotheses Testing

The main effects of brand schematicity (F = 4.442, p < .01) and functional complementarity (F = 26.928, p < .01) were significant. Follow-up planned contrast tests revealed statistically significant differences in the evaluation of accessory products, depending on the level of functional complementarity. Participants were significantly more likely to purchase a brand accessory related to the high, compared to low, aesthetic focal brand when the level of functional complementarity was moderate (strap: F = 6.685, p < .01). However, no such differences were observed in the case of both the low (gadget bag: F = .085, p > .10) and high (lens cap: F = .516, p > .10) functional complementarity products (see Figure 1). These results suggest that consumers’ positive evaluations of accessories are attenuated by complementarities that are farther away from the focal brand, but the extendability advantage of high aesthetic brands is most likely to emerge when complementarity is moderate. Thus, both Hypotheses 1 and 2 were supported.

Our second purpose in this study was to test the relationship between the aesthetic brand and the extendability of its accessories, while simultaneously exploring the role brand schematicity plays in this relationship. Figure 2 displays cell means for the brand-schematic and brand-aschematic consumer groups across the three levels of complementarity, shown in the order of decreasing levels of functional complementarity with the focal product. Follow-up planned contrast tests revealed statistically significant differences in regard to purchase intention between the brand-schematic and brand-aschematic groups for the accessory with moderate functional complementarity to the focal brands. In particular, brand-schematic participants were more likely to purchase high aesthetic brand accessories in the context of moderate functional complementarity (camera strap: F = 4.300, p < .05). However, no such differences were observed in the case of low (gadget bag: F = .105, p > .10) and high (lens cap: F = .562, p > .10) functional complementarity (see Figure 2). Conversely, brand-aschematicity participants showed no such differences in the case of the moderate (camera strap: F = .170, p > .10), low (gadget bag: F = .324, p > .10) or high (lens cap: F = 2.297, p > .10) functional complementarity products (see Figure 2).

These results suggest that brand-schematic consumers are most likely to buy accessories of the aesthetic brand even when functional complementarity is low. In contrast, brand-aschematic consumers are likely to ignore the aesthetics of the focal brand. Thus, Hypothesis 3 was supported.

Discussion

In today’s consumer marketplace, it is important to extend the availability of brand accessories to achieve growth of a focal brand. Aesthetic brands encourage frequent consumption, which may lead to sensory satiation and weaken the aesthetic experience unless consumption is controlled (Park et al., 1986; Zuckerman, 1994). Thus, a brand accessory strategy can be used to elaborate brands’ aesthetic benefits through maintaining the level of stimulation while controlling for satiation. Although the success of accessories has been found to be important, prior research has been limited to exploring the relationship between the aesthetic benefit of a focal brand and its accessories (e.g., Estelami, 1999; Herrman et al., 1997; Lowrey et al., 2001; McCracken, 1988; Shocker et al., 2004).

Under these circumstances, understanding the factors that are likely to enhance a brand accessory’s extendability is important for consumer branding researchers and practitioners. Thus, our purpose in conducting this research was to empirically test the relationship between an aesthetic brand and its accessories, as moderated by functional complementarity and brand schematicity. In particular, we proposed a theoretical framework for understanding when the consumer’s level of brand schematicity is likely to enhance the acceptance of brand accessory extendability. On the basis of our results and those of prior empirical studies (Park et al., 1986; Patrick & Hagtvedt, 2011), several implications for development of an effective aesthetic brand accessory strategy can be drawn.

First, the results show that participants were significantly more likely to purchase brand accessories for a high aesthetic focal brand. Consumers who have bought an aesthetic brand are motivated to weaken their satiation with consistent aesthetic pleasure (Norman, 2003; Zuckerman, 1994); therefore, they may find additional value in buying the accessory when using aesthetic brands.

Second, the results show that aesthetic, compared to nonaesthetic, brands resulted in greater purchase intentions for accessories when the functional complementarity level is moderate. When the aesthetics level of the focal brand is low, consumers focus on the functional complementarity of the accessory; therefore, they may be less open to brand accessories’ extension. However, when the aesthetics level of the focal brand is high, consumers are motivated to seek out a variety of accessories. Thus, they evaluate accessories of high aesthetic brands more favorably than those of low aesthetic brands in a moderate functional complementarity context; therefore, they may be more open to brand accessories’ extension.

