User Value Priorities in Product Personalization and their Implications for Designing Future Additive Manufacturing Enabled Personalization Tools

Product personalisation has gained growing attention as consumers increasingly seek products that reflect personal preferences, identity, and functional needs. Additive manufacturing (AM) supports such customisation through flexible, low-volume production, yet limited empirical evidence exists on how end users evaluate the value of personalised products. This study investigates end users’ perceived value of product personalisation by examining willingness to pay, purchase intention, and evaluations of six value components: functional, personal-expressive, aesthetic, unique, hedonic, and co-design value. An online questionnaire captured respondents’ assessments of personalised features, and descriptive analysis summarised value perceptions and behavioural responses. Findings indicate that functional value is the strongest driver of perceived benefit, with respondents showing clear willingness to pay when personalisation improves utility or performance. Aesthetic and personal-expressive attributes generated interest but resulted in lower willingness to pay unless supported by functional advantages. Hedonic and co-design value were positively acknowledged, suggesting that enjoyment, creativity, and guided involvement enhance emotional engagement during the personalisation process. Unique value increased perceived distinctiveness but demonstrated limited economic influence. Perceived value in personalised products is multidimensional but anchored primarily in functional and experiential benefits. These insights offer guidance for designers and AM practitioners by identifying value components that should inform the development of future AM-enabled personalisation tools that support meaningful and user-centred design engagement.

product personalisation, additive manufacturing, consumer value perception, co-design engagement, personalisation tool design

1. Yavari, H., Abdul Kudus, S. I., & Campbell, R. I. (2015). User Involvement in Design: A Case Study of using an AM-enabled Mass Customisation and Personalisation (MC&P) Toolkit. 14th Conference on Rapid Design, Prototyping & Manufacturing. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Chandra, S., Verma, S., Lim, W. M., Kumar, S., & Donthu, N. (2022). Personalization in personalized marketing: Trends and ways forward. Psychology and Marketing, 39, 1529–1562. doi: 10.1002/ mar.21670. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Mugge, R., Schifferstein, H. N. J., & Schoormans, J. P. L. (2004). Personalizing Product Appearance: The Effect on Product Attachment. Proceedings of the International Conference on Design and Emotion, Ankara, Turkey. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Mugge, R. (2014). Why Do People Become Attached To Their Products. International Council of Societies of Industrial Design. http://www.icsid.org/feature/current/articles563.htm [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Mugge, R., Schoormans, J. P. L., & Schifferstein, H. N. J. (2009). Incorporating Consumers In The Design Of Their Own Products. The Dimensions Of Product Personalisation. CoDesign: International Journal of CoCreation in Design and the Arts, 5(2), 79–97. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Smith, R. K., Vandellen, M. R., & Ton, L. A. N. (2021). Makeup Who You Are: Self-Expression Enhances the Perceived Authenticity and Public Promotion of Beauty Work. Journal of Consumer Research, 48, 102–122. doi: 10.1093/jcr/ucaa066. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Franke, N., & Schreier, M. (2008). Product Uniqueness As A Driver Of Customer Utility In Mass Customization. Marketing Letters, 19(2), 93–107. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Dumitrescu, A. (2010). A Model of Product Personality. Proceedings of the 4th European Computing Conference, 88–93. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Lei, S., Wang, X., Peng, L., & Guo, Y. (2021). ‘I’ seek differentiation and ‘we’ seek assimilation: the impact of self-expressive customization on consumers’ willingness to pay a premium. Journal of Product and Brand Management, 30(5), 691–706. doi: 10.1108/JPBM-11-2019-2654. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Lechner, A. (2023). On Design Decisions in the Age of Data and Artificial Intelligence. Design Management Review, 34(1), 54–59. doi: 10.1111/drev.12332. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. Sońta-Drączkowska, E., Cichosz, M., Klimas, P., & Pilewicz, T. (2025). Co-creating innovations with users: A systematic literature review and future research agenda for project management. European Management Journal, 43, 321–339. doi: 10.1016/j.emj.2024.07.001. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Hyysalo, S., & Johnson, M. (2024). Making sense of methods and approaches to user involvement,” The Design Journal, 27(4), 580–608. doi: 10.1080/14606925.2024.2347736. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Kohtala, C., Hyysalo, S., & Whalen, J. (2020). A taxonomy of users’ active design engagement in the 21st century. Design Studies, 67, 27–54. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. Franke, N. & Schreier, M. (2010). Why Customers Value Self-Designed Products: The Importance of Process Effort and Enjoyment. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 27(7), 1020–1031. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. Damm, R., de Pablos Heredero, C., & Rodriguez-Monroy, C. (2013). A Review And A Conceptual Framework Of The Key Value Drivers Of Mass Customisation. International Journal of Technology Marketing, 8(4), 411–430. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. Bambauer-Sachse, S. (2025). Do consumers prefer lower or higher numbers of customizable product attributes in an e-commerce context?. Electronic Commerce Research. doi: 10.1007/s10660-025-10014-2. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. Peck, J., & Luangrath, A. W. (2023). A review and future avenues for psychological ownership in consumer research. Consumer Psychology Review, 6, 52–74. doi: 10.1002/arcp.1084. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. Zhang, N., & Hu, W. (2024). Do Psychological Ownership and Communicative Presence Matter? Examining How User-Generated Content in E-Commerce Live Streaming Influences Consumers’ Purchase Intention. Behavioral Sciences, 14, 696. doi: 10.3390/bs14080696. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. Reeves, P. (2014). Building business models in the additive manufacturing and 3d printing ecosystem. Econolyst.http://www.econolyst.co.uk/resources/documents/files/2014_AM-3DP_business_ecosystems. pdf [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

