Übersichtsarbeit


Die Psychologie des ästhetischen Konsumverhaltens

The psychology of aesthetic consumer behavior

Keywords | Summary | Correspondence | Literature

Keywords

Schlüsselworte

Summary

Background: Aesthetic consumer behavior examines how individuals favor visual beauty and emotional association over functional utility when buying a product. The field extends to numerous industries, including fashion, interior design, and digital art, where aesthetics dominate consumers' purchase choices. Aim: The study explores human psychological, cultural, and social drivers of aesthetic taste in order to detect and uncover the influence of cognitive processes, feelings, and environment on consumer attitude formation. It also examines emerging trends like digital aesthetics and art created through artificial intelligence, along with exploring ethical issues in marketing. Methods: Mixed-methods design, incorporating qualitative (focus groups, interviews) and quantitative (surveys) data collection. Participants between the ages of 18–65 were sampled for representativeness. Thematic analysis revealed patterns of aesthetics, while descriptive statistics quantified trends. Ethical measures ensured the anonymity of participants and informed consent. Results: Key findings revealed age and cultural differences in preference: younger groups (18–30) favored novelty and digital style (65%), while older groups (51–65) favored retro-style (70%). Western groups preferred bold individualism (58%), while East Asian participants preferred subtlety (63%). Social media heavily influenced Gen Z, with 78% of them admitting to influencer-led purchases. Sensory marketing was also a strong driver, with 82% of them stating packaging as a purchasing driver. Conclusion: Aesthetic consumption is a multifaceted phenomenon driven by psychological, cultural, and social factors. Brands are able to leverage demographic segmentation, sensorial interaction, and ethical design in order to build significant consumer experiences. The study stresses the practice of responsible marketing in a more visualized and digitalized marketplace.

Zusammenfassung

Hintergrund: Das ästhetische Konsumverhalten untersucht, wie Verbraucher beim Kauf eines Produkts visuelle Schönheit und emotionale Assoziationen gegenüber dem funktionalen Nutzen bevorzugen. Dieses Forschungsgebiet erstreckt sich auf zahlreiche Branchen, darunter Mode, Innenarchitektur und digitale Kunst, in denen ästhetische Aspekte die Kaufentscheidungen der Verbraucher maßgeblich beeinflussen. Ziel: Die Studie untersucht die psychologischen, kulturellen und sozialen Determinanten des ästhetischen Geschmacks, um den Einfluss kognitiver Prozesse, von Gefühlen und der Umgebung auf die Bildung von Verbrauchereinstellungen zu ermitteln und aufzudecken. Zudem werden aufkommende Trends wie digitale Ästhetik und durch künstliche Intelligenz geschaffene Kunst untersucht sowie ethische Fragen im Marketing beleuchtet. Methoden: Mixed-Methods-Design unter Einbeziehung qualitativer (Fokusgruppen, Interviews) und quantitativer (Umfragen) Datenerhebung. Die Teilnehmer im Alter von 18 bis 65 Jahren wurden auf Repräsentativität hin ausgewählt. Die thematische Analyse deckte ästhetische Muster auf, während deskriptive Statistiken Trends quantifizierten. Ethische Maßnahmen stellten die Anonymität der Teilnehmer und die Einwilligung nach Aufklärung sicher. Ergebnisse: Die wichtigsten Ergebnisse zeigten alters- und kulturbedingte Präferenzunterschiede: Jüngere Gruppen (18–30) bevorzugten Neuartigkeit und digitalen Stil (65 %), während ältere Gruppen (51–65) den Retro-Stil bevorzugten (70 %). Westliche Gruppen bevorzugten ausgeprägten Individualismus (58 %), während ostasiatische Teilnehmer Subtilität bevorzugten (63 %). Soziale Medien hatten einen starken Einfluss auf die Generation Z, wobei 78 % von ihnen zugaben, durch Influencer zum Kauf angeregt worden zu sein. Auch das sensorische Marketing spielte eine wichtige Rolle: 82 % der Befragten gaben an, dass die Verpackung ein Kaufanreiz sei. Fazit: Ästhetischer Konsum ist ein vielschichtiges Phänomen, das von psychologischen, kulturellen und sozialen Faktoren bestimmt wird. Marken können demografische Segmentierung, sensorische Interaktion und ethisches Design nutzen, um bedeutungsvolle Kundenerlebnisse zu schaffen. Die Studie unterstreicht die Bedeutung von verantwortungsbewusstem Marketing in einem zunehmend visualisierten und digitalisierten Marktumfeld.