Finally, brand-schematic participants were more likely to purchase high, versus low, aesthetic brand accessories even when functional complementarity was moderate. However, for brand-aschematic participants, no such differences were observed in the context of moderate complementarity. Brand-schematic consumers consider a wider array of brand accessory extensions and search for a variety of accessories. Conversely, brand-aschematic consumers focus primarily on the functional complementarity between the focal product and the accessory. Consequently, the latter group is less likely to perceive the extension of brand accessories than brand-schematic consumers are, and also tends to evaluate them less favorably.

Whereas prior researchers (Englis & Solomon, 1996; Estelami, 1999; Herrman et al., 1997; Lowrey et al., 2001; Shocker et al., 2004) have focused on the functional complementarity between a focal product and an accessory, we have extended the concept of aesthetic consistency by examining the aesthetic level of the focal product. Our findings depict how consumers think about aesthetic brands. In particular, one of the most important features highlighted in brand accessories’ success is the aesthetic level of the focal product. We have also contributed to the existing literature by exploring individual differences in adopting brand accessories through brand schematicity.

Brand accessory strategies are powerful tools for brand managers. Recent successful brand accessories include kitchen stands for iPads, custom seat programs for Harley-Davidson motorcycles, and dresses and friends for Barbie dolls. Despite the hefty price, iPhone 6 accessories have sold out at many stores (ABI Research, 2015). These successful brand accessories have similar aesthetics levels to the focal brand; thus, sellers of high aesthetic brands are able to consider a wider level of extendability and variety of brand accessories.

Further, based on the motivational argument, we suggest that marketing techniques should be developed to enhance the acceptance of brand accessories among brand-schematic consumers. Brand-aschematic consumers are more likely to be convinced by product attribute-oriented messaging, whereas brand- schematic consumers are influenced by advertising that touts brands rather than attribute information. Customer segmentation based on brand schematicity could enable targeted extension of brand accessories.

Despite the meaningful findings, this study has some limitations. First, we used only one focal product, a digital camera, so it would be worthwhile to replicate our findings using different products. Second, we did not investigate the moderating role of other possible influential variables, such as sensation seeking, on the relationship between the aesthetics levels of focal brands and the evaluation of brand accessories. Sensation seekers are people who are easily bored and struggle to achieve high levels of sensation experience (Zuckerman, 1994), so they are more like to satiate their aesthetic pleasure unless the experience is controlled. Future researchers could, therefore, examine the moderating role of sensation seeking and other possible variables on the relationship between brands and brand accessories. Third, it would be interesting to investigate the effect of the consistency between an aesthetic brand and the product design on consumers’ evaluation of accessories. Aesthetic branding differs from the aesthetics of product design, such that the former taps into brand-related information, whereas the latter refers to product attribute information. It is possible that in an evaluation task, inconsistency between the focal brand and product design may result in lower evaluations of an accessory. Fourth, we did not investigate how visual aesthetics interact with other senses, such as smell and taste. Future researchers could explore the interactive nature of sensory inputs and aesthetic experience within the realm of brand consumption. Finally, further research might be conducted to consider other moderating effects, particularly focal brand-related context variables, e.g. for example, the functional versus aesthetic benefit of a focal brand. In particular, the effects of sensation seeking may be more important for an aesthetic brand than for a functional brand. In addition, whether the focal brand is consumed in public or private may also be relevant. With regard to the type of focal brand benefit, future researchers might attempt to link the aesthetics of a focal brand to self-monitoring theory.

