When design meets AI: The impact of AI design products on consumers’ response patterns

doi:10.3724/SP.J.1041.2025.1914

Abstract

Abstract:

With the rapid development of Artificial Intelligence (AI) technology, utilizing AI to design products and innovate is a major trend in the future. Based on the stereotype content model, this article explored the effects, mechanisms, and boundary conditions of design source (human vs. AI) and product type (nostalgic vs. innovative) on consumer response patterns (appreciation vs. aversion) through six progressive Studies (N = 1418). The results showed that for nostalgic products, consumers preferred human design, showing AI aversion; for innovative products, consumers preferred AI design, showing AI appreciation, which produced a matching effect of “human design-nostalgic products” and “AI design-innovative products”. Further analysis revealed that processing fluency played a mediating role in this matching effect process; warmth perception and competence perception were key factors that led to processing fluency. In addition, the AI-human collaborative design mode, AI anthropomorphic features, and consumer self-construction types all played a moderating role. This article not only revealed the response patterns and deep mechanisms of consumers' appreciation or aversion towards different types of products designed by AI but also provided references for strategic planning and marketing strategies of AI+ design in the new era of artificial intelligence.

Key words: artificial intelligence, source of design, product types, consumer response patterns, AI aversion or AI appreciation

LI Bin, RUI Jianxi, YU Weinan, LI Aimei, YE Maolin. (2025). When design meets AI: The impact of AI design products on consumers’ response patterns. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 57(11), 1914-1932.