20. Hu, S. J. (2013). Evolving Paradigms of Manufacturing: From Mass Production to Mass Customization and Personalization. Procedia CIRP, 7, 3–8. doi: 10.1016/j.procir.2013.05.002. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

21. Oulasvirta, A., & Blom, J. (2007). Motivations in personalisation behaviour. Interacting with Computers, 20(1), 1–16. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

22. Madrigal, J., & Jeong, S. (2022). Personalization Process of 3D Printed Products using Parametric Design. Archives of Design Research, 35(4), 31–47. doi: 10.15187/adr.2022.11.35.4.31. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

23. Rodriguez-Conde, I., & Campos, C. (2020). Towards Customer-Centric Additive Manufacturing: Making Human-Centered 3D Design Tools through a Handheld-Based Multi-Touch User Interface. Sensors, 20, 4255. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

24. Smith, J. B., & Colgate, M. (2007). Customer Value Creation: A Practical Framework. The Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 15(1), 7–23. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

25. Shi, A., Huo, F., & Hou, G. (2021). Effects of Design Aesthetics on the Perceived Value of a Product. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 670800. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.670800. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

26. Le-Hoang, P. V. (2020). The relationship between aesthetics, perceived value and buying intention: a literature review and conceptual framework. Independent Journal of Management & Production, 11(3), 1050–1069. doi: 10.14807/ijmp.v11i3.1076. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

27. Liu, L., & Hongxia, Z. (2024). Research on consumers’ purchase intention of cultural and creative products-Metaphor design based on traditional cultural symbols,” PLoS One, 19(5), e0301678. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0301678. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

28. Merle, A., Jean-Louis, C., & Roux, E. (2007). Why Consumers Are Willing to Pay for Mass Customized Products: Dissociating Product and Experiential Value. Proceedings of the MCPC 2007 World Conference on Mass Customisation & Personalisation, 208–225. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

29. Merle, A., Chandon, J.-L., & Roux, E. (2008). Understanding the Perceived Value of Mass Customization: The Distinction between Product Value and Experiential Value of Co-Design. Recherche et Applications en Marketing (English Edition), 23(3), 27–50. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

30. Fuchs, M., & Schreier, M. (2023). Paying Twice for Aesthetic Customization? The Negative Effect of Uniqueness on a Product’s Resale Value. Journal of Marketing Research, 60(3). doi: 10.1177/00222437221128576. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

31. Chang, W.-C., & Wu, T.-Y. (2007). Exploring Types And Characteristics Of Product Forms. International Journal of Design, 1(1), 3–14. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

32. Bettiga, D., Bianchi, A. M., Lamberti, L., & Noci, G. (2020). Consumers Emotional Responses to Functional and Hedonic Products: A Neuroscience Research. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 559779. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.559779. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

33. Bae, J. H., & Jeon, H. M. (2022). Exploring the Relationships among Brand Experience, Perceived Product Quality, Hedonic Value, Utilitarian Value, and Brand Loyalty in Unmanned Coffee Shops during the COVID-19 Pandemic. Sustainability, 14, 11713. doi: 10.3390/su141811713. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

34. Krause, F., & Frank, N. (2023). Understanding Consumer Self-Design Abandonment: A Dynamic Perspective. Journal of Marketing, 88(2), 79–98. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

35. Gemser, G., Calabretta, G., & Karpen, I. (2025). Co-creating the future through design thinking: Deconstructing the consumer co-creation process. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 42, 528–556. doi: 10.1111/jpim.12770. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

36. Xi, X., Yang, J., Jiao, K., Wang, S., & Lu, T. (2022). ‘We buy what we wanna be’: Understanding the effect of brand identity driven by consumer perceived value in the luxury sector. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 1002275. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.1002275. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