References

Aaker, D. A., & Keller, K. L. (1990). Consumer evaluations of brand extensions. Journal of Marketing, 54, 27–41. http://doi.org/fvc5hn

ABI Research. (2015). Mobile device accessory survey results. Retrieved from http://bit.ly/1VM72XN

Aggarwal, P., & McGill, A. L. (2007). Is that car smiling at me? Schema congruity as a basis for evaluating anthropomorphized products. Journal of Consumer Research, 34, 468–479. http://doi.org/cxm2qd

Bloch, P. H. (1995). Seeking the ideal form: Product design and consumer response. Journal of Marketing, 59, 16–29. http://doi.org/dg2

Bloch, P. H., Brunel, F. F., & Arnold, T. J. (2003). Individual differences in the centrality of visual product aesthetics: Concept and measurement. Journal of Consumer Research, 29, 551–565. http://doi.org/bncqsj

Brakus, J. J., Schmitt, B. H., & Zarantonello, L. (2009). Brand experience: What is it? How is it measured? Does it affect loyalty? Journal of Marketing, 73, 52–68. http://doi.org/bs3c7d

Chattaraman, V., Rudd, N. A., & Lennon, S. J. (2010). The malleable bicultural consumer: Effects of cultural contexts on aesthetic judgments. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 9, 18–31. http://doi.org/ctwwk6

Englis, B., & Solomon, M. (1996). Using consumption constellations to develop integrated communications strategies. Journal of Business Research, 37, 183–191. http://doi.org/d5cv82

Estelami, H. (1999). Consumer savings in complementary product bundles. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 7, 107–114. http://doi.org/968

Hagtvedt, H., Patrick, V. M., & Hagtvedt, R. (2008). The perception and evaluation of visual art. Empirical Studies of Arts, 26, 197–218. http://doi.org/dpnmv6

Hatch, M. J. (2012). The pragmatics of branding: An application of Dewey’s theory of aesthetic expression. European Journal of Marketing, 46, 885–899. http://doi.org/f2zwhm

Herrman, A., Huber, F., & Coulter, R. H. (1997). Product and service bundling decisions and their effects on purchase intention. Pricing Strategy and Practice, 5, 99–107. http://doi.org/ctxq4d

Higgins, E. T. (1996). The “self digest”: Self-knowledge serving self-regulatory functions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 1062–1083. http://doi.org/c3jsm3

Holbrook, M., & Hirschman, E. (1982). The experiential aspects of consumption: Consumer fantasies, feelings, and fun. Journal of Consumer Research, 9, 132–140. http://doi.org/cpv9q4

Keller, K. L. (1993). Conceptualizing, measuring, and managing customer-based brand equity. Journal of Marketing, 57, 1–22. http://doi.org/cts

Krishna, A., Elder, R., & Caldara, C. (2010). Feminine to smell but masculine to touch? Multisensory congruence and its effect on the aesthetic experience. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 20, 410–418. http://doi.org/b47vdr

Kumar, M., & Garg, N. (2010). Aesthetic principles and cognitive emotion appraisals: How much of the beauty lies in the eye of the beholder? Journal of Consumer Psychology, 20, 485–494. http://doi.org/dt3z9c

Lowrey, T., Englis, B., Shavitt, S., & Solomon, M. (2001). Response latency verification of consumption constellations: Implications for advertising strategy. Journal of Advertising, 30, 29–39. http://doi.org/9ss

MacKenzie, S. B., Lutz, R. J., & Belch, G. E. (1986). The role of attitude toward the ad as a mediator of advertising effectiveness: A test of competing explanations. Journal of Marketing, 23, 130–143. http://doi.org/bc6352

McCracken, G. (1988). Culture and consumption. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press. Norman, D. A. (2003). Emotional design: Why we love (or hate) everyday things. New York, NY: Basic Books.

Park, C. W., Eisingerich, A. B., Pol, G., & Park, J. W. (2013). The role of brand logos in firm performance. Journal of Business Research, 66, 180–187. http://doi.org/9st

Park, C. W., Jaworski, B. J., & MacInnis, D. J. (1986). Strategic brand concept-image management. Journal of Marketing, 50, 135–145. http://doi.org/ctx

Patrick, V. M., & Hagtvedt, H. (2011). Aesthetic incongruity resolution. Journal of Marketing Research, 48, 393–402. http://doi.org/fxfcpx

Patrick, V. M., & Peracchio, L. A. (2010). “Curating” the JCP special issue on aesthetics in consumer psychology: An introduction to the aesthetics issue. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 20, 393–397. http://doi.org/b9dvrc

Postrel, V. (2003). The substance of style: How the rise of aesthetic value is remaking commerce, culture, and consciousness. New York, NY: HarperCollins.

