INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)  
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XI November2025  
User Value Priorities in Product Personalization and their  
Implications for Designing Future Additive Manufacturing Enabled  
Personalization Tools  
Syahibudil Ikhwan Abdul Kudus1*, Nurin Aishah Mazalan1, Mastura Muhammad Taha1, Muhammed  
Nafis Osman Zahid2, Yudhi Ariadi3  
1 Fakulti Teknologi dan Kejuruteraan Industri dan Pembuatan, Universiti Teknikal Malaysia Melaka,  
Hang Tuah Jaya, 76100 Durian Tunggal, Melaka, Malaysia.  
2 Fakulti Teknologi Kejuruteraan Pembuatan dan Mekatronik, Universiti Malaysia Pahang Al-Sultan  
Abdullah, 26600 Pekan, Pahang, Malaysia  
3 School of Engineering, University of Warwick, Coventry CV4 7AL, United Kingdom.  
*Corresponding Author  
DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.47772/IJRISS.2025.91100399  
Received: 26 November 2025; Accepted: 03 December 2025; Published: 12 December 2025  
ABSTRACT  
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.  
Keywords-product personalisation, additive manufacturing, consumer value perception, co-design engagement,  
personalisation tool design  
INTRODUCTION  
Product personalisation has become increasingly prominent as consumer expectations shift towards products  
that reflect individual preferences, identities, and functional needs. Unlike conventional mass-produced goods,  
personalised products offer an opportunity for users to obtain designs that resonate more deeply with their  
personal tastes and lifestyles [1], [2]. When a product communicates aspects of a user’s personality or self-  
image, it strengthens the emotional bond between the user and the artefact through feelings of pride, joy,  
attachment, and personal meaning [3], [4], [5], [6]. Such emotional responses indicate that personalisation is  
not merely a design trend but a meaningful mechanism for enhancing user-product relationships.  
Recent consumer behaviour research shows that the desire for individuality and distinctiveness remains a  
strong motivation behind personalisation. Products that enable users to express who they are through form,  
Page 5047  
www.rsisinternational.org  
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)  
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XI November2025  
colour, symbols, or narrative elements help strengthen identity communication and self-expression [7], [8], [9].  
Contemporary branding practices similarly reflect the rise of mass-personalisation such as the Heinz “Draw  
Ketchup” campaign [10], which allowed users to personalise product packaging while reinforcing brand  
relevance and emotional connection. These developments highlight a broader cultural movement in which  
personalisation acts as a facilitator of identity expression, emotional attachment, and perceived uniqueness.  
Beyond passive customisation, studies emphasise the importance of user involvement and participation in the  
creation process [11], [12], [13]. Self-designed products offer value not only because of the outcome but also  
because of the design journey itself. As individuals engage in creative decisions and express their preferences  
more directly, they experience greater enjoyment, psychological ownership, and personal fulfilment [14], [15].  
This experiential dimension becomes particularly significant when users feel that their cognitive effort  
translates into a more personally meaningful product [16]. Research also suggests that users tend to appreciate  
personalised outcomes more when they perceive their input as valuable and visible within the final artefact  
[17], [18].  
The emergence of additive manufacturing (AM) has transformed the landscape of personalisation by removing  
barriers associated with conventional manufacturing. AM offers unparalleled design freedom, supports  
geometric complexity, and enables low-volume production without the need for expensive tooling [19], [20].  
As AM technologies become more accessible, end-users can now participate in personalisation through digital  
platforms, parametric tools, and easy-to-use interfaces that modify three-dimensional product models [21],  
[22]. These capabilities make AM an attractive technology for delivering both aesthetic and functional  
personalisation, ranging from customised ergonomics and performance adjustments to unique surface textures  
and decorative elements [23]. Therefore, AM acts not only as a manufacturing method but also as a facilitator  
of user-driven design, enabling personalisation to take place at unprecedented levels of depth and precision.  
To understand how users evaluate personalised products, consumer value theory provides a necessary  
conceptual lens. Value is multidimensional, shaped by functional, expressive, aesthetic, experiential, and  
symbolic factors [24], [25], [26], [27]. In the context of personalised products, Merle et al. [28], [29] propose a  
taxonomy that distinguishes between product-related value and experiential value. These categories encompass  
six key dimensions: functional value, personal-expressive value, sensory value, unique value, hedonic value,  
and co-design value. This taxonomy is particularly relevant to AM-enabled personalisation, where users can  
directly manipulate digital models and participate in meaningful stages of design, thereby influencing both the  
utility and experiential appeal of the final product.  
However, despite extensive conceptual development, empirical evidence on how end-users assess personalised  
products, especially those produced through AM, remains limited. Existing studies often highlight  
inconsistencies, where aesthetic and expressive attributes may generate high interest but do not always increase  
willingness to pay [16], [29], [30]; functional enhancements are reliable purchase drivers, yet their relationship  
with hedonic or co-design value is not well understood [31], [32], [33]; and although active participation  
strengthens emotional connection, it may also introduce cognitive burden for some users, thereby reducing  
perceived value [14], [34], [35].  
In addressing this gap, the present study investigates end-users’ reflections across the six value components  
and examines their willingness to pay and purchase intention for personalised consumer products. This study  
provides empirical evidence on how users interpret value when presented with actual personalised examples.  