Leider haben Sie sich nicht eingeloggt, um den Beitrag lesen zu können. Bitte loggen Sie sich ein oder beantragen Sie Ihre Zugangsberechtigung. Vielen Dank. Weitere Informationen finden Sie hier>

Korrespondenz-Adresse

Prof.Dr. Ghada Farouk Mohammed
Department of Dermatology, Venereology, and Sexology, Faculty of Medicine, Suez Canal University, Ismailia, Egypt.
dr_ghada77@hotmail.com

Conflict of Interests

Conflicts of interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest. There are no sponsors or funds for the research, it was supported by the author. Data availability: The data that support the findings of this study are available on request from the corresponding author. The data are not publicly available due to privacy or ethical restrictions. Author contributions: M.A., G.M., L.A., S.B., S.A., T.M., N.A., and AA collect the materials M.A., G.M., L.A., S.B., S.A., T.M., N.A., and AA do the analysis and write the paper M.A., G.M., L.A., S.B., S.A., T.M., N.A., and AA wrote the manuscript M.A., G.M., L.A., S.B., S.A., T.M., N.A., and AA do the tables Ethical statement: This study was conducted in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. 11. DECLARATIONS Ethical Approval and Consent to Participate Since this study did not involve human or animal subjects, institutional review board (IRB) approval was not required. Clinical trial number Not applicable. Consent for Publication This manuscript does not contain any individual data in any form, so consent for publication is not applicable. Conflicts of interest The authors declare that they have no competing interests. Financial support and sponsorship This research was not funded by any external source. Acknowledgments The authors thank the Deanship of Scientific Research at Shaqra University for supporting this work.

