SUMMARY

The aim of this research is to find out when or in what condition,

anthropomorphism product is likely to be accepted or effective as

design of product. In previous research that was conducted by Epley,

Waytz and Cacioppo (2007), they described a theory to predict that

people are more likely to anthropomorphize when anthropocentric

knowledge is accessible and applicable, when motivated to be effective

social agents, and when lacking a sense of social connection to

humans. This research will find consumers’ preference in some

conditions, such as gender, type of products, product’s connotation, and

level of anthropomorphism.

The experimental research will be used to check the hypothesis.

The research will be held in one room and using 100 participants. The

statistic technique that will be used is ANOVA. At the end, it will be

shown the expected result, marketing implication, and the limitation of

studies.

 
 I. BACKGROUND

1.1 Introduction

Among many kinds of products in the markets, we can find some

products with anthropomorphic design. The marketers believe that

anthropomorphic design will promote positive attitudes and engages the

user. Beside that, the anthropomorphic design is distracting and

inappropriately reduces user control and responsibility. Some research

studies have been undertaken to evaluate the effectiveness of

anthropomorphic agent. Anthropomorphism refers to the apparently

universal human tendency to ascribe human characteristics to

nonhuman entities (Messent and Serpel, 1981).

Anthropomorphic form can be found in the earliest functional

product forms and behaviors. Since the practice of design had progress

and matured, human-like form has remained a common theme. We can

find in household products, vehicles, and humanoid robots.

Anthropomorphic form is more than just an embellishment.

Anthropomorphic form can be understood and practiced as a means of

solving design problems. Anthropomorphic forms are non-living objects

that reflect human-like qualities.

There is a substantial range in anthropomorphic product design. It

can be ended at the face only, as in case of two eyes; or it can be more

complex, as a whole part of body.

 
1.2 The Aim of The Present Research

We realized that some companies use anthropomorphism design

to increase their selling. Yet we never know for sure whether consumers

really like all kinds of products with anthropomorphic design or no. In

this research, we will find out the consumer’s willingness to pay

between buying product with anthropomorphic design and no

anthropomorphic design; and consumer’s willingness to pay for positive

and negative connotation product: shall the consumers choose product

with anthropomorphic design for both positive and negative connotation

product or no. We also will find out the effect of full-anthropomorphic

design compare to less-anthropomorphic design. We will use gender as

one of variable since the preference of women and men could be

different.

 
 II. THEORY

Anthropomorphism is the act of attributing human like qualities to

non-human organisms or objects (DiSalvo & Gemperle, 2003). There

are some social theories of anthropomorphism. First, the familiarity

thesis that is a primarily cognitive motivation for anthropomorphism: it

attempts to understand the world based upon a mental model that we

are most familiar with (Guthrie, 1997). Second, the comfort thesis that is

contrast with familiarity thesis; it states “anthropomorphism is an

attempt to feel like we can define and influence the world if it is more

like us.” (Guthrie, 1997) Third, the bet-bet thesis that is a cognitive and

game-theoretic approach to anthropomorphism; it states that “in chronic

uncertainty about the world, guessing that something or event is human

like or has a human cause constitutes a good bet… if we are right we

gain much… if we are wrong, we usually lose little.” Fourth, the social

thesis that claims the psychological discussion of anthropomorphism is

not neutral but is in fact value laden and defines interaction with

environment. (Caporale & Heyes, 1997) Fifth, the object subject

interchangeability, proposes that people attribute meaning to other and

objects in the construction, adaption, and maintenance of the self.

(Claxton, Reid & Jeff, 1994) Sixth, the phenomenological

intersubjectivity, proposes that anthropomorphism is reflection of how

we experience and order the world. (Jackson, 2002) The last, the

 
command and control, states that “anthropomorphism is used to explain

relationships with and exert authority over objects.” (Belk et al. 1991)

The four primary uses of anthropomorphic form in design are they

serve to keep things the same, explain the unknown, reflect product

attributes, and reflect human values. These uses are not mutually

exclusive, some anthropomorphic forms may be weaker their usage

than others.

There are two primary qualities of anthropomorphic form in

design – seduction and fulfillment. These qualities address how

anthropomorphic form is used and the experience of interacting with

anthropomorphism forms. Seductive anthropomorphic form uses the

power of anthropomorphic form to lead users to consumption, through

purchase or use. In this term, the use of anthropomorphic form is not

related to the purpose or experience of the product. Fulfilling

anthropomorphism uses the power of anthropomorphic form to lead

users to a meaningful understanding of the product’s purpose and more

appropriate engagement with it. In this term, the anthropomorphic form

is an integral part of the product that cannot be easily separated from its

purpose or function.