The study aims not only to measure value perception but also to identify which value components are most  
influential in shaping user decisions. This understanding is critical for informing the design of future AM-  
enabled personalisation tools and user-support systems. By identifying the value attributes that users prioritise,  
the study lays a foundation for developing design methods, toolkits, and digital interfaces that can help end-  
users make informed, meaningful, and satisfying personalisation choices.  
LITERATURE REVIEW  
Product personalisation has gained widespread attention as consumers increasingly seek products that reflect  
their unique identities, preferences, and lifestyles. The literature shows that personalised products allow  
Page 5048  
www.rsisinternational.org  
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)  
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XI November2025  
individuals to obtain designs that embody personal taste and communicate individuality [1]. When a product  
mirrors a user’s personality or self-image, it symbolically reinforces identity and strengthens the emotional  
relationship between the user and the artefact [3], [8], [36]. This emotional connection, often referred to as  
product attachment, emerges from positive emotions such as pride, joy, nostalgia, and excitement [5], [37],  
[38], [39]. As users derive pleasure from creating or using a product, they form stronger psychological bonds  
and perceive the product as more meaningful.  
A major driver of value in personalisation is the opportunity to create uniqueness, allowing users to  
differentiate themselves from others. Franke and Schreier [7] argue that self-designed products enhance the  
capacity to express distinctive characteristics, thereby increasing symbolic and identity-related value.  
Personalisation thus becomes a vehicle for self-expression, authenticity, and individuality. Contemporary  
branding strategies reflect this trend; for example, Heinz’s “Draw Ketchup” campaign enabled users to create  
personalised bottle labels, reinforcing personal meaning through mass-personalised offerings [10].  
Collectively, these studies highlight personalisation as a mechanism for strengthening identity expression,  
emotional attachment, and perceived uniqueness; factors that underpin value creation in personalised consumer  
products.  
Beyond passive forms of customisation, the literature emphasises the significance of active user involvement  
in the design process. Self-designed products create additional layers of value, including preference fit, process  
enjoyment, creative fulfilment, and psychological ownership [14]. Value arises not only from the final product  
but also from the design experience itself, where individuals invest cognitive effort and personal intention to  
create products that align closely with their needs [40]. Users tend to assign greater value to products when  
they enjoy the design process or see their personal effort reflected in the outcome [15].  
Research also shows that self-design enhances pride of authorship, psychological ownership, and affective  
commitment [41], [42], [43]. However, studies caution that not all products are suitable for individualisation  
and that personalisation delivers varying levels of value depending on product category, user characteristics,  
and design complexity [15], [44]. Understanding the specific dimensions of value derived from personalisation  
is therefore essential for assessing its effectiveness.  
AM is widely recognised as a transformative enabler of product personalisation due to its design freedom,  
geometric flexibility, and capacity for low-volume, customised production [45], [46]. Recent operational  
studies support this position by demonstrating that AM significantly lowers the cost and complexity of  
producing design variants, thereby enabling economically feasible mass personalisation and enhancing  
responsiveness to individual consumer requirements [45], [47].  
AM allows users to modify digital CAD files by adjusting shapes, forms, textures, colours, and decorative  
features, thereby enabling personalisation at levels unattainable through traditional manufacturing methods  
[20], [48], [49]. AM technologies also enhance accessibility, allowing non-expert users to personalise products  
using parametric interfaces and design toolkits [21], [22], [49].  
The flexibility of AM supports both aesthetic and functional personalisation: users can incorporate unique  
motifs and colours while also tailoring ergonomics, structural performance, or functional features. Because  
AM eliminates the need for tooling, design changes do not incur significant cost penalties, making one-off or  
small-batch personalisation economically feasible [50]. These characteristics position AM as a powerful tool  
for industries seeking to enhance user engagement, differentiate offerings, and provide customised value on  
demand [51].  
Consumer value theory provides a foundational perspective for understanding how users assess personalised  
products, emphasising that value is multidimensional and shaped by functional, symbolic, emotional,  
experiential, and sensory factors [24], [52], [53]. In personalisation contexts, Merle et al. [28], [29] classify  
perceived value into two overarching categories: product value and experiential value, each comprising distinct  
components.  
Functional value reflects improvements in utility and performance that personalised products offer over  
Page 5049  
www.rsisinternational.org  
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)  
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XI November2025  
standard alternatives [54], [55]. Personal-expressive value captures the extent to which a product conveys an  
individual’s identity or self-image [9], [56], [57]. Sensory value relates to aesthetic appeal, visual pleasure, and  
sensory delight [25], [58], [59]. Unique value reflects the symbolic importance of owning a product that stands  
out from mass-produced items, reinforcing feelings of distinctiveness [54], [60], [61].  
On the experiential side, hedonic value refers to enjoyment, entertainment, and emotional gratification in the  
personalisation experience [31], [62], [63], while co-design value arises from users’ active participation and  
creative involvement in shaping a product [29], [64]. Together, these six components form the value taxonomy  
adopted for personalised AM products, integrating product-related and experience-related benefits into a  
comprehensive framework. This taxonomy is particularly salient in AM contexts, where users can directly  
manipulate digital models, shape design outcomes, and derive experiential value from meaningful co-design  
engagement.  
