This article was downloaded by: [The UC Irvine Libraries]

On: 03 November 2014, At: 20:03

Publisher: Taylor & Francis
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Engineering Design

Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
[Link]

Emotional bonding with personalised

products
a a
Ruth Mugge , Jan P.L. Schoormans & Hendrik N.J. Schifferstein
b

a
Department of Product Innovation and Management , Delft
University of Technology , Landbergstraat 15, Delft, 2628, CE, The
Netherlands
b
Department of Industrial Design , Delft University of
Technology , Landbergstraat 15, Delft, 2628, CE, The Netherlands
Published online: 01 Oct 2009.

To cite this article: Ruth Mugge , Jan P.L. Schoormans & Hendrik N.J. Schifferstein (2009)
Emotional bonding with personalised products, Journal of Engineering Design, 20:5, 467-476, DOI:
10.1080/09544820802698550

To link to this article: [Link]

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the
“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,
our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to
the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions
and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content
should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources
of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,
proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or
howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising
out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &
 Conditions of access and use can be found at [Link]
and-conditions
Downloaded by [The UC Irvine Libraries] at 20:03 03 November 2014
 Journal of Engineering Design
Vol. 20, No. 5, October 2009, 467–476

Emotional bonding with personalised products

Ruth Muggea *, Jan P.L. Schoormansa and Hendrik N.J. Schiffersteinb
a Department of Product Innovation and Management, Delft University of Technology, Landbergstraat 15,
Delft 2628 CE, The Netherlands; b Department of Industrial Design, Delft University of Technology,
Downloaded by [The UC Irvine Libraries] at 20:03 03 November 2014

Landbergstraat 15, Delft 2628 CE, The Netherlands

(Received 22 April 2008; final version received 4 August 2008 )

This study investigates the effect of personalising a product’s appearance on the emotional bond with
a product. We present a conceptual model for the relationships between the effort invested during the
process of product personalisation, the degree of self-expression, and the degree of emotional bonding.
Data from a questionnaire study in which respondents (n = 149) filled out questions concerning their (non-)
personalised bicycle support our expectations. By personalising the product’s appearance, a person invests
effort in the product. Our findings show that the amount of effort invested has a direct effect (as a result of
the extended period of time spent with the product) and an indirect effect (via the personalised product’s
self-expressive value) on the strength of the emotional bond with the product. The paper concludes by
discussing the implications of these findings for product designers.

Keywords: customer integration; design strategy; user evaluation; emotional bonding; personalisation

In today’s markets, many consumer durables are comparable with respect to their features, quality,
and user friendliness. This forces designers to find new ways to differentiate their products from
competitors. Consequently, designers are increasingly focusing on the ‘emotional responses and
experiences’ that products can bring about rather than on their functional benefits. Emotions
enrich a person’s life and can increase one’s general experience of well-being (Diener and Lucas
2000). Accordingly, emotional responses to products can be a decisive factor in purchase decisions
(Jordan 2000, Desmet 2002, Norman 2004). In addition, products can elicit emotional responses
during ownership (Hirschman and Holbrook 1982). In this respect, Desmet (2002, p. 187) argued
that studying emotional responses for a purchase situation may not be sufficient: ’In the long
run, it may be more fruitful to establish a long-term emotional relationship with the consumer’.
Then, the product continues to elicit emotional responses over an extended period of time. This
research investigates the experience of an emotional bond with a product, which implies that a
strong relationship or tie exists between an individual and an object. Experiencing an emotional
bond with products is a matter of degree. People may feel deeply attached to their most favourite
possessions, whereas other possessions are less significant to them. When a person develops an
emotional bond with a product, this product has acquired meaning beyond the functional. In other

*Corresponding author. Email: [Link]@[Link]

ISSN 0954-4828 print/ISSN 1466-1837 online

© 2009 Taylor & Francis
DOI: 10.1080/09544820802698550
[Link]
 468 R. Mugge et al.

words, the product ceases to be an ordinary object and becomes extraordinary. In general, people
experience more positive emotions (e.g., happiness, love, warmth, and pride) towards products
with which they feel emotionally bonded (Schultz et al. 1989). Experiencing an emotional bond
with a product can also result in specific protective behaviours, because people cherish their
relationship with the product and want to preserve it. Accordingly, people are more likely to
handle the product with care, to repair it when it breaks down, and to postpone its replacement.
Emotional bonding may thus increase a product’s lifetime.
In this article, we focus on the integration of consumers in the design process of their product
through product personalisation as a means for designers to strengthen this emotional bonding.