People are particularly likely to spontaneous anthropomorphize

objects that human-like physical features, such as eyes (Jipson &

Gelman, 2007), hands or a human-like form (Aggarwal &McGill, 2007),

or that behave in an apparently complex or intentional manner (Heider

 
1996; Epley, Waytz, Alkalis & Cacioppo, 2008). In addition, individual

difference variables, like loneliness and desire for social contact, are

associated with higher propensity to anthropomorphize objects (Epley,

Skalis, Waytz, & Cacioppo, 2008). The findings are compatible with

general model of knowledge accessibility (Higgins, 1996) and suggest

that any variable that increases the temporary accessibility of agentic

beliefs is likely to foster anthropomorphic thought about object (Elpley,

et al. 2007).

When product is anthropomorphized, it becomes possible for

consumers to have a relationship with it, changing the emotional quality

of consumers’ experience with their possession. Social interaction is

pleasurable, and the anthropomorphic cues leads consumers to

experience the positive effect in interaction (Wang, Baker, Wagner, &

Wakefield, 2007). As the result, the consumers should be less willing to

replace their product when they think about in anthropomorphic terms.

They also less likely to base replacement decisions on instrumental

attributes of the product under anthropomorphic thought condition, but

they more likely to consider attributes that are usually deemed important

in the interpersonal domain.

 
 III. HYPOTESIS AND RATIONALE

In a review of social risk taking by Arch (1993) reported that

women are more risk-averse then men. Arch explained that females

tend to respond risk situation or uncertainty as threats that encourage

avoidance. Based on the bet-bet thesis; it states that “in chronic

uncertainty about the world, guessing that something or event is human

like or has a human cause constitutes a good bet… if we are right we

gain much… if we are wrong, we usually lose little;” or in the other

saying, anthropomorphism product reduces the uncertainty or potential

of lose. So, women as risk averse, they will prefer to choose

anthropomorphism product to reduce their risk in choosing. In this

study, we want to test whether it is right that women prefer to choose

anthropomorphism product while men prefer to choose no-

anthropomorphism product.

H1: Men prefer to choose no-anthropomorphism product while

women prefer to choose the anthropomorphism product

We will conduct the second study if only the men also prefer to

choose anthropomorphism product (H1 is partially approved). When

men also prefer to choose anthropomorphism product, we will find out

deeper about the complexity of the anthropomorphism design. We will

 
use less-anthropomorphism product (eye only, hand only, or some other

parts of body) and full anthropomorphism product (whole body). In this

study, we want to test whether there is a difference preference between

women and men in choosing.

H2: Men prefer to choose less-anthropomorphism product while

women prefer to choose full-anthropomorphism product

Consumer’s preference in choosing products not only based on

the function but also the symbolic meaning. The part of symbolic

meaning refers to the physical product itself, and is described with

human personality characteristics, is called product personality. The

results indicate that people prefer products with a product personality

that matches their self-image (Goovers & Schooman 2005). So, in

choosing product, consumers try to match with their self-image and the

product is often used complete their self-image. In the third study, we

will find out both of men and women preference in choosing positive

and negative connotation product; shall they choose no

anthropomorphism, less-anthropomorphism product or full-

anthropomorphism design. Based on rationale, both of men and women

shall prefer to choose no anthropomorphism design for negative

connotation product since product reflect their self-image. Both of men

and women shall prefer to choose anthropomorphism design for

 
positive connotation in order to match their self-image, even more

complete their self-image.

H3: Both of men and women prefer to choose no

anthropomorphism design for negative connotation product

H4: Both of men and women prefer to choose full-

anthropomorphism product for positive connotation

The level of privacy product also determines the people’s

preferences in choosing product. If it is the private good or product, they

will tend to be more selective because it reflects their self-image. If it is

the less-private or public goods, consumers will not as selective as

finding private goods. In the fifth study, we will find out both of men and

women preference in choosing private and less-private product; shall

they choose no anthropomorphism design, less-anthropomorphism

design, or full-anthropomorphism design. Based on rationale, both of

men and women shall prefer to choose no anthropomorphism design for

less-private product since product reflect their self-image. Both of men

and women shall prefer to choose anthropomorphism design for private

in order to match their self-image.