Literatur

1. Venkatesh A, Meamber LA. The aesthetics of consumption and the consumer as an aesthetic subject. Consumption, Markets and Culture. 2008;11(1):45-70.
2. Charters S. Aesthetic products and aesthetic consumption: A Review. ECU Publications. 2006;9.
3. Nuttavuthisit K. How consumers as aesthetic subjects co-create the aesthetic experience of the retail environment. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services. 2014;21: 432–7.
4. Rane N, Achari A, Choudhary S. Enhancing customer loyalty through quality of service: Effective strategies to improve customer satisfaction, experience, relationship, and engagement. IRJMETS. 2023;5: 427-52.
5. Shi A, Huo F, Hou G. Effects of design aesthetics on the perceived value of a product. Front Psychol. 2021;12: 670800.
6. Cleridou K, Furnham A. Personality correlates of aesthetic preferences for art, architecture, and music. Empir. Stud. Arts. 2014;32: 231-55.
7. Hesslinger VM, Carbon C-C, Hecht H. Social factors in aesthetics: social conformity pressure and a sense of being watched affect aesthetic judgments. i-Perception. 2017;8(6): 2041669517736322.
8. Alsmadi S, Hailat K. Neuromarketing and improved understanding of consumer behaviour through brain-based neuro activity. J. Knowl. Manag. 2021;20: 2150020.
9. Donato C. Aesthetic influence on consumer behavior. 2025. p. 39-73.
10. Candi M, Jae H, Makarem S, Mohan M. Consumer responses to functional, aesthetic and symbolic product design in online reviews. Bus Res. 2017;81: 31-9.
11. Xu D-D, Wu C-F, Wang C-S. A Study on perception of visual–tactile and color–texture features of footwear leather for symmetric shoes. Symmetry. 2023;15(7): 1462.
12. Mostafa R. Brand experience and brand loyalty: is it a matter of emotions? Asia Pac. J. Mark. Logist 2020; ahead-of-print.
13. Gretzel U. The visual turn in social media marketing. Tourismos. 2017;12(3): 1-18.
14. Antczak B. The influence of digital marketing and social media marketing on consumer buying behavior. J Mod Sci. 2024;56:3 10-35.
15. Marin MM, Lampatz A, Wandl M, Leder H. Berlyne revisited: evidence for the multifaceted nature of hedonic tone in the appreciation of paintings and music. Front Hum Neurosci. 2016;10: 536.
16. Skov M, Nadal M. The nature of perception and emotion in aesthetic appreciation: A response to makin's challenge to empirical aesthetics corresponding author. 2019.
17. Kuldas S, Ismail HN, Hashim S, Bakar ZA. Unconscious learning processes: mental integration of verbal and pictorial instructional materials. Springerplus. 2013;2(1):105.
18. Fingerhut J, Prinz J. Aesthetic Emotions Reconsidered. The Monist. 2020;103: 223-39.
19. Cinzia DD, Vittorio G. Neuroaesthetics: a review. Curr Opin Neurobiol. 2009;19(6): 682-7.
20. Rui Z, Gu Z. A Review of EEG and fMRI Measuring aesthetic processing in visual user experience research. Comput. Intell. Neurosci. 2021;2021: 1-27.
21. Zeki S, Romaya JP, Benincasa DM, Atiyah MF. The experience of mathematical beauty and its neural correlates. Front Hum Neurosci. 2014;8: 68.
22. Wald C. Neuroscience: The aesthetic brain. Nature. 2015;526(7572): S2-S3.
23. Molnar-Szakacs I, Overy K. Music and mirror neurons: from motion to 'e'motion. Soc Cogn Affect Neurosci. 2006;1(3): 235-41.
24. Dolon MA, Alam M, Alam K, Ali H, AI. S. The application of neuro-marketing on advertising agency in bangladesh. IJRPR. 2022;3(5): 1352-62.
25. Little AC, Jones BC, DeBruine LM. Facial attractiveness: evolutionary based research. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2011;366(1571): 1638-59.
26. Hartig T, van den berg A, Hägerhäll C, Tomalak M, Bauer N, Hansmann R, et al. Health benefits of nature experience: psychological, social and cultural processes. 2010. p. 127-68.
27. Al Khatib I, Samara F, Ndiaye M. A systematic review of the impact of therapeutical biophilic design on health and wellbeing of patients and care providers in healthcare services settings. fbuil. 2024;10: 1-6.