Despite extensive conceptual advancements in product personalisation research, empirical evidence on how  
consumers evaluate personalised products, especially those produced using AM remains limited. Although  
prior studies identify multiple value sources, findings frequently present inconsistencies. Aesthetic and  
personal-expressive features often generate strong interest but do not consistently increase willingness to pay  
[29], [65]. Functional improvements are recognised as reliable purchase drivers, yet their interaction with  
hedonic enjoyment or co-design engagement remains unclear [31], [32], [66]. Furthermore, active participation  
in self-design strengthens emotional connection but may impose cognitive effort that reduces perceived value  
for some users [14], [34].  
Scholars also note that not all products are equally suited for personalisation, as perceived benefits may vary  
according to product type, user characteristics, and design complexity [2], [15], [67]. These inconsistencies  
underscore the need for empirical investigation into how consumers perceive different dimensions of value  
such as functional, expressive, sensory, unique, hedonic, and co-design within AM-enabled personalisation  
contexts. Addressing this gap, the present study evaluates end-users’ reflections on these value components  
and examines their willingness to pay and purchase intentions using a structured value taxonomy specifically  
developed for personalised AM products.  
METHODOLOGY  
This study employed a cross-sectional survey design to examine how end-users perceive the value of  
personalised consumer products. A structured online questionnaire was used to collect quantitative data on six  
value components derived from a validated value taxonomy for personalised products, they are: Functional,  
Personal-expressive, Sensory, Unique, Hedonic, and Co-design value.  
In addition to value perception, the survey captured willingness to pay (WTP) using the Contingent Valuation  
Method (CVM) [68], [69], [70]. A closed-ended WTP format was adopted, enabling respondents to select from  
predetermined price ranges, an approach recommended in earlier valuation research for improving clarity and  
response reliability.  
The online questionnaire was delivered using a secure, web-based survey system that enabled broad  
dissemination and efficient remote participation. The final instrument contained 23 questions addressing  
awareness of product personalisation, evaluations of the six value dimensions, willingness to pay, purchase  
intention, and demographic information. Likert-scale items were used to capture perceived importance across  
value components, while paired-comparison formats were included to examine respondents’ preferences and  
attitudes toward personalised product attributes.  
Participants were recruited through convenience sampling, reflecting the exploratory nature of the study and  
the need for broad access to a diverse respondent pool. Recruitment was conducted by distributing invitations  
through email, social networks, professional groups, and university contacts. This approach allowed wide  
reach across multiple countries, with most participants originating from Malaysia and the United Kingdom and  
additional responses obtained from Thailand, Indonesia, and Taiwan. The survey was self-administered,  
allowing respondents to participate at their convenience without interference from the researcher. Measures  
Page 5050  
www.rsisinternational.org  
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)  
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XI November2025  
were taken to ensure that the data collected reflected participants’ genuine perceptions, including standardised  
question presentation and restrictions on incomplete submissions.  
All responses were exported from the survey system for descriptive statistical analysis. The analysis focused  
on summarising frequency distributions and central tendencies associated with perceived value components,  
willingness to pay, and purchase intention. Given the exploratory nature of the study and the modest sample  
size, the analysis was not intended to support statistical generalisation; rather, it aimed to identify indicative  
trends, relative value perceptions, and emerging patterns within the respondent group. The study generated  
empirical data on how users evaluate personalised products and which value dimensions influence their  
decisions. This provides a basis for interpreting the significance of the six value components and their role in  
shaping interest, emotional engagement, and willingness to pay in personalisation contexts.  
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION  
The survey results provide insights into how end-users evaluate personalised consumer products and how  
different value components influence their WTP and purchase intention. The demographic distribution showed  
that 84% of respondents were between 21 and 50 years old (n=101), representing a broad and active consumer  
segment. Most participants were non-designers, with 78% reporting that their job roles did not involve product  
design, indicating that the responses reflect perspectives from typical end-users rather than design  
professionals. Additionally, 62% indicated prior experience with personalisation activities, suggesting that the  
majority were sufficiently familiar with the concept to provide informed and meaningful reflections.  
Value Reflection on Personalised Function Features  
To assess functional value, respondents were shown two comparative examples: a standard mass-produced  
fixie bike and a personalised fixie bike. The standard bike represented a generic, off-the-shelf model priced at  
£300, with no user-specific adjustments. In contrast, the personalised version was described as a bicycle  
tailored to the rider’s body measurements, comfort, ergonomics, and safety, with additional options for  
bespoke paintwork and component upgrades. Respondents were then asked how much extra they would be  
willing to pay for enhanced functional features beyond the standard £300 baseline.  
Findings from Table 1 reveal a varied distribution of willingness to pay. A notable proportion of respondents  
(26%) were unwilling to pay any additional cost for functional personalisation. However, 25% were willing to  
pay up to £50 above the standard price, and 20% indicated willingness to pay between £51 and £100. Only a  
very small fraction (0.09 on the weighted scale) expressed readiness to pay more than £200 for functional  
enhancements. These results suggest that although functional improvements were appreciated, respondents  
were financially cautious and only willing to pay a premium when personalisation offered clear and tangible  
performance benefits [71].  
Table I WTP extra for personalised function features  
WTP (£)  
Personalised features  
Personalised saddle design for seating comfort.  
Bespoke paintwork andfinishes onthe frame.  
Personalised text printed on the frame and rims.  
12%  
42%  
55%  
47%  
29%  
32%  
23%  
13%  
9%  
8%  
11%  
2%  
6%  
3%  
1%  
4%  
2%  
1%  
Tailoring bike size fit to end user’s body  
measurement.  