1. Product personalisation
Downloaded by [The UC Irvine Libraries] at 20:03 03 November 2014

Based on the definition of Blom (2000), product personalisation is defined as a process that defines
or changes the appearance or functionality of a product to increase its personal relevance to an
[Link] personalising products has recently received a lot of interest at companies, the
concept is not new. Before the Industrial Revolution, all products were hand-made. Consequently,
every product was unique and could be easily personalised to fit individual needs (Heskett 1980,
Weightman and McDonagh 2003). When companies started to mass produce products, products
became standardised and identical for large groups of people. As a result, mass-produced products
lack a personal touch. Jencks and Silver (1972) had already argued that manufacturers standardise
and limit people’s choices. They concluded that products should be designed more ad hoc, resulting
in unique products for different individuals. In 1980, Toffler also discussed the changing roles
of consumers. He suggested that consumers will be replaced by ‘prosumers’: individuals who
are both the producer and the consumer of a product (Toffler 1980). Today, companies are still
searching for ways to restore individualisation in products by integrating the consumer in the
design process through product personalisation.
Product personalisation can be implemented in many ways. For example, Adidas offers a
mass customisation service (MiAdidas; [Link] which enables consumers to
operate as co-designers and design their own pair of personalised shoes by allowing consumers to
specify the colours for the various shoe parts. Furthermore, the shoes are specially built to match
the shape of one’s feet. The result is a unique pair of Adidas shoes that matches one’s personal
preferences with respect to fit and taste (Franke and Piller 2003). Changing the cover and ring tone
of a mobile phone or redecorating one’s cupboard are examples of product personalisation as well.
Past research has revealed several reasons for consumers to personalise their products (Blom
and Monk 2003, Franke and Piller 2003, Weightman and McDonagh 2003, Schreier 2006). First of
all, personalising a product will increase the fit to individual preferences (both functional and aes-
thetic), as is evident from the MiAdidas example. Personalisation can enhance the product’s ease
of use. For example, mobile phones can be programmed to play different ring tones for particular
phone numbers, which enables the owner to identify the caller. Consumers may also personalise
a product to reflect their personal or group identity. An example is the ownership of a modified
car in the USA, which represents one’s belonging to the street racing subculture. Personalising
is also a way to communicate ownership of the product. For instance, by placing one’s books in
the bookcase and sticking up posters, an office room feels more personal. Furthermore, product
personalisation helps consumers to recognise a product as one’s own. For example, choosing a con-
spicuous phone cover helps to distinguish your phone from those of your friends. In this respect,
a personalised product that stands out may also reduce the risk of theft. An additional reason for
consumers to personalise a product is that the personalisation process itself may be fun to do.
By personalising a product, a consumer directs time, energy, and attention to the product.
In other words, consumers invest effort in a product. While personalising the product, the
 Journal of Engineering Design 469

Figure 1. Conceptual model.

person needs to make (creative) choices (e.g., choosing the design and colours of the product’s
appearance), which requires mental effort. In addition, product personalisation can demand physi-
cal effort, when people alter the product themselves (e.g., when painting or assembling a product).
Downloaded by [The UC Irvine Libraries] at 20:03 03 November 2014