28. Dutton D. Aesthetics and Evolutionary Psychology. 2009.
29. Taylor R. The Potential of biophilic fractal designs to promote health and performance: a review of experiments and applications. Sustainability. 2021;13: 823.
30. Van Vugt M. Evolutionary psychology: theoretical foundations for the study of organizations. J Org Des. 2017;6(1): 9.
31. Redies C. Combining universal beauty and cultural context in a unifying model of visual aesthetic experience. Front Hum Neurosci. 2015;9: 218.
32. Mastandrea S. How emotions shape aesthetic experiences. 2015. p. 500-18.
33. Cheung M-C, Law D, Yip J, Wong CWY. Emotional responses to visual art and commercial stimuli: implications for creativity and aesthetics. Front Psych. 2019;10(14): 1-10.
34. Epel ES, Crosswell AD, Mayer SE, Prather AA, Slavich GM, Puterman E, et al. More than a feeling: A unified view of stress measurement for population science. Front Neuroendocrinol. 2018;49: 146-69.
35. Moffat R, Cross ES. Awareness of embodiment enhances enjoyment and engages sensorimotor cortices. Hum Brain Mapp. 2024;45(10): e26786.
v 36. Dagalp I, Södergren J. On ads as aesthetic objects: a thematic review of aesthetics in advertising research. J Advert. 2023;53: 1-22.
37. Jacobsen T. Beauty and the brain: culture, history and individual differences in aesthetic appreciation. J Anat. 2010;216(2): 184-91.
38. Higuera-Trujillo JL, Llinares C, Macagno E. The cognitive-emotional design and study of architectural Space: a scoping review of neuroarchitecture and its precursor approaches. Sensors (Basel). 2021;21(6).
39. Myakishev-Rempel M. Imperfection as the foundation of life: the role of DNA in reality rendering. 2025.
40. Badre D, Nee DE. Frontal cortex and the hierarchical control of behavior. Trends in cognitive sciences. 2018;22(2): 170-88.
41. Nayeem T. Cultural influences on consumer behaviour. Int J of Bus Manag. 2012;7: 78.
42. Hoyer W, Stokburger-Sauer N. The role of aesthetic taste in consumer behavior. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 2011;40: 167-80.
43. Song J, Kwak Y, Kim C-Y. Familiarity and novelty in aesthetic preference: The effects of the properties of the artwork and the beholder. Frontiers in psychology. 2021;12(694927): 1-17.
44. Salgues S, Jacquot A, Makowski D, Tahar C, Baekeland J, Arcangeli M, et al. Self-reference and emotional reaction drive aesthetic judgment. Scientific Reports. 2024;14: 19699.
45. Jacobs RH, Cornelissen FW. An explanation for the role of the amygdala in aesthetic judgments. Front Hum Neurosci. 2017;11: 80. 46. Lefi Hajlaoui L, Abderrazak G. Nostalgia: an attractive theme for marketing researchers. Int J Market Stud. 2020;12(1): 30-8.
47. Yang T, Silveira S, Formuli A, Paolini M, Pöppel E, Sander T, et al. Aesthetic experiences across cultures: Neural correlates when viewing traditional eastern or western landscape paintings. Fron psy. 2019;10: 798.
48. Krabbe AD, Grodal S. The aesthetic evolution of product categories. Admin Sci Quart. 2023;68(3):734-80.
49. DeWall C, Silvia P, Schurtz D, McKenzie J. Taste sensitivity and aesthetic preferences: is taste only a metaphor? Empir Stud Arts. 2011;29: 171-89.
50. Kraidy MM. Hybridity in cultural globalization. Communication Theory. 2002;12(3): 316-39.
51. Basak R. Janteloven: Scandinavian social conformity, IKEA, minimalism, and the socialism of design. ARTS Artuklu Sanat ve Beşeri Bilimler Dergisi. 2021: 159-85.
52. Fingerhut J, Gomez-Lavin J, Winklmayr C, Prinz JJ. The aesthetic self. The importance of aesthetic taste in music and art for our perceived identity. Front Psych. 2021;11: 577703.
53. Shen Y. Audiences of social media tend to like videos/moments with a high frequency of likes: a Study on conformity. Front Hum Soc Sci. 2023;3: 191-5.