10%  
22%  
23%  
24%  
9%  
12%  
Page 5051  
www.rsisinternational.org  
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)  
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XI November2025  
Carbon fibre frame forlightweight and  
competitive riding.  
20%  
22%  
11%  
15%  
23%  
22%  
22%  
19%  
8%  
16%  
12%  
Electronicshifter ongears andbrakes  
components.  
10%  
Stronger and lighter wheel set.  
19%  
0.26  
19%  
0.25  
26%  
0.20  
10%  
0.14  
13%  
0.07  
13%  
0.09  
Average score  
Despite these moderate WTP levels, purchase intention remained high when functional personalisation was  
priced within a reasonable range. As shown in Fig. 1, 71% of respondents indicated that they were either  
“likely” or “very likely” to purchase the personalised fixie bike if the added cost remained acceptable. This  
reinforces functional value as the strongest driver of personalisation interest: users show clear enthusiasm for  
performance-enhancing features, but their willingness to pay is highly dependent on perceived necessity and  
affordability.  
Fig. 1 Purchase intention for product with personalised functional features  
Very likely  
40%  
30%  
16%  
20%  
Very unlikely  
More likely  
17%  
10%  
0%  
9%  
20%  
38%  
Somewhat likely  
Likely  
Value Reflection on Personalised Personal-Expression Features  
To examine personal-expressive value, respondents were shown visual examples of two products: a standard  
knee-high boot and a personalised knee-high boot (custom colours, material combinations, monograms, and  
Page 5052  
www.rsisinternational.org  
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)  
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XI November2025  
stylistic accents). The standard boot represented an off-the-shelf fashion item, whereas the personalised version  
highlighted how custom aesthetic and expressive elements could reflect the wearer’s identity and individual  
taste. Respondents were asked to compare both designs and indicate their level of interest and perceived value.  
Results in Table 2 below showed strong appreciation for expressive personalisation, with a noticeable  
proportion of respondents preferring the personalised boot for its aesthetic differentiation and identity-related  
appeal. However, WTP for expressive enhancements remained moderate, consistent with literature suggesting  
that symbolic or identity-related attributes enhance desirability but do not strongly influence price elasticity.  
Respondents valued the personalised boot’s ability to communicate personality and style, yet many indicated  
they would only pay a small premium above the cost of standard footwear. This reflects the broader trend  
observed in personalisation research: expressive appeal increases emotional engagement but is not always  
sufficient to justify a high monetary premium.  
Respondents appreciated products that conveyed individuality, yet the WTP data, where 47% to 69% selected  
“no extra cost” for expressive features demonstrates that expressive enhancements alone do not justify  
substantial price increases. In line with broader personalisation research, identity expression increases  
desirability but rarely motivates users to pay significant premiums unless expressive features are combined  
with Functional features emerged or exclusivity. Overall, expressive personalisation operates as a meaningful  
driver of interest and emotional resonance but remains a secondary influence on spending behaviour when  
compared to functional value.  
Table 2 WTP extra for personalised personal-expression features  
WTP (£)  
Personalised features  
Thicker outsole to get more robust shape.  
54%  
69%  
29%  
17%  
14%  
10%  
1%  
3%  
1%  
1%  
1%  
0%  
Changing the front toe shape to be more rectangular for  
more muscular appearance.  
Extra padding and tighter opening to get more appealing  
leg shape.  
47%  
66%  
28%  
24%  
20%  
9%  
3%  
0%  
0%  
1%  
2%  
0%  
Changing from typical laces to metal type buckle with  
spike design to give stronger character.  
Chrome finishing at outsole for additional character.  
Average score  
68%  
0.61  
18%  
0.23  
11%  
0.13  
3%  
0%  
0%  
0.02  
0.01  
0.01  
Despite the modest WTP reported for personal-expressive features, respondents’ purchase intention remained  
relatively positive when expressive personalisation was offered at a reasonable price. While most participants  
indicated that they would only pay a minimal premium for expressive enhancements to the knee-high boots  
such as unique colours, decorative buckles, or personalised finishes, the majority still showed interest in  
buying the product if the additional cost was low. This trend aligns clearly with the pattern observed in Fig. 2,  
where the largest proportions of respondents reported being either “somewhat likely” (32%) or “likely” (27%)  
to purchase a product that reflects their self-expression, even though 34% stated they were “very unlikely” and  
none selected “very likely”. These results indicate that influence on economic decision-making is constrained  
by affordability.  
Page 5053  
www.rsisinternational.org  
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)  
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XI November2025  
Fig. 2 Purchase intention for product with personalised personal-expression features  
Very likely  
35%  
30%  
25%  
34%  
20%  
15%  
Very unlikely  
More likely  
10%  
5%  
7%  
0%  
0%  
32%  
Somewhat likely  
27%  
Likely  
Value Reflection On Personalised Aesthetic Features  
Sensory value was examined using a comparison between a standard mass-produced table lamp and a  
personalised table lamp offering enhanced visual and aesthetic appeal. The standard lamp was described as  
having a simple shade design, traditional steel-and-fabric construction, and typical off-the-shelf features.  
Whereas the personalised lamp was presented with bespoke shapes, high-quality polymer materials, and  
thematic aesthetic elements tailored to individual taste. Respondents were told that the standard lamp cost £70  
and were asked how much extra they would be willing to pay for specific aesthetic enhancements.  
