Consumer Perceptions and Preferences on Solid Wood, Wood-Based Panels, and Composites: A Repertory Grid Study


  • Oskar Jonsson
  • Siv Lindberg
  • Anders Roos
  • Mårten Hugosson
  • Mikael Lindström


Attribute elicitation, Kelly's repertory grid, consumer research, content analysis


Knowledge about consumer perception and preferences on solid wood, wood-based panels, and wood-based composites is important for product development and marketing. The aim of this study was to identify attributes and associations that people use to describe different types of wood materials and to explore how they relate to preferences. The study involved nine samples that were evaluated with the Kelly's repertory grid technique and content analysis. Based on respondents' answers, 19 core categories reflecting sample attributes were extracted. General preferences for each sample were also recorded. Principal component analysis generated two factors describing 1) naturalness, wood-likeness, softness, unprocessed origin, living, pleasant, and high value; and 2) solid and homogeneous impression. A third, preliminary factor included categories describing irregular pattern, sleekness, and smoothness. The wood samples were most liked, whereas composites and panels were not appreciated. Preferred core categories were naturalness, wood-likeness, smoothness, living impression, and value. The least liked core categories were processed, hard, and high weight. The implications of the results for product development and marketing are discussed.


Aaker D, Kumar V, Day GS (2000) Marketing research. 7th ed. John Wiley & Sons, NY. 816 pp.nBigsby H, Rai C, Ozanne L (2005) Determining consumer preference for furniture timber. J Forest Prod Business Res 2.nBonebright TL (2001) Perceptual structure of everyday sounds: A multidimensional scaling approach in J Hiipakka, N Zacharov, T Takala, eds. Proc 2001 International Conference on Auditory Display, July 29-August 1, Espoo, Finland (, July 2008).'> SA, Bumgardner MS (2004) Species selection in secondary wood products: Perspectives from different consumers. Wood Fiber Sci 36:319-328.nBrandt JP, Shook SR (2005) Attribute elicitation: Implications in the research context. Wood Fiber Sci 37(1):127-146.nBroman O (2000) Means to measure the aesthetic properties of wood. Doctoral Thesis, Luleå University of Technology, Luleå, Sweden.nBumgardner MS, Bowe SA (2002) Species selection in secondary wood products: Implications for product design and promotion. Wood Fiber Sci 34(3):408-418.nCEI-Bois (2004) Roadmap 2010 for the European wood-working industries. Brussels, Belgium.nClemons CM (2002) Wood-plastic composites in the United States: The interfacing of two industries. Forest Prod J 52(6):10-18.nDonderi DC (1988) Information measurement of distinctiveness and similarity. Percept Psychophys 44(6):576-584.nFowler PA, Hughes JM, Elias RM (2006) Biocomposites: Technology, environmental credentials and market forces. J SciAgric 86:1781-1789.nHåkansson P (2000) Beyond private label—The strategic view on distributor own brands. Publication no 533 EFI, Stockholm School of Economics, Stockholm, Sweden. 349 pp.nJacob A (2006) WPC industry focuses on performance and costs. Reinforced Plastics 50(5):32-33.nJankowicz AD (2004) The easy guide to repertory grids. John Wiley & Sons Ltd, West Sussex, UK. 328 pp.nJonsson R (2005) Studies in the competitiveness of wood—Market segmentation and customer assessment. PhD Thesis, Växjö University, Växjö, Sweden.nJuslin H, Hansen E (2002). Strategic marketing in the global forest industries. Authors Academic Press, Corvallis, OR. 607 pp.nKeller KL (2008) Strategic brand management—Building, measuring, and managing brand equity. 3rd ed. Pearson-Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ. 720 pp.nKelly GA (1963). The psychology of personal constructs. Norton, NY. 190 pp.nMarchal R, Mothe F (1994) Appreciation of oak wood for the French consumer and wood professionals. Ann Sci For 51:213-231.nMohanty AK, Misra M, Drzal LT (2002) Sustainable biocomposites from renewable resources: Opportunities and challenges in green materials world. J Polym Environ 10(1/2):19-26.nMohanty AK, Misra M, Hinrichsen G (2000) Biofibres, biodegradable polymers and biocomposites: An overview. Macromol Mater Eng 276/277: 1-24.nNylander O (1999). The home as architecture. Bok & Bild, Gothenburg, Sweden. 178 pp.nNyrud AQ, Roos A, Rødbotten M (2008) Product attributes affecting consumer preference for residential deck materials. Can J For Res 38:1385-1396.nPakarinen T, Asikainen A (2001) Consumer segments for wooden household furniture. Holz Roh Werkst 59:217-227.nPritchard G (2004) Two technologies merge: Wood plastic composites. Reinforced Plastics 48:26-29.nRoos A, Nyrud AQ (2008) Preferences for pressure treated wooden deck materials. Wood Fiber Sci 40(3):436-447.nScholz SW, Decker R (2007) Measuring the impact of wood species on consumer preferences for wooden furniture by means of the Analytic Hierarchy Process. Forest Prod J 57:23-28.nSolomon MR (2006) Consumer behaviour—Buying, having and being. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ. 654 pp.nTsoumis G (1991). Science and technology of wood—Structure, properties, utilization. Chapman & Hill, NY. 489 pp.nvan Kleef E, van Trijp HCM, Luning P (2005) Consumer research in early stages of product development: A critical review of methods and techniques. Food Qual and Prefer 16:181-201.nWechsler A, Hiziroglu S (2006) Some of the properties of wood-plastic composites. Build Environ 42:2637-2644.n






Research Contributions