H5: Both of men and women prefer to choose less-

anthropomorphism product for less-private product

 
H6: Both of men and women prefer to choose full-

anthropomorphism for private product

 
 IV. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN

4.1. Research Procedure

Study 1

Design experiment: 2 x 2 Factorial design no-within subject

2 (Gender: men vs. women) x 2 (Anthropomorphism: no vs.

anthropomorphism)

Independent Variable: Gender (men vs. women); Anthropomorphism

(anthropomorphism vs. no anthropomorphism product)

Dependent Variable: Consumers’ willingness to pay and price

determination

Method

Participants (n=32) are consisted of 16 men and 16 women. A half of

men and a half of women will be shown the anthropomorphism product.

The rest of them will be shown no anthropomorphism product. Then

they will be asked to give score 1 (strongly dislike) to 5 (strongly like) to

a picture. The respondents also will be asked to set the price of product.

Study 2

Design experiment: 2 x 2 Factorial design no-within subject

2 (Gender: men vs. women) x 2 (Anthropomorphism: less vs. full)

Independent Variable: Gender (men vs. women); Anthropomorphism

(less anthropomorphism vs. full anthropomorphism)

 
Dependent Variable: Willingness to pay

Method

Participants (n=32) are consisted of 16 men and 16 women. A half of

men and a half of women will be shown the less-anthropomorphism

product. The rest of them will be shown the full-anthropomorphism

product. Then they will be asked to Then they will be asked to give

score 1 (strongly dislike) to 5 (strongly like) to a picture.

Study 3

Design experiment: 3 x 2 Factorial design no-within subject

2 (Gender: men vs. women) x 2 (Anthropomorphism: no vs.

anthropomorphism) x 2 (Product: positive vs. negative connotation)

Independent Variable: Gender (men vs. women); Preference (no

anthropomorphism vs. less anthropomorphism vs. full

anthropomorphism); Product (positive connotation vs. negative

connotation)

Dependent Variable: Willingness to pay

Method

Participants (n=60) are consisted of 30 men and 30 women. Five men

(women) will be shown standard toothbrush (toilet brush). Five other

men (women) will be shown less-anthropomorphism toothbrush (toilet

brush). The rest of men (women) will be shown full-anthropomorphism

 
toothbrush (toilet brush). Then they will be asked to give score 1

(strongly dislike) to 5 (strongly like) to a picture.

Study 4

Design experiment: 3 x 2 Factorial design no-within subject

2 (Gender: men vs. women) x 2 (Anthropomorphism: no vs.

anthropomorphism) x 2 (Product’s privacy: less vs. private)

Independent Variable: Gender (men vs. women); Preference (no

anthropomorphism vs. less anthropomorphism vs. full

anthropomorphism); Product’s privacy (private vs. less-private)

Dependent Variable: Willingness to pay

Method

Participants (n=30) are consisted of 15 men and 15 women. A half of

men and a half of women will be shown the private product (tooth

brush). The rest of them will be shown the less-private product (USB).

Then they will be asked to circle one of the pictures of no

anthropomorphism or less-anthropomorphism or full-anthropomorphism

products for the toothbrush or toilet brush.

Participants (n=60) are consisted of 30 men and 30 women. Five men

(women) will be shown standard toothbrush (USB). Five other men

(women) will be shown less-anthropomorphism toothbrush (USB). The

rest of men (women) will be shown full-anthropomorphism toothbrush

 
(USB). Then they will be asked to give score 1 (strongly dislike) to 5

(strongly like) to a picture.

4.2 Data Analysis

For analyzing data that have been collected, we will show the

result in bar graph. We also will use statistic technique, ANOVA.

4.3 Expected Result

This research is expected to find when or in what situation the

anthropomorphism design becomes effective to be used. In gender

differentiation, it is expected that women prefer to choose

anthropomorphism product rather than men since women are risk

averse. If so, it also will prove that anthropomorphism product can

reduce the risk of uncertainty or potential of lost. In different product

connotation, it is expected that both of men and women prefer to

choose anthropomorphism design for positive connotation product and

no (or less) anthropomorphism design for negative connotation product.

In different level of product’s privacy, it is expected that both of men and

women prefer to choose anthropomorphism design for private product

and no (or less) anthropomorphism design for less-private product.