As shown in Table 3, the strongest WTP category was ≤ £20, which recorded the highest average score (0.33),  
followed by £21–£40 (0.23) and £41–£60 (0.17). Feature-specific responses show similar trends: 37% would  
pay up to £20 to choose attractive colours, 32% would pay up to £20 for creative shade shapes, and 31% would  
pay up to £20 for pleasant-looking materials. Although a small proportion of respondents indicated willingness  
to pay more than £60 for certain features, the data overall reflect a moderate but consistent readiness to pay  
extra for aesthetic personalisation.  
Table 3 WTP extra for personalised aesthetic features  
WTP (£)  
Personalised features  
Fabricated from fine and very pleasant looking material.  
Able to choose attractive and beautiful colours.  
18%  
14%  
31%  
37%  
26%  
25%  
15%  
14%  
6%  
8%  
4%  
2%  
Page 5054  
www.rsisinternational.org  
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)  
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XI November2025  
Personalised shade design with creative and delightful shape.  
End-users determine their own shade size.  
13%  
19%  
0.16  
32%  
32%  
0.33  
24%  
16%  
0.23  
15%  
22%  
0.17  
12%  
6%  
4%  
5%  
Average score  
0.08  
0.04  
Importantly, purchase intention results reinforce this positive attitude. Fig. 3 demonstrates that 78% of  
respondents were at least “likely” to purchase a product that enhanced beauty and sensory appeal through  
personalisation. These findings indicate that aesthetic value is a strong contributor to interest and purchase  
likelihood, even though respondents remain financially cautious and generally favour low-to-moderate price  
increments for aesthetic enhancements.  
Fig. 3 Purchase intention for product with personalised aesthetic features  
Very likely  
50%  
45%  
40%  
35%  
30%  
25%  
20%  
26%  
Very unlikely  
More likely  
15%  
10%  
5%  
5%  
5%  
0%  
17%  
47%  
Somewhat likely  
Likely  
Value Reflection On Personalised Unique Features  
The evaluation of Unique Value explored respondents’ willingness to pay for personalised features that  
enhance symbolic individuality, using a family transporter vehicle as the case example. Participants were  
shown side-by-side examples of a standard mass-produced transporter characterised by standard colours,  
generic body kits, and typical accessories, and a personalised version featuring bespoke colours, creative  
decorations, distinctive graphics, and enhanced accessories designed to convey individuality. Respondents  
were informed that the standard model cost £15,000 and were asked how much additional cost they would be  
willing to pay for specific unique features.  
As shown in Table 4, a substantial proportion of respondents were not willing to pay anything extra across all  
listed features, reflected in the highest average score for the “No Extra” category (0.42). However, meaningful  
segments were willing to pay modest premiums for certain features. For instance, 40% of respondents  
indicated willingness to pay up to £500 for bespoke paintwork and finishes, while features such as sportier  
Page 5055  
www.rsisinternational.org  
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)  
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XI November2025  
wheels, adjustable suspension, and customised accessories showed distributed interest across the £500-£1500  
range. These patterns suggest that although uniqueness alone is not universally valued, respondents are open to  
paying extra when the personalised feature clearly enhances character or distinctiveness in a way they find  
personally relevant.  
Table 4 WTP extra for personalised unique features  
WTP (£)  
Personalised features  
Personalised text on the body.  
71%  
32%  
55%  
27%  
27%  
37%  
43%  
0.42  
18%  
40%  
22%  
25%  
22%  
29%  
23%  
0.26  
5%  
6%  
7%  
0%  
5%  
0%  
2%  
1%  
2%  
4%  
1%  
1%  
0.02  
Bespoke paintwork and finishes on the body.  
Personalised graphic design motifs.  
Larger and sportier wheel set.  
14%  
15%  
27%  
26%  
17%  
18%  
0.17  
3%  
4%  
10%  
11%  
10%  
12%  
0.08  
9%  
Adjustable wheel suspension system.  
Customised roof rack and ladders.  
Customised side door step.  
10%  
6%  
3%  
Average score  
0.05  
Consistent with this, purchase intention for uniquely personalised products was encouraging with Fig. 4 shows  
that 62% of respondents were at least likely to purchase a product featuring unique personalised attributes.  
Together, these findings indicate that Unique Value contributes positively to desirability when distinctiveness  
is meaningful, yet it remains a secondary driver of spending compared with functional or performance-related  
enhancements.  
Fig. 4 Purchase intention for product with personalised unique features  
Very likely  
40%  
30%  
20%  
27%  
7%  
Very unlikely  
More likely  
20%  
10%  
0%  
18%  
28%  
Likely  
Somewhat likely  
Page 5056  
www.rsisinternational.org  
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)  
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XI November2025  
Perception Of Interaction During Co-Design Process  
Respondents’ perceptions of interaction during the co-design process were assessed by asking them to rate the  
importance of several interaction attributes when personalising a product, compared with the minimal  
involvement typically associated with a standard design process. The results in Fig. 5 show that all interaction  
attributes were viewed as moderately important, with scores ranging from 2.82 to 3.33 on a five-point scale.  