Figures/Tables 12

References 62

[1]	Aaker, J., Vohs, K. D., & Mogilner, C. (2010). Nonprofits are seen as warm and for-profits as competent: Firm stereotypes matter. Journal of Consumer Research, 37(2), 224-237.
[2]	Ackermann, C. L., Teichert, T., & Truong, Y. (2018). ‘So, what is it? And do I like it?’ New product categorization and the formation of consumer implicit attitude. Journal of Marketing Management, 34(9-10), 796-818.
[3]	Bodenhausen, G. V., & Lichtenstein, M. (1987). Social stereotypes and information-processing strategies: The impact of task complexity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52(5), 871-880. doi: 10.1037//0022-3514.52.5.871 pmid: 3585699
[4]	Castelo, N., Bos, M. W., & Lehmann, D. R. (2019). Task-dependent algorithm aversion. Journal of Marketing Research, 56(5), 809-825. doi: 10.1177/0022243719851788
[5]	Chae, B., & Hoegg, J. (2013). The future looks “right”: Effects of the horizontal location of advertising images on product attitude. Journal of Consumer Research, 40(2), 223-238.
[6]	Cui, N., Chen, Q., Xu, L., He, J. T., & Xu, H. J. (2021). When historical-cultural creative products meet AR: The effect of augmented reality product display on consumers’ evaluation of historical-cultural creative products. Nankai Business Review, 24(6), 50-61.
[7]	Dietvorst, B. J., Simmons, J.P., & Massey, C. (2015). Algorithm aversion: People erroneously avoid algorithms after seeing them err. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 144(1), 114-126.
[8]	Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Buchner, A., & Lang, A. G. (2009). Statistical power analyses using G* Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behavior Research Methods, 41(4), 1149-1160.
[9]	Fiske, S. T., Cuddy, A. J., Glick, P., & Xu, J. (2002). A model of (often mixed) stereotype content: Competence and warmth respectively follow from perceived status and competition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82(6), 878-902. pmid: 12051578
[10]	Fuchs, C., Prandelli, E., Schreier, M., & Dahl, D. W. (2013). All that is users might not be gold: How labeling products as user-designed backfires in the context of luxury fashion brands. Journal of Marketing, 77(5), 75-91.
[11]	Garvey, A. M., Kim, T., & Duhachek, A. (2023). Bad news? Send an AI. Good news? Send a human. Journal of Marketing, 87(1), 10-25.
[12]	Gershoff, A. D., & Frels, J. K. (2015). What makes it green? The role of centrality of green attributes in evaluations of the greenness of products. Journal of Marketing, 79(1), 97-110.
[13]	Glikson, E., & Woolley, A. W. (2020). Human trust in artificial intelligence: Review of empirical research. Academy of Management Annals, 14(2), 627-660.
[14]	Grewal, D., Krishnan, R., Baker, J., & Borin, N. (1998). The effect of store name, brand name, and price discounts on consumers' evaluations and purchase intentions. Journal of Retailing, 74(3), 331-352.
[15]	Guha, A., Bressgott, T., Grewal, D., Mahr, D., Wetzels, M., & Schweiger, E. (2023). How artificiality and intelligence affect voice assistant evaluations. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 51, 843-886.
[16]	Hayes, A. F. (2017). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. New York: Guilford publications.
[17]	Huang, M. H., & Rust, R. T.(2021). Engaged to a robot? The role of AI in service. Journal of Service Research, 24(1), 30-41.
[18]	Jindal, R. P., Sarangee, K. R., Echambadi, R., & Lee, S. (2016). Designed to succeed: Dimensions of product design and their impact on market share. Journal of Marketing, 80(4), 72-89.
[19]	Kim, S., & McGill, A. L. (2011). Gaming with Mr. Slot or gaming the slot machine? Power, anthropomorphism, and risk perception. Journal of Consumer Research, 38(1), 94-107.
[20]	Kim, T. W., & Duhachek, A. (2020). Artificial intelligence and persuasion: A construal-level account. Psychological Science, 31(4), 363-380. doi: 10.1177/0956797620904985 pmid: 32223692
[21]	Kühnen, U., Hannover, B., & Schubert, B. (2001). The semantic-procedural interface model of the self: The role of self-knowledge for context-dependent versus context-independent modes of thinking. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80(3), 397-409. pmid: 11300574
[22]	Lalwani, A. K., & Shavitt, S. (2013). You get what you pay for? Self-construal influences price-quality judgments. Journal of Consumer Research, 40(2), 255-267.
[23]	Li, B., Feng, K., Jin, L., Lei, L., & Li, A. M. (in press). Experiential advantage in consumer decision behavior: Phenomenon, mechanism and prospect. China Journal of Applied Psychology. Advance online publication. https://link.cnki.net/urlid/33.1012.B.20231101.1339.010
[24]	Li, B., Jin, L., Chen, X. X., Yu, W. N., Li, A. M., & Dai, X. Z. (2024). Order of disorder: The matching effect between display order and product attribute. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 56(10), 1448-1461. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2024.01448
[25]	Li, B., Ma, H. Y., Li, A. M., & Ling, W. Q. (2015). The trigger, research paradigm and measurement of nostalgic. Advances in Psychological Science, 23(7), 1289-1298. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1042.2015.01289
[26]	Li, B., Wang, S. J., Lei, L., & Li, F. J. (2022). Expanding the experiential advantage model: Exploring the mediating roles of a sense of meaning and moderating effects of motivational autonomy. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 39(4), 317-332.
[27]	Li, B., Wei, H. Y., Li, A. M., & Li, F. J. (2018). Dual-theory of experiential consumption and material consumption: Phenomenon, mechanism, and influence factors. Advances in Psychological Science, 26(5), 761-769.
[28]	Li, B., Zhang, Q., He, R. W., Li, A. M., & Wei, H. Y. (2023). The effect of mortality salience on consumers' preference for experiential purchases and its mechanism. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 55(2), 301-317. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2023.00301
[29]	Li, B., Zhang, S. Y., & Feng, K. (2022). The effect of social exclusion on consumer choice: The moderating role of nostalgia and mediating role of social connectedness. Journal of Psychological of Science, 45(5), 1174-1181.
[30]	Li, B., Zhu, Q., Li, A. M., & Cui, R. B. (2023). Can good memories of the past instill happiness? Nostalgia improves subjective well-being by increasing gratitude. The Journal of Happiness Studies, 24(2), 699-715.
[31]	Lindebaum, D., Vesa, M., & Den Hond, F. (2020). Insights from “the machine stops” to better understand rational assumptions in algorithmic decision making and its implications for organizations. Academy of Management Review, 45(1), 247-263.
[32]	Logg, J. M., Minson, J. A., & Moore, D. A. (2019). Algorithm appreciation: People prefer algorithmic to human judgment. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 151, 90-103. doi: 10.1016/j.obhdp.2018.12.005
[33]	Longoni, C., Bonezzi, A., & Morewedge, C. K. (2019). Resistance to medical artificial intelligence. Journal of Consumer Research, 46(4), 629-650. doi: 10.1093/jcr/ucz013
[34]	Longoni, C., & Cian, L. (2022). Artificial intelligence in utilitarian vs. hedonic contexts: The “word-of-machine” effect Journal of Marketing, 86(1), 91-108.
[35]	Luo, Y. Y., Zhu, G. W., Qian, W. J., Wu, Y. Y., Huang, J., & Yang, Z. (2023). Algorithm aversion in the era of artificial intelligence: Research framework and future agenda. Journal of Management World, 39(10), 205-233.
[36]	Lv, X., Liu, Y., Luo, J., Liu, Y., & Li, C. (2021). Does a cute artificial intelligence assistant soften the blow? The impact of cuteness on customer tolerance of assistant service failure. Annals of Tourism Research, 87, 103114.
[37]	Mandel, N. (2003). Shifting selves and decision making: The effects of self-construal priming on consumer risk-taking. Journal of Consumer Research, 30(1), 30-40.
[38]	Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98(2), 224-253.
[39]	Montoya, A. K., & Hayes, A. F. (2017). Two-condition within-participant statistical mediation analysis: A path-analytic framework. Psychological Methods, 22(1), 6-27. doi: 10.1037/met0000086 pmid: 27362267
[40]	Moreau, C. P., Prandelli, E., Schreier, M., & Hieke, S. (2020). Customization in luxury brands: Can Valentino get personal? Journal of Marketing Research, 57(5), 937-947.
[41]	Muehling, D. D., & Pascal, V. J. (2011). An empirical investigation of the differential effects of personal, historical, and non-nostalgic advertising on consumer responses. Journal of Advertising, 40(2), 107-122.
[42]	Newman, D. T., Fast, N. J., & Harmon, D. J. (2020). When eliminating bias isn’t fair: Algorithmic reductionism and procedural justice in human resource decisions. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 160, 149-167.
[43]	Reich, T., Kaju, A., & Maglio, S. J. (2023). How to overcome algorithm aversion: Learning from mistakes. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 33(2), 285-302.
[44]	Rubera, G. (2015). Design innovativeness and product sales' evolution. Marketing Science, 34(1), 98-115.
[45]	Schwarz, N. (2004). Metacognitive experiences: Response to commentaries. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 14(4), 370-373.
[46]	Septianto, F., Seo, Y., & Zhao, F. (2021). The effects of competence and warmth appeals on luxury and sustainable brand advertising: The moderating role of construal level. Journal of Advertising, 51(3), 369-384.
[47]	Singelis, T. M. (1994). The measurement of independent and interdependent self-construals. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20(5), 580-591.
[48]	Stock, R. M., & Zacharias, N. A. (2013). Two sides of the same coin: How do different dimensions of product program innovativeness affect customer loyalty?. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 30(3), 516-532.
[49]	Sweeney, J. C., & Soutar, G. N. (2001). Consumer perceived value: The development of a multiple item scale. Journal of Retailing, 77(2), 203-220.
[50]	Trafimow, D., Triandis, H. C., & Goto, S. G. (1991). Some tests of the distinction between the private self and the collective self. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60(5), 649-655.
[51]	Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1981). The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science, 211(4481), 453-458. doi: 10.1126/science.7455683 pmid: 7455683
[52]	Verganti, R., Vendraminelli, L., & Iansiti, M. (2020). Innovation and design in the age of artificial intelligence. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 37(3), 212-227.
[53]	Wang, P. X., Kim, S., & Kim, M. (2023). Robot anthropomorphism and job insecurity: The role of social comparison. Journal of Business Research, 164, 114003.
[54]	Waytz, A., & Norton, M. I. (2014). Botsourcing and outsourcing: Robot, British, Chinese, and German workers are for thinking-not feeling-jobs. Emotion, 14(2), 434-444. doi: 10.1037/a0036054 pmid: 24708509
[55]	Wildschut, T., Sedikides, C., Routledge, C., Arndt, J., & Cordaro, F. (2010). Nostalgia as a repository of social connectedness: The role of attachment-related avoidance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98(4), 573-586. doi: 10.1037/a0017597 pmid: 20307130
[56]	Xu, L., & Mehta, R. (2022). Technology devalues luxury? Exploring consumer responses to AI-designed luxury products. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 50(6), 1135-1152.
[57]	Xu, L. Y., Yu, F., & Peng, K. P. (2022). Algorithmic discrimination causes less desire for moral punishment than human discrimination. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 54(9), 1076-1092. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2022.01076
[58]	Xu, L. Y., Yu, F., Wu, J. H., Han, T. T., & Zhao, L. (2017). Anthropomorphism: Antecedents and consequences. Advances in Psychological Science, 25(11), 1942-1954.
[59]	Yalcin, G., Lim, S., Puntoni, S., & van Osselaer, S. M. (2022). Thumbs up or down: Consumer reactions to decisions by algorithms versus humans. Journal of Marketing Research, 59(4), 696-717.
[60]	Yam, K. C., Tan, T., Jackson, J. C., Shariff, A., & Gray, K. (2023). Cultural differences in people’s reactions and applications of robots, algorithms, and artificial intelligence. Management and Organization Review, 19(5), 859-875.
[61]	Zhao, Y. J., Xu, L. Y., Yu, F., & Jin, W. L. (2024). Perceived opacity leads to algorithm aversion in the workplace. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 56(4), 497-514. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2024.00497
[62]	Zhu, D. H., & Chang, Y. P. (2020). Robot with humanoid hands cooks food better? Effect of robotic chef anthropomorphism on food quality prediction. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 32(3), 1367-1383.