Puligadda, S., Ross, W. T., Jr., & Grewal, R. (2012). Individual differences in brand schematicity. Journal of Marketing Research, 49, 115–130. http://doi.org/c2qjfr

Ramsøy, T. Z., & Skov, M. (2014). Brand preference affects the threshold for perceptual awareness. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 13, 1–8. http://doi.org/967

Schmitt, B. H. (1999). Experiential marketing: How to get customers to sense, feel, think, act and relate to your company and brands. New York, NY: Free Press.

Schmitt, B., & Simonson, A. (1997). Marketing aesthetics: The strategic management of brands, identity, and image. New York, NY: Free Press.

Shocker, A. D., Bayus, B. L., & Kim, N. (2004). Product complements and substitutes in the real world: The relevance of “other products.” Journal of Marketing, 68, 28–40. http://doi.org/dkbkcm

Solomon, M. R. (1988). Mapping product constellations: A social categorization approach to symbolic consumption. Psychology and Marketing, 5, 233–258.

Vieira, V. A. (2010). Visual aesthetics in store environment and its moderating role on consumer intention. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 9, 364–380. http://doi.org/c7h454

Walsh, M. F., Winterich, K. P., & Mittal, V. (2010). Do logo redesigns help or hurt your brand? The role of brand commitment. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 19, 76–84. http://doi.org/ffdk2r

Zuckerman, M. (1994). Behavioral expressions and biosocial bases of sensation seeking. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Aaker, D. A., & Keller, K. L. (1990). Consumer evaluations of brand extensions. Journal of Marketing, 54, 27–41. http://doi.org/fvc5hn

ABI Research. (2015). Mobile device accessory survey results. Retrieved from http://bit.ly/1VM72XN

Aggarwal, P., & McGill, A. L. (2007). Is that car smiling at me? Schema congruity as a basis for evaluating anthropomorphized products. Journal of Consumer Research, 34, 468–479. http://doi.org/cxm2qd

Bloch, P. H. (1995). Seeking the ideal form: Product design and consumer response. Journal of Marketing, 59, 16–29. http://doi.org/dg2

Bloch, P. H., Brunel, F. F., & Arnold, T. J. (2003). Individual differences in the centrality of visual product aesthetics: Concept and measurement. Journal of Consumer Research, 29, 551–565. http://doi.org/bncqsj

Brakus, J. J., Schmitt, B. H., & Zarantonello, L. (2009). Brand experience: What is it? How is it measured? Does it affect loyalty? Journal of Marketing, 73, 52–68. http://doi.org/bs3c7d

Chattaraman, V., Rudd, N. A., & Lennon, S. J. (2010). The malleable bicultural consumer: Effects of cultural contexts on aesthetic judgments. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 9, 18–31. http://doi.org/ctwwk6

Englis, B., & Solomon, M. (1996). Using consumption constellations to develop integrated communications strategies. Journal of Business Research, 37, 183–191. http://doi.org/d5cv82

Estelami, H. (1999). Consumer savings in complementary product bundles. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 7, 107–114. http://doi.org/968

Hagtvedt, H., Patrick, V. M., & Hagtvedt, R. (2008). The perception and evaluation of visual art. Empirical Studies of Arts, 26, 197–218. http://doi.org/dpnmv6

Hatch, M. J. (2012). The pragmatics of branding: An application of Dewey’s theory of aesthetic expression. European Journal of Marketing, 46, 885–899. http://doi.org/f2zwhm

Herrman, A., Huber, F., & Coulter, R. H. (1997). Product and service bundling decisions and their effects on purchase intention. Pricing Strategy and Practice, 5, 99–107. http://doi.org/ctxq4d