Cardozo (1965) already concluded that the effort (mental, physical, and financial) consumers
expend to obtain a product can contribute to the evaluation of the product: Consumers who had
invested a great deal of effort in the shopping experience evaluated the product as more favourable
and important. Moreover, several scholars argued that the experience of a strong emotional bond
with a product is positively related to the degree of ‘psychic energy’, that is the person’s mental
effort invested in a product (Csikszentmihalyi and Rochberg-Halton 1981, Belk 1988). Based on
these arguments, we hypothesise that if the personalisation process requires the investment of a
great deal of effort, the person is occupied with the product for an extended period of time, which
may positively influence the strength of the emotional bond with the product.
We believe that this effect of the effort invested during the personalisation process on the
emotional bond with the product can be partly explained by the fact that personalised products are
more self-expressive of a person’s unique identity (Blom 2000, Blom and Monk 2003, Kiesler and
Kiesler 2005). The outcome of investing effort in a product during the personalisation process is a
product with a personal touch. Past research on product personalisation concluded that consumers
personalise products in such a way that they can distinguish themselves from others and can
communicate a personal identity. Furthermore, Dahl and Moreau (2007) argued that undertaking
a creative task may reinforce a person’s sense of identity. Depending on the extent to which the
personalisation process was performed successfully, the personalised product may represent a
personal accomplishment to the owner, because consumers created it themselves (Bendapudi and
Leone 2003, Franke and Piller 2004). In summary, a personalised product may gain the special
meaning of self-expression to the owner over and above the functional meaning. Past research
concluded that people become emotionally bonded with products that define and maintain a
person’s self (Wallendorf and Arnould 1988, Schultz et al. 1989, Ball and Tasaki 1992, Kleine
et al. 1995, Mugge et al. 2006). Moreover, self-expression is distinguished as a reason for people to
regard a possession as treasured or special (Csikszentmihalyi and Rochberg-Halton 1981, Dittmar
1991, Richins 1994, Kamptner 1995, Dyl and Wapner 1996).
Accordingly, we hypothesise that the effort invested during the personalisation process has a
direct effect (as a result of the extended period of time spent with the product) and an indirect effect
(via the product’s self-expressive value) on the strength of the emotional bond with a product (see
Figure 1). Hence, self-expression is a pathway through which effort invested influences emotional
bonding. These hypotheses are summarised in a conceptual model (see Figure 1).

2. Method

2.1. Respondents

A convenience sample of 149 Dutch students at the Delft University of Technology (58% male
and 42% female; mean age = 21) was used for this study. The respondents studied at different
 470 R. Mugge et al.

programmes (i.e., aerospace engineering, applied mathematics, architecture, civil engineering,

computer science, electrical engineering, industrial design engineering, marine technology,
mechanical engineering, systems engineering, policy analysis, and management). These students
were approached at the university and all owned a bicycle.

2.2. Product

In general, Dutch students own a bicycle, which they use on a daily basis to travel from their home
to university. When these students start university, they are likely to buy a second-hand bicycle or
to use an old one, because these are less expensive and because bicycles are often stolen. Bicycles
were chosen as the product category under study, because these students frequently personalise
Downloaded by [The UC Irvine Libraries] at 20:03 03 November 2014

the bicycles’ appearances by painting them in several (conspicuous) colours to make them more
personal. This results in a bicycle that is more distinctive and attracts attention, due to which it
is easier to locate in bicycle stands with large numbers of bicycles. Finally, painting a bicycle
reduces the risk of theft. In Figure 2, an example of a painted bicycle is shown. The students who
personalised their bicycle differ in the amount of time they spent on painting their bicycle. As a
result, investigating this particular product provided us with variation in the effort invested during
the personalisation process.

2.3. Questionnaire

Respondents indicated their age and gender, and responded to questions concerning their bicycle
regarding the manner of acquisition, the period of time the bicycle had been in possession, whether
they had personally altered the bicycle’s appearance, and the degree of usage of their bicycle. Based
on their response to the question whether they had altered their bicycle’s appearance, two groups
of respondents were distinguished: one in which the appearance of the bicycle was personalised
by the owner (n = 58) and one in which it was not personalised (n = 91). The multi-item scales to
measure the variables emotional bonding (four items: α = 0.79) and self-expression (five items:
α = 0.86) were taken from past research (Mugge et al. 2006). Effort invested was measured using
four items (α = 0.86) on a seven-point Likert scale (1 = ‘strongly disagree’, 7 = ‘strongly agree’).
Table 1 displays the items for these variables. We also included an eight-item scale to measure
individual differences in the desire for unique consumer products (Lynn and Harris 1997). During

Figure 2. A personalised bicycle.