54. Bellucci G, Camilleri JA, Iyengar V, Eickhoff SB, Krueger F. The emerging neuroscience of social punishment: Meta-analytic evidence. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2020;113: 426-39.
55. Nissa K, Chauhan P, Asim M, Chaudhary P, Aryani D, Kean K. The effect of influencer marketing on consumer behavior of fashion style in the age of social media. Int J Tour Hosp Asia Pas. 2024;7: 3 60-78.
56. Wahab M, Mead NL, Desmercieres S, Lardeux V, Dugast E, Baumeister RF, et al. Cognitive effort increases the intensity of rewards. PNAS Nexus. 2024;3(10): p 432.
57. Levin I, Mamlok D. Culture and society in the digital age. Information. 2021;12.
58. Daudrich A. Towards an aesthetics of algorithmic art: Manfred Mohr's Algorithms & Sol LeWitt's Concepts [Ph.D.]. Germany: Friedrich-Alexander-Universitaet Erlangen-Nuernberg (Germany); 2022. doi.10.25593/open-fau-244.
59. Arab K, Barasain O, Altaweel A, Alkhayyal J, Alshiha L, Barasain R, et al. Influence of social media on the decision to undergo a cosmetic procedure. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2019;7(8): e2333.
60. Luchs M, Brower J, Chitturi R. Product choice and the importance of aesthetic design given the emotion-laden trade-off between sustainability and functional performance. J. Prod Innov Manag. 2012;29.
61. Park YW, Hong P. Cosmetics marketing strategy in the era of the digital ecosystem. pringer Books. 3: Springer Singapore; 2024. p. 230.
62. Yahya WK, Muthusamy G, Naseri RNN, Affendi FR. Exploring the power of visual aesthetics in advertising. Int J Art Des. 2024;8(2/SI): 57-67.
63. Heitmann M, Landwehr J, Schreiner T, van Heerde H. Leveraging brand equity for effective visual product design. J Market Res. 2020; 57: 002224372090400.
64. Değermen Erenkol A. Sensory marketing. J. Adm. Sci. Policy Stud. 2015;3: 1-26.
65. Krishna A, Cian L, Sokolova T. The power of sensory marketing in advertising. Curr Opin Psychol. 2016;10: 142-7.
66. Garg R, Bhatia R, Chhikara R, Kataria A. Sensory marketing – a review and research agenda. Acad Market Stud J. 2021;25(4):1-30.
67. Rajain P, Rathee R. Sensory marketing-investigating the use of five senses. 2017;7: 124-33.
68. Kuvshinov H. The influence of culture on graphic design: rebranding glossier for the japanese market. 2024.
69. Naeem M, Okafor S. User-generated content and consumer brand engagement. 2019. p. 193-220.
70. da Mota BAF. Strategic narratives for global brands: crafting cross-cultural communication in the digital era: Universidade NOVA de Lisboa (Portugal); 2024.
71. Andjelic A. Hitmakers: How brands influence culture. Taylor & Francis; 2024.
72. O'Connell M. The role of open ai in fashion: transforming creativity through innovation? 2024.
73. Boen M, Jerdan K. Growing impact of social media in aesthetics: Review and debate. Clin Dermatol. 2022;40(1): 45-8.
74. Thampanichwat C, Wongvorachan T, Sirisakdi L, Chunhajinda P, Bunyarittikit S, Wongmahasiri R. Mindful architecture from text-to-image AI perspectives: a case study of DALL-E, midjourney, and stable diffusion. Buildings. 2025;15(6): 972.
75. Al-Dhubaibi MS, Mohammed GF, Atef LM, Bahaj SS, Al-Dhubaibi AM, Bukhari AM. Artificial intelligence in aesthetic medicine: applications, challenges, and future directions. J Cosmet Dermatol. 2025;24(6): e70241.
76. El Abed M, Castro-Lopez A. The impact of AI-powered technologies on aesthetic, cognitive and affective experience dimensions: a connected store experiment. Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics. 2024;36(3): 715-35.
77. Hammad HS. Teaching the digital natives: examining the learning needs and preferences of Gen Z learners in higher education. Transcult. J. Humanit. Soc. Sci. 2025;6(2): 214-42.
78. McCarthy J, Wright P. Technology as experience. 112004.
79. Goncalves M, Hu Y, Aliagas I, Suárez L. Neuromarketing algorithms’ consumer privacy and ethical considerations: challenges and opportunities. Cogent Bus Manag. 2024;11: 1-48.