The highest average score of 3.33 was the attribute describing a self-designed product that provides a closer fit  
to individual needs, indicating that respondents place strong value on personalisation when it enhances  
relevance and functional suitability [72]. This was followed by average score of 3.22 for the attribute reflecting  
active participation as a co-designer, showing that users appreciate having a meaningful role in shaping design  
outcomes. Creative involvement was also positively evaluated, with the attribute relating to making creative  
choices receiving a score of 3.18. The lowest score of 2.82 was recorded for the attribute describing users  
independently altering designs themselves, suggesting that while respondents value participation, they do not  
necessarily seek full autonomous control over all design aspects. Nevertheless, these results indicate that users  
value interaction during personalisation as a source of relevance, engagement, and personal influence, while  
still preferring a guided or collaborative approach rather than complete self-design autonomy.  
Fig. 5 Interaction attributes during personalisation process  
5
4
3.18  
3.33  
3.22  
3
2.82  
2
1
0
End-user makes creative choice  
End-user alters designs  
themselves  
Self-designed product for closer  
fit to individual needs  
End-user actively participates as  
co-designer  
Interaction attributes of personalisation process  
Respondents were also asked about their willingness to participate in a creative cooperation process with  
designers when personalising their own products. This involves a deeper level of engagement than simple  
interaction, requiring collaborative effort, design feedback, and shared decision-making. As shown in Fig. 6,  
the majority expressed positive intentions toward such cooperation. A total of 22% indicated that they were  
Page 5057  
www.rsisinternational.org  
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)  
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XI November2025  
definitely willing to engage in creative collaboration, while a further 41% stated that they were somewhat  
willing to be involved in this process. Only a minority expressed uncertainty or reluctance. These results  
suggest that respondents view collaborative co-design as a meaningful part of the personalisation experience,  
where cooperation with designers enhances confidence, provides necessary technical support, and increases the  
perceived value of the final design. The findings further indicate that interaction during personalisation  
stimulates user interest, motivating them to take part in shaping the product rather than relying solely on  
designers to complete the design. Hence, creative cooperation is perceived as enriching and beneficial,  
reinforcing co-design value as an important experiential dimension of personalised consumer products.  
Fig. 6 Willingness to participate in creative cooperation process  
Definitely yes  
50%  
40%  
30%  
22%  
20%  
41%  
Not at all  
Somewhat yes  
10%  
0%  
5%  
8%  
24%  
Not really  
Undecided  
Building on the results of interaction and cooperation, respondents were also asked about their future intention  
to purchase personalised products that require user interaction during the design process. This question was  
posed based on their earlier reflections on interaction and creative engagement. The results shown in Fig. 7  
indicate that respondents generally held positive attitudes toward purchasing such products, suggesting that  
interaction-based personalisation is not only acceptable but potentially desirable to many users. Although the  
figure itself presents the distribution visually, the accompanying explanation emphasises that purchase  
intention aligns with respondents’ earlier willingness to participate in design activities. This indicates that users  
appreciate personalised products that involve their input, provided that the interaction is purposeful, engaging,  
and supported by designers when necessary. The findings imply strong market relevance for interactive  
personalised products, as consumers appear open to purchasing items that require their involvement,  
particularly when such involvement strengthens personal meaning, uniqueness, and experiential satisfaction.  
Page 5058  
www.rsisinternational.org  
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)  
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XI November2025  
Fig. 7 Purchase intention for personalised product that requires interaction  
Very likely  
40%  
30%  
20%  
10%  
0%  
16%  
33%  
Very unlikely  
More likely  
5%  
18%  
28%  
Somewhat likely  
Likely  
Reflections On Enjoyment, Pleasure, and Emotional Fulfilment  
Hedonic value was assessed by examining respondents’ reflections on enjoyment, pleasure, and emotional  
fulfilment during the personalisation process. As shown in Fig. 8, respondents rated all entertainment-related  
attributes as important when personalising a product, with average scores ranging from 3.38 to 3.64 on a five-  
point scale. The highest rating, at 3.64, was given to the sense of accomplishment derived from owning a  
design they had created, followed closely by the pleasure of “doing your own things” at 3.63 and the desire to  
have a fun experience at 3.61. Other attributes such as enjoying autonomous decision-making (3.52), having  
new and varied experiences (3.44), fulfilling creative desires (3.41), and taking part in enjoyable activities  
(3.38) were also scored positively. These results indicate that respondents associated product personalisation  
with meaningful emotional experiences, including creativity, satisfaction, novelty, and enjoyment. In  
comparison with the standard design process, they perceived personalisation as more stimulating and  
emotionally rewarding.  
Page 5059  
www.rsisinternational.org  
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)  
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XI November2025  
Fig. 8 The importance of entertainment attributes during personalisation process  
Involved in enjoyable activities  
3.38  
3.41  
3.44  
Fulfil the creative desires by doing things  
Having a new experience every time when doing things  
Enjoy making your own decision without constraints  
3.52  
To have a fun experience  
To feel pleasure by doing your own things  
The feeling of accomplishment in owning design  
3.61  
3.63  
3.64  
0
1
2
3
4
5
Average score  
Respondents were then asked whether they would be willing to participate in personalisation specifically to  
experience the enjoyment of creating something. The findings in Fig. 9 show strong support for this dimension  
of value with 21% were definitely willing to take part in personalisation for enjoyment, while a further 43%  
were somewhat willing. Only a small proportion reported limited willingness. These results confirm that  
hedonic motivations such as fun, excitement, autonomy, and creative satisfaction are major contributors to user  
engagement, encouraging users to persevere in refining their designs until they achieve a satisfying outcome.  