37. Mugge, R., Schoormans, J. P. L., & Schifferstein, H. N. J. (2008). Product Attachment: Design Strategies To Stimulate the Emotional Bonding To Products. Product Experience, 17, 425–440. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

38. Dicu, A. M., Rad, D., Barbu, F., Cuc, L. D., Feher, A., Roman, D., Mazuru, L., Sanda, G., & Pirvulescu, L. (2025). From Attachment to Action: Consumer Identification and the Sustainable Buying of Rural Brand Products Like ‘Pită de Pecica’. Sustainability, 17, 4133. doi: 10.3390/su17094133. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

39. Hongthong, P., Jaroenwanit, P., Nelson, J. E., & Khalid, B. (2025). Emotional Brand Attachment as a Pathway to Brand Nostalgia, Brand Involvement and Brand Forgiveness. International Review of Management and Marketing, 15(5), 1–6. doi: 10.32479/irmm.18512. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

40. Tavares, D. R., Canciglieri Junior, O., de M. Guimarães, L. B., & Rudek, M. (2021). An Ontological Approach of the Cognitive and Affective Product Experience. Frontiers in Neuroergonomics, 2, 602881. doi: 10.3389/fnrgo.2021.602881. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

41. Atakan, S. S., Bagozzi, R. P., & Yoon, C. (2014). Consumer participation in the design and realization stages of production: How self-production shapes consumer evaluations and relationships to products,” International Journal of Research in Marketing, 31(4), 395–408. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

42. Hunt, D. M., Radford, S. K., & Evans, K. R. (2013). Individual Differences In Consumer Value For Mass Customized Products. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 336, 327–336. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

43. Ploos van Amstel, D., Kuijer, L., van der Lugt, R., & Eggen, B. (2022). A Psychological Ownership Based Design Tool to Close the Resource Loop in Product Service Systems: A Bike Sharing Case. Sustainability, 14, 6207. doi: 10.3390/su14106207. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

44. Padual, S. R. M., Ong, A. K. S., German, J. D., & Gumasing, M. J. J. (2024). The need for individualization: An open innovation perspective on the case for customized products,” Acta Psychologica, 249, 104473. doi: 10.1016/j.actpsy.2024.104473. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

45. Lacroix, R., Seifert, R. W., & Timonina-Farkas, A. (2021). Benefiting from additive manufacturing for mass customization across the product life cycle. Operations Research Perspectives, 8, 100201. doi: 10.1016/j.orp.2021.100201. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

46. Ben Said, L., Ayadi, B., Alharbi, S., & Dammak, F. (2025). Recent Advances in Additive Manufacturing: A Review of Current Developments and Future Directions. Machines, 13, 813. doi: 10.3390/machines13090813. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

47. Fianko, S. K., Dzogbewu, T. C., Agbamava, E., & de Beer, D. J. (2025). Mass Customisation Strategies in Additive Manufacturing: A Systematic Review and Implementation Framework. Processes, 13, 1855. doi: 10.3390/pr13061855. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

48. Reeves, P., Hague, R., & Tuck, C. (2014). Additive Manufacturing & 3D Printing Masterclass Introductions & house keeping. Econolyst. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

49. http://www.econolyst.co.uk/resources/documents/files/AM_Masterclass_7th_July.pdf [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

50. Ozdemir, M., Verlinden, J., & Cascini, G. (2022). Design methodology for mass personalisation enabled by digital manufacturing. Design Science, 8, e7. doi: 10.1017/dsj.2022.3. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

51. Lacroix, R., Timonina-Farkas, A., & Seifert, R. W. (2023). Utilizing additive manufacturing and mass customization under capacity constraints. Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing, 34, 281–301. doi: 10.1007/s10845-022-02007-x. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

52. Prashar, G., Vasudev, H., & Bhuddhi, D. (2023). Additive manufacturing: expanding 3D printing horizon in industry 4.0. International Journal on Interactive Design and Manufacturing (IJIDeM), 17, 2221–2235. doi: 10.1007/s12008-022-00956-4. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

53. Blut, M., Chaney, D., Lunardo, R., Mencarelli, R., & Grewal, D. (2024). Customer Perceived Value: A Comprehensive Meta-analysis. Journal of Service Research, 27(4), 501–524. doi: 10.1177/10946705231222295. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

54. Zheng, S., Wang, L., & Yu, Z. (2024). The Impact of Multidimensional Perceived Value on Purchase Intentions for Prepared Dishes in China: The Mediating Role of Behavioral Attitudes and the Moderating Effect of Time Pressure. Foods, 13, 3778. doi: 10.3390/foods13233778. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

55. Schreier, M. (2006). The Value Increment Of Mass-Customized Products: An Empirical Assessment. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 327(4), 317–327. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