Higgins, E. T. (1996). The “self digest”: Self-knowledge serving self-regulatory functions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 1062–1083. http://doi.org/c3jsm3

Holbrook, M., & Hirschman, E. (1982). The experiential aspects of consumption: Consumer fantasies, feelings, and fun. Journal of Consumer Research, 9, 132–140. http://doi.org/cpv9q4

Keller, K. L. (1993). Conceptualizing, measuring, and managing customer-based brand equity. Journal of Marketing, 57, 1–22. http://doi.org/cts

Krishna, A., Elder, R., & Caldara, C. (2010). Feminine to smell but masculine to touch? Multisensory congruence and its effect on the aesthetic experience. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 20, 410–418. http://doi.org/b47vdr

Kumar, M., & Garg, N. (2010). Aesthetic principles and cognitive emotion appraisals: How much of the beauty lies in the eye of the beholder? Journal of Consumer Psychology, 20, 485–494. http://doi.org/dt3z9c

Lowrey, T., Englis, B., Shavitt, S., & Solomon, M. (2001). Response latency verification of consumption constellations: Implications for advertising strategy. Journal of Advertising, 30, 29–39. http://doi.org/9ss

MacKenzie, S. B., Lutz, R. J., & Belch, G. E. (1986). The role of attitude toward the ad as a mediator of advertising effectiveness: A test of competing explanations. Journal of Marketing, 23, 130–143. http://doi.org/bc6352

McCracken, G. (1988). Culture and consumption. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press. Norman, D. A. (2003). Emotional design: Why we love (or hate) everyday things. New York, NY: Basic Books.

Park, C. W., Eisingerich, A. B., Pol, G., & Park, J. W. (2013). The role of brand logos in firm performance. Journal of Business Research, 66, 180–187. http://doi.org/9st

Park, C. W., Jaworski, B. J., & MacInnis, D. J. (1986). Strategic brand concept-image management. Journal of Marketing, 50, 135–145. http://doi.org/ctx

Patrick, V. M., & Hagtvedt, H. (2011). Aesthetic incongruity resolution. Journal of Marketing Research, 48, 393–402. http://doi.org/fxfcpx

Patrick, V. M., & Peracchio, L. A. (2010). “Curating” the JCP special issue on aesthetics in consumer psychology: An introduction to the aesthetics issue. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 20, 393–397. http://doi.org/b9dvrc

Postrel, V. (2003). The substance of style: How the rise of aesthetic value is remaking commerce, culture, and consciousness. New York, NY: HarperCollins.

Puligadda, S., Ross, W. T., Jr., & Grewal, R. (2012). Individual differences in brand schematicity. Journal of Marketing Research, 49, 115–130. http://doi.org/c2qjfr

Ramsøy, T. Z., & Skov, M. (2014). Brand preference affects the threshold for perceptual awareness. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 13, 1–8. http://doi.org/967

Schmitt, B. H. (1999). Experiential marketing: How to get customers to sense, feel, think, act and relate to your company and brands. New York, NY: Free Press.

Schmitt, B., & Simonson, A. (1997). Marketing aesthetics: The strategic management of brands, identity, and image. New York, NY: Free Press.

Shocker, A. D., Bayus, B. L., & Kim, N. (2004). Product complements and substitutes in the real world: The relevance of “other products.” Journal of Marketing, 68, 28–40. http://doi.org/dkbkcm

Solomon, M. R. (1988). Mapping product constellations: A social categorization approach to symbolic consumption. Psychology and Marketing, 5, 233–258.

Vieira, V. A. (2010). Visual aesthetics in store environment and its moderating role on consumer intention. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 9, 364–380. http://doi.org/c7h454

Walsh, M. F., Winterich, K. P., & Mittal, V. (2010). Do logo redesigns help or hurt your brand? The role of brand commitment. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 19, 76–84. http://doi.org/ffdk2r

Zuckerman, M. (1994). Behavioral expressions and biosocial bases of sensation seeking. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Jieun Lee, Business School, Chung-Ang University, 84, Heukseok-ro, Dongjak-gu, Seoul 156-756, Republic of Korea. Email: [email protected]