Without hedonic enjoyment, the personalisation process risks being perceived as dull or overly effortful, which  
would limit active user involvement.  
Page 5060  
www.rsisinternational.org  
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)  
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XI November2025  
Fig. 9 Willingness to participate in personalisation to experience the enjoyment of creating things  
Definitely yes  
45%  
40%  
35%  
30%  
25%  
20%  
15%  
10%  
5%  
21%  
43%  
Somewhat yes  
Not at all  
2%  
0%  
8%  
26%  
Not really  
Undecided  
Finally, respondents were asked about their intention to purchase personalised products that enable them to  
enjoy the act of creating. As shown in Fig. 10, the majority expressed positive purchase intentions 14%  
reported being very likely to buy such products, 41% reported being more likely, and 32% reported being  
likely to do so. These results demonstrate that hedonic value has a strong influence on potential market  
behaviour. When personalisation offers enjoyable activities and satisfying creative experiences, users are more  
motivated not only to participate in the design process but also to purchase the final product. Overall, hedonic  
value emerges as a critical experiential component that enhances appeal, encourages participation, and  
strengthens purchase intention in personalised consumer products.  
Fig. 10 Purchase intention of personalised product that enables them to enjoy creating things  
Very likely  
50%  
40%  
30%  
14%  
20%  
10%  
0%  
41%  
Very unlikely  
More likely  
3%  
10%  
32%  
Somewhat likely  
Likely  
Page 5061  
www.rsisinternational.org  
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)  
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XI November2025  
Reflections On The Value of Product Personalisation  
The study revealed that respondents attributed positive value across all six components of the value taxonomy,  
indicating broad acceptance of the benefits associated with personalisation. As illustrated in Figure 11, hedonic  
value emerged as the strongest contributor, reflecting respondents’ appreciation for the enjoyment, novelty,  
and emotional stimulation associated with engaging in the personalisation experience. This was closely  
followed by functional value, suggesting that improvements in utility and performance remain highly relevant  
and continue to serve as an important justification for choosing a personalised product over a standard  
alternative. Co-design value also received a favourable evaluation, indicating that respondents value the  
opportunity to play an active role in shaping the product, even if they prefer guided rather than fully  
autonomous involvement.  
Fig. 11 Respondents evaluation on the overall value of product personalisation  
6
3.93  
4
3.74  
3.95  
3.69  
3.57  
3.78  
2
0
Value components  
On the product-value side, sensory value and personal-expressive value were both rated positively,  
demonstrating the contribution of aesthetics, visual appeal, and identity expression to overall value  
perceptions. Although not the highest-scoring components, they nonetheless reinforced the idea that  
personalised products offer emotional and self-relevant benefits beyond functional enhancement. Unique  
value, while slightly lower than the other components, still received a positive evaluation. It suggests that  
while distinctiveness is desirable, users do not prioritise uniqueness as strongly as enjoyment or functionality  
unless it is paired with meaningful aesthetic or expressive features. Henceforth, the value profile indicates that  
enjoyment (hedonic), usefulness (functional), and creative involvement (co-design) form the core of perceived  
value in personalised products, while aesthetic, expressive, and uniqueness attributes act as complementary  
enhancers that strengthen desirability and personal relevance.  
These results not only highlight the relative importance of each value dimension but also offer actionable  
guidance for the development of AM-enabled personalisation tools. By understanding which components users  
value most developers can prioritise features that support enjoyable interaction, functional relevance, and  
guided participation within future personalisation interfaces.  
Page 5062  
www.rsisinternational.org  
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)  
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XI November2025  
CONCLUSIONS  
This study examined how end users evaluate personalised consumer products across six value dimensions,  
namely functional, personal-expressive, aesthetic, unique, hedonic, and co-design value. The findings  
demonstrate that consumer value is multidimensional, with functional and hedonic value emerging as the most  
influential determinants of willingness to pay and purchase intention. Respondents were more willing to invest  
in personalisation when it delivered meaningful improvements in fit, utility, or performance, and they placed  
high importance on the enjoyment, creativity, and sense of accomplishment derived from the personalisation  
process. Co-design value was also positively perceived, especially when users were able to engage in  
meaningful collaboration without the burden of full design autonomy.  
Personal-expressive, aesthetic, and unique values enhanced interest and emotional attachment but had weaker  
influence on actual spending behaviour. These dimensions became economically relevant only when supported  
by functional improvements or engaging and enjoyable design activities. Therefore, these insights refine  
current understanding of value formation in personalised AM products and indicate which value dimensions  
should be prioritised when designing personalised offerings. Crucially, the identification of these value  
priorities provides a practical foundation for developing AM-enabled personalisation tools that support  
meaningful, guided, and value-driven user participation.  
The findings also present several opportunities for future research. Product-specific investigations can clarify  
how value perceptions differ across categories such as wearables, home décor, accessories, or ergonomic  
devices. Experimental methods such as conjoint analysis or choice modelling can further examine the trade-  
offs users make between functional, aesthetic, and experiential attributes. Future studies should also explore  
how value evolves during live personalisation sessions, particularly when users engage with parametric  
configurators, visualisation platforms, augmented reality (AR) interfaces, or guided digital toolkits. Broader  
demographic sampling, including cultural and age diversity, would strengthen generalisability and reveal how  
different user groups interpret and prioritise value.  