56. Mason, M. C., Oduro, S., Muhammad Umar, R., & Zamparo, G. (2023). Effect of consumption values on consumer behavior: a Meta-analysis. Marketing Intelligence and Planning, 41(7), 923–944. doi: 10.1108/MIP-03-2023-0100. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

57. Norman, D. A. (2005). Emotional Design: Why We Love (or Hate) Everyday Things. New York: Basic Books. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

58. Merle, A., Chandon, J.-L., Roux, E., & Alizon, F. (2010). Perceived Value of the Mass-Customized Product and Mass Customization Experience for Individual Consumers. Production and Operations Management, 19(5), 503–514. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

59. Wu, T.-Y. (2008). The Effect Of Product Forms On Consumer’s Pleasurable Affection. National Taiwan University of Science and Technology. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

60. Hung W. K., & Chen, L. L. (2012). Effects Of Novelty And Its Dimensions On Aesthetic Preference In Product Design. International Journal of Design, 6(2), 81–90. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

61. Ohta Y., & Kasamatsu, K. (2014). The Relationships between the Products and Affective Evaluation Concerning Uniqueness. Human Interface and the Management of Information. Information and Knowledge in Applications and Services: 16th International Conference, 622–630. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

62. Espinosa Sáez, D., Delgado-Ballester, E., & Munuera Alemán, J. L.(2025). Exploring innovativeness, need for uniqueness and brand tiers in the sharing economy. Spanish Journal of Marketing, 29(2), 138–162. doi: 10.1108/SJME-11-2023-0309. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

63. Choo, H. J., Moon, H., Kim, H., & Yoon, N. (2020). Luxury Customer Value. Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management, 16(1), 81–101. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

64. Tyrväinen, O., Karjaluoto, H., & Saarijärvi, H. (2020). Personalization and hedonic motivation in creating customer experiences and loyalty in omnichannel retail. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 57, 102233. doi: 10.1016/j.jretconser.2020.102233. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

65. Chung, W. Y., Kim, D., & Lee, D. (2024). What factors affect psychological ownership when creating an avatar?: Focusing on customization and the ideal self. Telematics and Informatics, 88, 102098. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

66. Krause, F., Görgen, J., de Bellis, E., Franke, N., Burghartz, P., Klanner, I.-M., & Häubl, G. (2023). One-of-a-kind products: Leveraging strict uniqueness in mass customization. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 40, 823–840. doi: 10.1016/j.ijresmar.2023.04.002. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

67. Wei, Q., Lv, D., Lin, Y., Zhu, D., Liu, S., & Liu, Y. (2023). Influence of Utilitarian and Hedonic Attributes on Willingness to Pay Green Product Premiums and Neural Mechanisms in China: An ERP Study. Sustainability, 15, 2403. doi: 10.3390/su15032403. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

68. Fürst, A., Pecornik, N., & Hoyer, W. D. (2024). How product complexity affects consumer adoption of new products: The role of feature heterogeneity and interrelatedness. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 52, 329–348. doi: 10.1007/s11747-023-00933-7. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

69. Venkatachalam, L. (2004). The Contingent Valuation Method: A Review. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 24, 89–124. doi: 10.1016/S0195-9255(03)00138-0. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

70. Del Giudice, V., & De Paola, P. (2016). The Contingent Valuation Method for Evaluating Historical and Cultural Ruined Properties. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 223, 595–600. doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2016.05.360. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

71. Song, L., Xue, Y., Jing, Y., & Zhang, J. (2021). Visitor’s willingness to pay for national park entrance fees in China: Evidence from a contingent valuation method. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18, 13410. doi: 10.3390/ijerph182413410. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

72. Laussel, D., & Resende, J. (2022). When Is Product Personalization Profit-Enhancing? A Behavior-Based Discrimination Model. Management Science, 68(12), 8872–8888. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

73. Ettis, S. A., & Sellami, A. (2025). “I’ll do it for myself”: Enhancing customer value through online product customization experience. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 82. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2024.104143. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

74. Yang, X., Zhu, L., Fu, L., & Lv, J. (2025). A review of AI-based product shape generation technologies: trends, challenges, and future directions. PeerJ Computer Science, e3251. doi: 10.7717/peerj-cs.3251. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• The Impact of Ownership Structure on Dividend Payout Policy of Listed Plantation Companies in Sri Lanka
• Urban Sustainability in North-East India: A Study through the lens of NER-SDG index
• Performance Assessment of Predictive Forecasting Techniques for Enhancing Hospital Supply Chain Efficiency in Healthcare Logistics
• The Fractured Self in Julian Barnes' Postmodern Fiction: Identity Crisis and Deflation in Metroland and the Sense of an Ending
• Impact of Flood on the Employment, Labour Productivity and Migration of Agricultural Labour in North Bihar