 Journal of Engineering Design 471

Table 1. Measures for the variables effort invested, self-expression, and emotional bonding.

Variables Items

Effort invested (α = 0.90) The appearance of my bicycle took me a lot of trouble

I have devoted much time to altering the appearance of my bicycle
The appearance of my bicycle did not cost me any efforta
I have spent a lot of energy on changing the appearance of my bicycle
Self-expression (α = 0.86) My bicycle reflects who I am
Other people can tell by my bicycle what kind of person I am
My bicycle fits my identity
My bicycle suits me
My bicycle says nothing about me as an individuala
Emotional bonding (α = 0.79) I have a bond with my bicycle
My bicycle has no special meaning to mea
Downloaded by [The UC Irvine Libraries] at 20:03 03 November 2014

My bicycle is very dear to me

I am very attached to my bicycle
a
Indicates a reversed item.

the analysis of our data, we deleted one item (‘I rarely pass up the opportunity to order custom
features on the products I buy’), to enhance the internal validity of this scale. For the remaining
seven items, Cronbach’s α was 0.83.
Respondents filled out the questionnaire for a bicycle they already [Link] a result, the respon-
dents who did and those who did not personalise their bicycle differed in number and possibly
they differed on other variables as well. To control for other possible effects, data were collected
on a number of control variables related to the person–product relationship. These variables were
chosen based on prior research on treasured and special possessions (Wallendorf and Arnould
1988, Schultz et al. 1989, Dittmar 1991, Richins 1994, Kamptner 1995, Schifferstein et al. 2004,
Schifferstein and Zwartkruis-Pelgrim 2008). Specifically, we assessed memories elicited by the
bicycle concerning a person (three items: α = 0.87), memories elicited by the bicycle concerning
an event (three items: α = 0.85), product utility (four items: α = 0.78), product appearance (four
items: α = 0.84), satisfaction with the bicycle (four items: α = 0.86), and financial value (three
items: α = 0.85). Most of the items employed to measure the control variables were obtained
from past research (Mugge et al. 2006, 2008a).1 The items were presented in random order.

3. Results

To determine whether the process of product personalisation stimulates the formation of an emo-
tional bond with a product, we compared the respondents who did personalise their bicycle with
those who did not. The variables concerning the demographic variables (i.e., age and gender) and
the ownership of the bicycle (i.e., how and when the bicycle was acquired) showed no signifi-
cant differences between these groups (p > 0.05). Furthermore, no significant differences were
found for the control variables (p > 0.05; see Table 2). Based on these results, we can conclude
that no other important differences existed between the two groups of respondents other than the
personalisation of the product’s appearance. The two groups did differ on the variable desire for
unique consumer products (t (144) = 2.98, p < 0.01). Respondents who had personalised their
bicycle felt a stronger desire for unique consumer products (Mpers = 4.58 vs. Mno person = 4.02)
than respondents who had not personalised it. These findings confirmed our belief that the respon-
dents changed their bicycle’s appearance to make it distinctive from other bicycles, which enabled
them to express their identity. As expected, significant differences were also found for the vari-
ables effort invested (t (145) = 10.88, p < 0.001), self-expression (t (144) = 5.01, p < 0.001),
and emotional bonding (t (145) = 2.36, p < 0.05). Respondents who had personalised their
 472 R. Mugge et al.

Table 2. Overall means of variables compared between the groups.

Personalisation No personalisation df t

Effort invested 3.70 (1.36) 1.60 (0.98) 145 10.88∗∗

Self-expression 3.52 (1.41) 2.43 (1.20) 144 5.01∗∗
Emotional bonding 4.13 (1.49) 3.53 (1.53) 145 2.36∗
Control variables
Satisfaction 5.35 (1.16) 5.31 (1.32) 143 0.20
Memories concerning a person 2.11 (1.40) 2.04 (1.50) 144 0.27
Memories concerning an event 2.64 (1.52) 2.14 (1.48) 144 1.96
Product utility 5.85 (1.15) 5.98 (1.02) 145 −0.70
Product appearance 3.94 (1.52) 3.49 (1.58) 144 1.70
Financial value 2.57 (1.34) 2.74 (1.59) 145 −0.69
Downloaded by [The UC Irvine Libraries] at 20:03 03 November 2014

Note: Standard deviations are in parentheses.