 
4.4 Marketing Implication

The marketers will know when or in what situation or what kind of

product should they apply the anthropomorphism design so it can

promote positive attitudes of consumers and bring positive impact for

selling.

 
 V. REFERENCES

Arch, Elizabeth. 1993. “Risk-Taking: A Motivational Basis for Sex

Differences,” Psychological Reports 73: 3, pp. 6-11.
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.
Belk, R.W., Wallendorf. M., Sherry, J., Holbrook, M., Collecting In a
Consumer Culture. Published in: Highways and Buyways:
Naturalistic Research from the Consumer Behavior Odyssey, pp.
178-215. ACR publications 1991.
Caporael, L.R., Heyes, C.M., Why Anthropomorphize? Folk Psychology
and Other Stories, in Anthropomorphism, Anecdotes, and Animals
(Mitchell, R.W, Thompson, N.S, Miles, H.L eds.). State University
of New York Press, Albany, New York, 1997, 59-73.
Carl DiSalvo , Francine Gemperle. From seduction to fulfillment: the use
of anthropomorphic form in design, Proceedings of the 2003
international conference on Designing pleasurable products and
interfaces, June 23-26, 2003, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.
Claxton A., Reid P., and Jeff B. Murray. Object Subject
Interchangeability: A symbolic interactionist model of materialism.
Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 21 pp 422-426. 1994. ACR
publications.
Epley, N., Akalis, S., Waytz, A., & Cacioppo, J. T. (2008). Creating
social connection through inferential reproduction: Loneliness and
perceived agency in gadgets, gods, and greyhounds.
Psychological Science, 19, 114-120
Epley, N., Waytz, A., Akalis, S., & Cacioppo, J. T. (2008). When we
need a human: Motivational determinants of anthropomorphism.
Social Cognition, 26, 143-155.

 
Epley, N., Waytz, A., & Cacioppo, J. T. (2007). On seeing human: A
three-factor theory of anthropomorphism. Psychological Review,
114, 864–886.
Govers, Pascalle C.M. and Jan P.L. Schoormans, 2005. Product
personality and its influence on consumer preference. Journal of
Consumer Marketing, 22(4):189–197.
Guthrie, S.E., Anthropomorphism: A Definition and a Theory, in
Anthropomorphism, Anecdotes, and Animals (Mitchell, R.W,
Thompson, N.S, Miles, H.L eds.). State University of New York
Press, Albany, New York, 1997, 50-58.
Heider, F. and Simmel, M. (1944) An experimental study of apparent
behavior. American Journal of Psychology, 57, 243–249.
Higgins, E. T. (1996). Knowledge activation: Accessibility, applicability,
and salience. In E. T.Higgins & A. W. Kruglanski (Eds.), Social
psychology: Handbook of basic principles (pp.133–168). New York:
Guilford Press.
Jackson, M., Familiar and Foreign Bodies, A
Phenomenological Exploration of the Human-Technology Interface.
Journal of The Royal Anthropology Institute, Vol. 8, pp 333-346.
2002 Royal Anthropology Institute.
Jipson, J. L., & Gelman, S. A. 2007. Robots and rodents: Children's
inferences about living and nonliving kinds. Child Development, 78,
1675-1688.
Slater, M., & Steed, A. (2002). Meeting people virtually: experiments in shared
virtual environments. In R. Schroeder (Ed.), The Social Life of Avatars;
Presence and Interaction in Shared Virtual Environments (pp. 146-171).
London: Springer-Verlag.
Wang, L. C., Baker, J., Wagner, J. A., & Wakefield, K. 2007. Can a
Retail Website be Social? Journal of Marketing, 71, 143-157.

 
 APPENDIX

Pictures that will be used in the research are:

I. TOOTHBRUSH

NO LESS FULL

II. USB

III. TOILET BRUSH

 
 NO LESS FULL

IV. CHAIR

 
V. LAMP

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 VI.  Furniture  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 
 
 
VII.  USB  
 
 

 
  
Bottle  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
SOFA  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
  
BUSSINESS  TO  BUSSINESS  
 
 
 
“How  Do  We  Set  The  Effective  Price?”  
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Listiarini  Tanuwijaya  
19090011  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
UNIVERSITAS  PELITA  HARAPAN  
PROGRAM  MAGISTER  MANAGEMENT    
BATCH-­45  WEEKEND  CLASS