**2.1 Contribution of categorization theory to NHPs**

Cognitive categorization offers a means to process information, such that a person evaluates an item or compares it against a reference item in a category; views the two as similar or equivalent on the basis of their family resemblance or *Design Affordance Does Matter: A Spotlight on Categorization and Evaluation of Hybrid… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.112966*

goal achievement; and then links the items together with information pertaining to them; and further transfers existing knowledge from the category to the item. Mainly three types of cognitive categories have been described in the literature: (a) structured and hierarchical sets of items that share common attributes (similaritybased categories), (b) sets of items that meet the same goals even if they share few (or no) physical features (goal-derived categories), and (c) categories built around naturally occurring relationships between objects and theirs features (taxonomic categories) [14–17].

The question of categorization is particularly relevant for hybrid products, which combine the characteristics and functionalities of several existing products [12, 18]. Such mixed or combined products may be linked to any of the basic categories around which they are designed or to none of them. Furthermore, evaluations of hybrid products likely involve consideration of the role of each reference category, to determine the assimilation of the innovation to one or the other basic category, or to none of them. In other words, it is a matter of discerning how and to what extent knowledge of the basic categories might be transferred to the hybrid product, with a view to evaluating the NHP and the perceived risk associated with deciding whether to acquire it or not.

Consumers also evaluate NHPs differently, depending on whether they allocate them to a single category or to two categories or more [9]. Not all hybrid products are perceived exactly as such some may be viewed as belonging more to a single category (one of the basic product families or a new one), whereas others seem to belong to the basic categories. Researcher [4] concurs that the evaluation of hybrid products differs according to the level of congruence or non-congruence of the combined elements. Consequently, studies pertaining to the categorization of traditional new products may not apply to hybrid products.

Moreover, the assimilation-contrast paradigm, a corollary of categorization theory, shows how people assess and use the structural similarity (homology or components match) or the functional similarity (analogy or holistic resemblance) between a new hybrid product and existing ones. On this basis, consumers may transfer their knowledge and affect from the original category that they view as closest to the NHP and therefore decide to adopt (or reject) it.

#### **2.2 Relevance of affordance theory to NHPs**

When the theory of affordances was introduced by the psychologist James Gibson [19], it referred to all possibilities of acting on an object, to describe the object's own capacity to suggest its own uses. A more restrictive view of affordance [20] implies that affordances refer only to action potentialities that the user can perceive directly from the object, without needing to read the product manual or test its functionalities, in the context of human-machine interactions.

In the field of marketing, few studies have raised the theory of affordances as a relevant framework to analyze product categorization. Scholars [21] analyzed the influence of product affordances on situated categories that emerge, evolve, and disappear in response to environmental changes. In the motorcycle industry, these authors showed that, as a categorization basis, product affordances are associated with greater category persistence. Moreover, the relevance of affordance theory as a means for consumers to identify and assess potential uses of NHPs is heightened by the ambiguity of these products, which gives rise to multiple interpretations. But this might be counterbalanced by the amount of perceived risk that these unclassified

products generate in terms of usability and performance. In this case, the design dimension can be advantageously deployed as a means of expressing and anticipating how products may be classified and used. Even with their complexity and induced uncertainty [5, 7], the design of NHPs can reveal their potential uses and thus support their categorization by consumers.

Design offers a means of differentiation or comparison insofar as it is an easily perceived external attribute that can be used as a diagnostic tool [7], capable of generating a set of associations related to perceived novelty, quality, and intended uses of the hybrid product. The more complex the hybridization (i.e. the more the core functionality of the basic product is altered), the more difficult it becomes for consumers to make sense of the innovation [6], and the more risky is the decision of product adoption. In such cases, design offers an effective aid to understanding by inspiring or suggesting the use(s) to which NHPs may be put [7].

## **2.3 The role of design in the categorization of NHPs**

Design sends three types of messages related to the product and the brand [22]. First, it facilitates categorization; second, the features of the design transmit information about product functionalities and the way the user can interact with it; and third, an attractive design results in a positive evaluation of the item. Object recognition through components' parts or elements offers a consensus view among researchers who rely on the theory of visual perception [23]. That is, objects are spatial arrangements of primary volumetric components called "geometric icons". Individual knowledge in turn is organized according to a set of perceptual symbols that get activated during perception, and these symbols are more components' based rather than holistically anchored [24]. Perceptual symbols then get organized into mental frameworks, which enable consumers to develop mental simulations of new conceptual combinations derived from the components to design new configurations of nonexistent objects. As in Ref. [11] p. 242, "an object such as a laptop computer is not stored as a whole image but it is composed of several perceptual symbols that represent design parts (overall shape, monitor, keyboard, and touchpad, etc.). Perceptual symbols are further organized within mental frames or schemata, which explain the underlying stability and yet flexible organizational structure of knowledge". One of the main ways in which product design influences categorization is through perceptions of affordances. The properties of some products are so congruent with observable visual features (size and shape) that people's visual system can directly perceive the uses that the product allows, as well as the ways they can interact with that object. The form of a chair suggests that a person can sit on it; a handle expresses that we can use it to open a door. For other products though, affordances are less explicit and more ambiguous. For a computer or a mobile phone, the properties and functions are more abstract and less visually perceptible. Their uses and operations often require additional information from a textbook, testing, explanation by others, or prior experience.

Although the brand familiarity can be generated by the combination of product design constituents and past knowledge, some design elements may be more relevant than others. Some authors [11] call for further work to understand how design components might induce more perceived similarity between the object and the product category. Moreover, they point out a lack of knowledge about the interaction between design innovativeness (more or less at odds with the existing models) and categorization processes of NHPs.

*Design Affordance Does Matter: A Spotlight on Categorization and Evaluation of Hybrid… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.112966*

When new versions of products emerge, consumers likely make a trade-off between maintaining a certain level of familiarity (favoring known design attributes) and seeking out originality, stimulation, and curiosity (encouraging new design elements). On the one hand, including too many familiar elements may alter the perceived novelty of the product. On the other hand, introducing too many new components (or new combinations) creates the risk of making the product unrecognizable or unacceptable as a member of a known category. Researchers, in [25], suggest that even if new technologies provide an unlimited range of possibilities, few of them meet with success, conditional on their being designed to be consistent with users' needs and shaped to be understood, even if they integrate novel features (technology translation). This emerging option, which is different from the trade-off and/or the search for an optimal equilibrium, consists in looking for an item that responds to two paradoxical injunctions combining a high level of familiarity and a high level of originality.