∗
p < 0.05.
∗∗
p < 0.001.

bicycle indicated to have invested more effort in their product (Mperson = 3.70 vs. Mno person =
1.60), considered the product more self-expressive (Mperson = 3.52 vs. Mno person = 2.43), and
experienced a stronger emotional bond with the product (Mperson = 4.13 vs. Mno person = 3.53)
(see Table 2).
To test our hypotheses, we performed three regression analyses on the group of respon-
dents who had personalised their bicycle (n = 58). In the first regression analysis, product
attachment was used as a dependent variable and effort invested as the independent vari-
able (F (1, 56) = 14.06, p < 0.001, R 2 = 0.20). As expected, effort invested had a positive
effect on product attachment (b = 0.49, p < 0.001). In the second regression analysis, self-
expression was used as a dependent variable and effort invested as the independent variable
(F (1, 55) = 13.49, p < 0.01, R 2 = 0.20). In accordance with our expectations, effort invested
had a positive effect on self-expression (b = 0.45, p < 0.01). Next, a third regression analysis
was performed with emotional bonding as the dependent variable and both effort invested and self-
expression as the independent variables (F (1, 55) = 15.52, p < 0.001, R 2 = 0.37). This analysis
showed that emotional bonding was positively affected by self-expression (b = 0.47, p < 0.001)
as well as by the effort invested in the product (b = 0.27, p < 0.05). These findings support our
hypotheses and conceptual model.

4. Discussion and implications

This research showed that product personalisation can serve as a potential design strategy to
stimulate emotional bonding with products. By personalising a product, a person invests effort
in the product. Because people evaluate a product as more favourable when they have spent an
extended period of time with it, effort invested directly affects the strength of the emotional bond
with the product. Furthermore, our findings show that the effect of effort on emotional bonding
can be partly explained by the product’s self-expressive value as follows: The more effort a person
invests in a product during the personalisation process, the more self-expressive value this product
obtains, and the stronger the emotional bond with this product becomes.
This research focused on personalising products’ appearances. We argue that personalising a
product’s appearance is especially valuable for increasing its self-expressive value. People derive
their identity to a great extent from social interaction with others (Kleine et al. 1993). As the
personalisation of a product’s appearance is more visible to others than the personalisation of
a product’s functionality, it will also be more beneficial in supporting a person’s identity and,
therefore, in strengthening the emotional bond with this product.
 Journal of Engineering Design 473

We investigated product personalisation by the particular case of painting a bicycle’s

appearance. Nevertheless, our research shows that it is the effort invested during the person-
alisation process that strengthens the person–product relationship. This suggests that many other
personalisation options may be valuable as well. In order to stimulate emotional bonding with
products, designers should assess the totality of mental and physical effort that is required in
specific personalisation options. The more by consumers can act as co-designers of their product,
the more effort they will invest in the product, and the stronger the emotional bond is likely to
become. We believe that the investment of a person’s mental effort will often bring about stronger
emotional bonds than the investment of physical effort, because being creatively involved in the
personalisation process results in a unique product with a personal touch and self-expressive value
(Fox 2001). In contrast, products that demand only physical effort, such as IKEA products, may
result in products that lack a personal touch. Consequently, the emotional bonds experienced with
Downloaded by [The UC Irvine Libraries] at 20:03 03 November 2014

these products will generally be weaker.

A popular way for manufacturers to personalise durables is by offering mass customisation
services (Pine 1993). A mass customisation service allows people to create a personalised product
by selecting components, accessories, and colours from a predefined set of options. Norman
(2004) argued that these mass-customised products are better in satisfying consumers’ needs,
but they do not directly guarantee emotional bonding. Based on our findings, we can provide
arguments why product personalisation through mass customisation is less likely to result in
strong emotional bonds. We believe that the degree of effort invested in most mass customisation
services is relatively low. Mass-customised products require no physical effort to be invested. In
addition, the degree of mental effort is relatively low, because people are generally only allowed
to make choices among predetermined alternatives. For the formation of a strong emotional
bond with a product, the consumer should personalise the object through an effortful process.
An example of the latter is the NOKIA 3220 mobile phone (see Figure 3) that allows people to
personally design their cut-out cover using their own creativity.
Although more effortful product personalisation can result in stronger emotional bonds, this
might have a downside as well. As the effort invested increases, so will the perceived complexity
of the task and, consequently, the possibility that people become confused (Huffman and Kahn
1998, Dellaert and Stremersch 2005). People may feel that they lack the know-how, experience,
and practical skills to personalise a product in the way they want to. Furthermore, people may
spoil the product, because they are not sufficiently skilled to design their own products. It is