In addition to future research directions, this study offers several practical recommendations. First, AM-  
enabled personalisation tools should prioritise functionality by enabling clear, intuitive adjustments to fit,  
ergonomics, and performance-driven features. Second, hedonic value should be embedded through interactive,  
visually engaging, and enjoyable design workflows that support creativity without overwhelming the user.  
Third, co-design features should emphasise guided personalisation through preset templates, constraint-based  
modelling, real-time feedback, and designer-supported pathways rather than unrestricted autonomy. Fourth,  
aesthetic, expressive, and uniqueness features should be treated as secondary enhancements that complement,  
rather than replace, functionally grounded modifications.  
Finally, the integration of artificial intelligence (AI) into AM-enabled personalisation tools represents a  
promising direction. AI-driven generative design, automated design suggestions, preference-learning  
algorithms, and adaptive recommendation systems can support users by reducing cognitive load while  
increasing the quality and relevance of personalised outcomes. These capabilities can help align user intentions  
with feasible AM outputs, enhance design confidence, and improve the overall personalisation experience.  
Ultimately, this study provides a foundational empirical understanding of how consumers evaluate  
personalised products and identifies functional benefit, enjoyment, and guided design involvement as the core  
determinants of perceived value. These insights can guide the development of more effective personalisation  
strategies, user-support systems, AM-based product offerings, and emerging AI-assisted personalisation tools  
in future applications.  
ACKNOWLEDGMENT  
The authors would like to thank Ministry of Higher Education of Malaysia and Universiti Teknikal Malaysia  
Melaka for funding this research through Fundamental Research Grant Scheme (FRGS), no.  
FRGS/1/2024/SS02/UTEM/02/3.  
Page 5063  
www.rsisinternational.org  
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)  
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XI November2025  
REFERENCES  
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.  
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.  
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.  
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  
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.  
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.  
7. Franke, N., & Schreier, M. (2008). Product Uniqueness As A Driver Of Customer Utility In Mass  
Customization. Marketing Letters, 19(2), 93–107.  
8. Dumitrescu, A. (2010). A Model of Product Personality. Proceedings of the 4th European Computing  
Conference, 88–93.  
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.  
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.  
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.  
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.  
13. Kohtala, C., Hyysalo, S., & Whalen, J. (2020). A taxonomy of users’ active design engagement in the  
21st century. Design Studies, 67, 27–54.  
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.  
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.  
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.  
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.  
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.  
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  
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.  
21. Oulasvirta, A., & Blom, J. (2007). Motivations in personalisation behaviour. Interacting with  
Page 5064  
www.rsisinternational.org  
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)  
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XI November2025  
Computers, 20(1), 1–16.  
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.  
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.  
24. Smith, J. B., & Colgate, M. (2007). Customer Value Creation: A Practical Framework. The Journal of  
Marketing Theory and Practice, 15(1), 7–23.  
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.  
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.  
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.  
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.  
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.  
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.  
31. Chang, W.-C., & Wu, T.-Y. (2007). Exploring Types And Characteristics Of Product Forms.  
International Journal of Design, 1(1), 3–14.  
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.  
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.  
34. Krause, F., & Frank, N. (2023). Understanding Consumer Self-Design Abandonment: A Dynamic  
Perspective. Journal of Marketing, 88(2), 79–98.  
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.  
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.  
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.  
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.  
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.  
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.  
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,”  
Page 5065  
www.rsisinternational.org  
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)  
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XI November2025  
International Journal of Research in Marketing, 31(4), 395–408.  
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.  
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.  
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.  
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.  
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.  
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.  
48. Reeves, P., Hague, R., & Tuck, C. (2014). Additive Manufacturing & 3D Printing Masterclass  
Introductions & house keeping. Econolyst.  
http://www.econolyst.co.uk/resources/documents/files/AM_Masterclass_7th_July.pdf  
49. 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.  
50. 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.  
51. 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.  
52. 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.  
53. 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.  
54. Schreier, M. (2006). The Value Increment Of Mass-Customized Products: An Empirical Assessment.  
Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 327(4), 317–327.  
55. 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.  
56. Norman, D. A. (2005). Emotional Design: Why We Love (or Hate) Everyday Things. New York: Basic  
Books.  
57. 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.  
58. Wu, T.-Y. (2008). The Effect Of Product Forms On Consumer’s Pleasurable Affection. National Taiwan  
University of Science and Technology.  
59. 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.  
60. 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.  
61. 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–  
Page 5066  
www.rsisinternational.org  
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)  
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XI November2025  
162. doi: 10.1108/SJME-11-2023-0309.  
62. Choo, H. J., Moon, H., Kim, H., & Yoon, N. (2020). Luxury Customer Value. Journal of Fashion  
Marketing and Management, 16(1), 81–101.  
63. 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.  
64. 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.  
65. 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.  
66. 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.  
67. 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.  
68. Venkatachalam, L. (2004). The Contingent Valuation Method: A Review. Environmental Impact  
Assessment Review, 24, 89–124. doi: 10.1016/S0195-9255(03)00138-0.  
69. 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.  
70. 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.  
71. Laussel, D., & Resende, J. (2022). When Is Product Personalization Profit-Enhancing? A Behavior-  
Based Discrimination Model. Management Science, 68(12), 8872–8888.  
72. 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.  
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2024.104143.  
doi:  
73. 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.  
Page 5067  
www.rsisinternational.org