80. Ramirez S, Cullen C, Ahdoot R, Scherz G. The primacy of ethics in aesthetic medicine: a review. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2024;12(6): e5935.
81. Williamson SM, Prybutok V. The era of artificial intelligence deception: unraveling the complexities of false realities and emerging threats of misinformation. Information. 2024;15(6): 299.
82. Campbell C, Plangger K, Sands S, Kietzmann J, Bates K. How deepfakes and artificial intelligence could reshape the advertising industry: The coming reality of AI fakes and their potential impact on consumer behavior. J Advert Res. 2022;62: 2022-017.
83. Venkatesh A, Meamber L. The aesthetics of consumption and the consumer as an aesthetic object. Consump Market Cult. 2008; 11:45-70.
84. George AS, George AH. Leveraging the ego: an examination of brand strategies that appeal to consumer vanity. Partn. Univers. Int. Res. J. 2023;2(3): 94-108.
85. Kumar V, Ashraf AR, Nadeem W. AI-powered marketing: What, where, and how? Int. J. Inf. Manag. 2024;77: 102783.
86. Cheng H-H, Takata S, Kawanaka T, Ohno T. Does SDGs advertising promote ethical consumer behavior?: an integrative model of ethical consumption with elements of communication strategy and rational purchase. Sustainability. 2023;15(8): 6954.
87. Shi A, Huo F, Hou G. Effects of design aesthetics on the perceived value of a product. Front Psychol. 2021;12: 670800.
88. Antczak BO. The influence of digital marketing and social media marketing on consumer buying behavior. J Mod Sci. 2024;56(2): 310-35.
89. Salgues S, Jacquot A, Makowski D, Tahar C, Baekeland J, Arcangeli M, et al. Self-reference and emotional reaction drive aesthetic judgment. Scientific Reports. 2024;14(1):19699.
90. Xie Z. The influence of social media on perception of body image and beauty standards on young people. TSSEHR. 2024;5: 143-8.
91. Tan KH. Navigating ethical frontiers: patagonia's approach to globalization, Sustainability, and Ethical Decision-Making. 2024.
92. Reber R, Schwarz N, Winkielman P. Processing fluency and aesthetic pleasure: is beauty in the perceiver's processing experience? Pers Soc Psychol Rev. 2004;8: 364-82.
93. Pearce MT, Zaidel DW, Vartanian O, Skov M, Leder H, Chatterjee A, et al. Neuroaesthetics: the cognitive neuroscience of aesthetic experience. Perspect Psychol Sci. 2016;11(2):265-79.
94. Che J, Sun X, Gallardo V, Nadal M. Chapter 5 - Cross-cultural empirical aesthetics. In: Christensen JF, Gomila A, editors. Progress in Brain Research. 237: Elsevier; 2018. p. 77-103.
95. Chao Y. Social identity and group conformity in virtual environment. J. Educ. Humanit. Soc. Sci. 2023;22: 581-6.
96. Escalas J. Self-identity and consumer behavior. J Consum Res. 2013;39(5): xv-xviii.
97. Bimo S, Bhandari A. Algorithms, Aesthetics And The Changing Nature Of Cultural Consumption Online. AoIR Selected Papers of Internet Research. 2023.
98. Silvia P. Emotional responses to art: from collation and arousal to cognition and emotion. Rev Gen Psychol. 2005;9: 342-57.
99. Yang Z, Wildschut T, Izuma K, Gu R, Luo YLL, Cai H, et al. Patterns of brain activity associated with nostalgia: a social-cognitive neuroscience perspective. Soc Cogn Affect Neurosci. 2022;17(12):1131-44.
100. Naz H, Kashif M. Artificial intelligence and predictive marketing: an ethical framework from managers’ perspective. Span J Mark-ESIC. 2025;29(1): 22-45.
101. Quach S, Septianto F, Thaichon P, Nasution RA. The role of art infusion in enhancing pro-environmental luxury brand advertising. J Retail Consum Serv. 2022;64:102780.
102. Hong TK. Navigating ethical frontiers: patagonia's approach to globalization, sustainability, and ethical decision-making. 2024.
103. Chandra S, Verma S, Lim WM, Kumar S, Donthu N. Personalization in personalized marketing: Trends and ways forward. Psychology & Marketing. 2022;39(8):1 529-62.

Ausgabe