Figure 3. Nokia 3220 website.

 474 R. Mugge et al.
Downloaded by [The UC Irvine Libraries] at 20:03 03 November 2014

Figure 4. Freitag website.

the designer’s task to create a context in which a balance is found between creating design
opportunities and guaranteeing adequate product quality. Product personalisation may only be a
worthwhile strategy if designers are able to design the personalisation process in such a manner
that people can handle the consequences. Accordingly, designers could create toolkits to support
people in their choice, while they may still take credit for the ultimate product design (Crabbe
2001, von Hippel 2001, Franke and Schreier 2002). An example of a company that offers a toolkit
with a satisfactory balance between the product’s self-expressive value and the complexity of the
personalisation process is Freitag ([Link] Freitag sells bags made out of recycled
truck tarpaulins. Consumers can create a bag by positioning stencils on the tarpaulins that are
available at that moment (see Figure 4). During the ‘design process’, the person can see which
pieces of the tarpaulins are still available and which are already used for other bags. Because each
part of each tarpaulin can only be used for one bag, every bag is unique.

4.1. Limitations and future research

People develop emotional bonds with products over a period of time. A limitation of our cross-
sectional research is that it was not possible to test the causal order of the relationship between the
effort invested during the personalisation process and the development of an emotional bond with
the product. To establish the direction of causality in our conceptual framework (Figure 1), we
would need to perform a longitudinal study. Another limitation of our study is the self-selection
of respondents to one of the two conditions. This self-selection is a direct consequence of our
research approach to study the actual practice of product personalisation. Fortunately, the literature
supports the hypothesised relationships between the concepts. Furthermore, none of the control
variables differed significantly between the respondents who did and those who did not personalise
their bicycle, suggesting that solely the personalisation process can explain the differences in the
strength of the emotional bond. Nevertheless, we acknowledge that in some cases experiencing
an emotional bond with a product may also positively affect the effort invested, because people
may try to repair these products. However, because our research measured only the effort invested
in changing the product’s appearance, this alternative explanation cannot explain our findings.
Another possible limitation is that our sample was limited to Dutch students at a university of
technology. Consequently, some respondents studied a more creative program (i.e., architecture
and industrial design engineering) and may have been more likely to personalise products. Indeed,
we found that students from creative programs had personalised their bicycle more often (χ 2 (1) =
13.62, p < 0.001) than students from the other programmes. Nevertheless, when testing our
 Journal of Engineering Design 475

conceptual model, the pattern of results is the same for both groups, suggesting that the effect of
product personalisation on emotional bonding is independent from the person’s creative skills.
The use of personalised bicycles limited our research to a single product category. Nevertheless,
product personalisation can be applied in many other contexts, as is evident from the literature
(Blom and Monk 2003, Franke and Piller 2003, Weightman and McDonagh 2003) and practice.
Nowadays it is, for example, possible to purchase personalised credit cards, bags, mouse pads,
shoes, cars, and even personalised stair lifts. This suggests that product personalisation is valuable
for diverse product categories and groups of consumers. However, the reasons to personalise a
bicycle seem to correspond to the reasons distinguished in the literature, suggesting that the
personalisation of bicycles is similar to other examples of product personalisation. Accordingly,
we believe that our findings are generalisable to other contexts. Nevertheless, future research is
necessary to empirically test this supposition.
Downloaded by [The UC Irvine Libraries] at 20:03 03 November 2014