Study	Purpose	Sample size	Study design	Product	Dependent Variables
Study1A	Test H1	181	2 (Design source: human design vs. AI design) × 2 (Product type: nostalgia vs. innovative) between-subjects design	Fan	Product attitude
Study1B	Test H1	258	3 (Design source: human design vs. human-AI collaborative design vs. AI design) × 2 (Product type: nostalgic vs. innovative) between-subjects design	Clock	Purchase intention
Study2A	Test H2	304	4 (Design source: human design vs. human-led with AI assistance vs. AI-led with human assistance vs. AI-design) × 2 (Product type: nostalgic vs. innovative) between-subjects design	Clock	Processing fluency, Purchase intention
Study2B	Test H2	167	2 (Design source: human vs. AI) × 2 (Product type: nostalgic vs. innovative) mixed design	Mini fan	Warmth perception, Competence perception Processing fluency, Purchase intention
Study3	Test H3	218	3 (Design source: human vs. high AI anthropomorphism vs. low AI anthropomorphism) × 2 (Product type: nostalgic vs. innovative) between-subjects design	Desk lamp	Processing fluency, Purchase intention
Study4	Test H4	290	2 (Design source: human design vs. AI design) × 2 (Product type: nostalgic vs. innovative) × 2 (self-construction: interdependent vs. independent) between-subjects design	Desk lamp	Purchase intention