Future research could investigate how product personalisation could be implemented in prod-
ucts in order to obtain a satisfactory balance between the effort invested and the complexity of
the personalisation process. It is likely that consumers’ skills, capabilities, and personality char-
acteristics affect this balance, suggesting that these moderating conditions should be taken into
consideration as well. It is also interesting to study the potential negative consequences of product
personalisation. For example, what are the consequences of a product that is spoiled during the
personalisation process for the consumer, the company, and the brand the product belongs to?
Finally, we believe that more research is needed on the emotional bonding with products.
The current research presents product personalisation as a potential design strategy to strengthen
the emotional bond with a product, but many other opportunities may exist as well (Mugge
et al. 2008b). Future research could explore other design strategies and test their effects on the
experience of an emotional bond with a product. In addition, it is valuable to clarify how these
emotional bonds develop over the course of time. Only through a thorough understanding of
these emotional relationships designers can create products that bring about favourable emotional
responses during ownership.

Note

1. The measures for the control variables can be requested from the first author.

References

Ball, A.D. and Tasaki, L.H., 1992. The role and measurement of attachment in consumer behavior. Journal of Consumer
Psychology, 1 (2), 155–172.
Belk, R.W., 1988. Possessions and the extended self. Journal of Consumer Research, 15 (2), 139–168.
Bendapudi, N. and Leone, R.P., 2003. Psychological implications of customer participation in co-production. Journal of
Marketing, 67 (1), 14–28.
Blom, J.O., 2000. Personalization – a taxonomy. In: Extended abstracts of the CHI 2000 conference on human factors in
computing systems, 1–6 April, The Hague, The Netherlands. New York: ACM, 313–314.
Blom, J.O. and Monk, A.F., 2003. Theory of personalization of appearance: why users personalize their PCs and mobile
phones. Human–Computer Interaction, 18 (3), 193–228.
Cardozo, R.N., 1965. An experimental study of customer effort, expectation, and satisfaction. Journal of Marketing
Research, 2 (3), 244–249.
Crabbe, A., 2001. Expert systems and the emergence of teledesign. Design Studies, 22 (6), 543–555.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. and Rochberg-Halton, E., 1981. The meaning of things: domestic symbols and the self. Cambridge,
UK: Cambridge University Press.
Dahl, D.W. and Moreau, C.P., 2007. Thinking inside the box: why consumers enjoy constrained creative experiences.
Journal of Marketing Research, 44 (3), 357–369.
Dellaert, B.G.C. and Stremersch, S., 2005. Marketing mass-customized products: striking balance between utility and
complexity. Journal of Marketing Research, 42 (2), 219–227.
Desmet, P.M.A., 2002. Designing emotions. Delft, The Netherlands: Delft University of Technology.
 476 R. Mugge et al.

Diener, E. and Lucas, R.E., 2000. Subjective emotional well-being. In: M. Lewis and J.M. Haviland-Jones, eds. Handbook
of emotions. 2nd ed. New York: The Guilford Press, 325–337.
Dittmar, H., 1991. Meanings of material possessions as reflections of identity: gender and social-material position in
society. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 6 (6), 165–186.
Dyl, J. and Wapner, S., 1996. Age and gender differences in the nature, meaning, and function of cherished possessions
for children and adolescents. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 62 (3), 340–377.
Fox, S., 2001. Managing product personalisation. Engineering Management Journal, 11 (4), 174–180.
Franke, N. and Piller, F.T., 2003. Key research issues in user interaction with user toolkits in a mass customisation system.
International Journal of Technology Management, 26 (5/6), 578–599.
Franke, N. and Piller, F.T., 2004. Value creation by toolkits for user innovation and design: The case of the watch market.
Journal of Product Innovation Management, 21 (6), 401–415.
Franke, N. and Schreier, M., 2002. Entrepreneurial opportunities with toolkits for user innovation and design. The
International Journal on Media Management, 4 (4), 225–234.
Heskett, J., 1980. Industrial design. London: Thames and Hudson.
Hirschman, E.C. and Holbrook, M.B., 1982. Hedonic consumption: emerging concepts, methods and propositions. Journal
Downloaded by [The UC Irvine Libraries] at 20:03 03 November 2014

of Marketing, 46 (3), 92–101.

Huffman, C. and Kahn, B.E., 1998. Variety for sale: mass customization or mass confusion. Journal of Retailing, 74 (4),
491–513.
Jencks, C. and Silver, N., 1972. Adhocism: the case for improvisation. London: Secker & Warburg.
Jordan, P.W., 2000. Designing pleasurable products: an introduction to the new human factors. London: Taylor & Francis.
Kamptner, N.L., 1995. Treasured possessions and their meanings in adolescent males and females. Adolescence, 30 (118),
301–318.
Kiesler, T. and Kiesler, S., 2005. My pet rock and me: an experimental exploration of the self extension concept. In:
G. Menon and A. Rao, eds. Advances in consumer research. Vol. 32. Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research,
365–370.
Kleine, R.E., Kleine, S.S., and Kernan, J.B., 1993. Mundane consumption and the self: a social-identity perspective.
Journal of Consumer Psychology, 2 (3), 209–235.
Kleine, S.S., Kleine, R.E., and Allen, C.T., 1995. How is a possession “me” or “not me”? Characterizing types and an
antecedent of material possession attachment. Journal of Consumer Research, 22 (3), 327–343.
Lynn, M. and Harris, J., 1997. The desire for unique consumer products: a new individual differences scale. Psychology
& Marketing, 14 (6), 601–616.
Mugge, R., Schifferstein, H.N.J., and Schoormans, J.P.L., 2006. A longitudinal study on product attachment and its
determinants. In: K.M. Ekström and H. Brembeck, eds. European Advances in Consumer Research. Vol. 7. Duluth,
MN: Association for Consumer Research, 641–647.
Mugge, R., Schifferstein, H.N.J., and Schoormans, J.P.L., 2008a. Product attachment and satisfaction: the effects of
pleasure and memories. In: S. Borghini, M. McGrath, and C. Otnes, eds. European advances in consumer research.
Vol. 8. Duluth, MN: Association for Consumer Research, 325–331.
Mugge, R., Schoormans, J.P.L., and Schifferstein, H.N.J., 2008b. Product attachment: design strategies to stimulate the
emotional bonding to products. In: P. Hekkert and H.N.J. Schifferstein, eds. Product experience. Amsterdam: Elsevier,
425–440.
Norman, D.A., 2004. Emotional design: why we love (or hate) everyday things. New York: Basic Books.
Pine, B.J., 1993. Mass customization: The new frontier of business competition. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School
Press.
Richins, M.L., 1994. Valuing things: the public and private meanings of possessions. Journal of Consumer Research, 21
(3), 504–521.
Schifferstein, H.N.J. and Zwartkruis-Pelgrim, E.P.H., 2008. Consumer-product attachment: measurement and design
implications. International Journal of Design, 2 (3), 1–14.
Schifferstein, H.N.J., Mugge, R., and Hekkert, P., 2004. Designing consumer–product attachment. In: D. McDonagh,
P. Hekkert, J. Van Erp, and D. Gyi, eds. Design and emotion: the experience of everyday things. London: Taylor &
Francis, 327–331.
Schreier, M., 2006. The value increment of mass-customized products: an empirical assessment and conceptual analysis
of its explanation. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 5 (4), 317–327.
Schultz, S.E., Kleine, R.E., and Kernan, J.B., 1989. ‘These are a few of my favorite things’. Toward an explication of
attachment as a consumer behavior construct. In: T. Scrull, ed. Advances in consumer research. Vol. 16. Provo, UT:
Association for Consumer Research, 359–366.
Toffler, A., 1980. The third wave. New York: Bantam Books.
von Hippel, E., 2001. Perspective: user toolkits for innovation. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 18 (4),
247–257.
Wallendorf, M. and Arnould, E.J., 1988. “My favorite things”: a cross-cultural inquiry into object attachment,
possessiveness, and social linkage. Journal of Consumer Research, 14 (4), 531–547.
Weightman, D. and McDonagh, D., 2003. People are doing it for themselves. In: B. Hanington and J. Forlizzi, eds.
Proceedings of the international conference on designing pleasurable products and interfaces (DPPI’03), 23–26
June, Pittsburgh, PA. New York: ACM, 34–39.