Study	Purpose	Sample size	Study design	Product	Dependent Variables
Study1A	Test H1	181	2 (Design source: human design vs. AI design) × 2 (Product type: nostalgia vs. innovative) between-subjects design	Fan	Product attitude
Study1B	Test H1	258	3 (Design source: human design vs. human-AI collaborative design vs. AI design) × 2 (Product type: nostalgic vs. innovative) between-subjects design	Clock	Purchase intention
Study2A	Test H2	304	4 (Design source: human design vs. human-led with AI assistance vs. AI-led with human assistance vs. AI-design) × 2 (Product type: nostalgic vs. innovative) between-subjects design	Clock	Processing fluency, Purchase intention
Study2B	Test H2	167	2 (Design source: human vs. AI) × 2 (Product type: nostalgic vs. innovative) mixed design	Mini fan	Warmth perception, Competence perception Processing fluency, Purchase intention
Study3	Test H3	218	3 (Design source: human vs. high AI anthropomorphism vs. low AI anthropomorphism) × 2 (Product type: nostalgic vs. innovative) between-subjects design	Desk lamp	Processing fluency, Purchase intention
Study4	Test H4	290	2 (Design source: human design vs. AI design) × 2 (Product type: nostalgic vs. innovative) × 2 (self-construction: interdependent vs. independent) between-subjects design	Desk lamp	Purchase intention

Product	Perception	Nostalgia group (M ± SD)	Innovation Group (M ± SD)	Independent Samples t-test	Cohen’s d
Fan	Nostalgia perception	5.59 ± 0.95	4.43 ± 1.27	t(169) = 5.87^***	1.03
Fan	Innovation perception	4.25 ± 1.87	5.47 ± 0.98	t(169) = ?6.01^***	?0.82
Clock	Nostalgia perception	5.29 ± 1.08	4.27 ± 1.28	t(169) = 4.11^***	0.86
Clock	Innovation perception	4.36 ± 1.79	5.34 ± 1.09	t(169) = ?5.87^***	?0.66
Desk lamp	Nostalgia perception	5.21 ± 1.53	4.40 ± 1.19	t(169) = 3.31^***	0.59
Desk lamp	Innovation perception	4.44 ± 1.81	5.45 ± 0.97	t(169) = ?6.35^***	?0.70
Record player	Nostalgia perception	5.24 ± 1.27	4.21 ± 1.40	t(169) = 2.58^***	0.77
Record player	Innovation perception	4.70 ± 1.46	5.25 ± 1.04	t(169) = ?5.48^***	?0.43

Product	Perception	Nostalgia group (M ± SD)	Innovation Group (M ± SD)	Independent Samples t-test	Cohen’s d
Fan	Nostalgia perception	5.59 ± 0.95	4.43 ± 1.27	t(169) = 5.87^***	1.03
Fan	Innovation perception	4.25 ± 1.87	5.47 ± 0.98	t(169) = ?6.01^***	?0.82
Clock	Nostalgia perception	5.29 ± 1.08	4.27 ± 1.28	t(169) = 4.11^***	0.86
Clock	Innovation perception	4.36 ± 1.79	5.34 ± 1.09	t(169) = ?5.87^***	?0.66
Desk lamp	Nostalgia perception	5.21 ± 1.53	4.40 ± 1.19	t(169) = 3.31^***	0.59
Desk lamp	Innovation perception	4.44 ± 1.81	5.45 ± 0.97	t(169) = ?6.35^***	?0.70
Record player	Nostalgia perception	5.24 ± 1.27	4.21 ± 1.40	t(169) = 2.58^***	0.77
Record player	Innovation perception	4.70 ± 1.46	5.25 ± 1.04	t(169) = ?5.48^***	?0.43