Published: 2014-06-11
ISBN: 978-91-7519-276-5
ISSN: 1650-3686 (print), 1650-3740 (online)
Competing products in the market are not widely different in terms of technical levels. Instead; their major difference lies in aesthetics and design; which are also the decisive factors of purchase decisions. Therefore; understanding consumers’ aesthetic appreciation of industrial products is an important issue in the field of aesthetics and its application to consumption-related affairs. Former research indicated that people choose to stay away from sharp products and prefer curvilinear products. But what if the products under comparison are all curvilinear? Will people’s preference for the same product vary with different curvatures? Do individual differences exist between people? Through this study; it has been discovered that people indeed have a preference for curvilinear products. However; regarding preference for a product with different curvatures; it does not follow that preference increases with the continued increase of curvature. At the peak; the rising trend will start to fall down. In addition; after the peak of preference appears; there is a significant difference in the major curvature between the participants with a design background and the ordinary participants. While the ordinary participants’ preference for curvilinear products does decline; preference of the participants with a design background declines sharply. The above finding may serve as a reference for designers who may consider the application and timing of curves in designing product shapes in the future.
Aronoff; Joel; Woike; Barbara A; & Hyman; Lester M. (1992). Which are the stimuli in facial displays of anger and happiness? Configurational bases of emotion recognition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology; 62(6); 1050.
Augustin; D; & Leder; Helmut. (2006). Art expertise: a study of concepts and conceptual spaces. Psychology Science; 48(2); 135.
Bar; Moshe; & Neta; Maital. (2006). Humans prefer curved visual objects. Psychological Science; 17(8); 645-648.
Bar; Moshe; & Neta; Maital. (2007). Visual elements of subjective preference modulate amygdala activation. Neuropsychologia; 45(10); 2191-2200.
Berlyne; Daniel E. (1974). Studies in the new experimental aesthetics: Steps toward an objective psychology of aesthetic appreciation: Hemisphere.
Carbon; Claus-Christian. (2010). The cycle of preference: Long-term dynamics of aesthetic appreciation. Acta Psychologica; 134(2); 233-244. doi: 10.1016/j.actpsy.2010.02.004
Dazkir; Sibel S; & Read; Marilyn A. (2012). Furniture forms and their influence on our emotional responses toward interior environments. Environment and Behavior; 44(5); 722-732.
Demirbilek; O.; & Sener; B. (2003). Product design; semantics and emotional response.Ergonomics; 46(13-14); 1346-1360.
Fenko; Anna; Schifferstein; Hendrik N. J.; & Hekkert; Paul. (2010). Looking hot or feeling hot: What determines the product experience of warmth? Materials & Design; 31(3); 1325-1331. doi:
10.1016/j.matdes.2009.09.008
Girard; Sylvie; & Johnson; Hilary. (2009). Developing affective educational software products: Sorémo; a new method for capturing emotional states. Journal of Engineering Design; 20(5);
493-510. doi: 10.1080/09544820903158827
Gordon; Kate. (1909). Esthetics. New York: Henry Holt.
Guthrie; Gerald; & Wiener; Morton. (1966). Subliminal perception or perception of partial cue with pictorial stimuli. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology; 3(6); 619.
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.
Imamoglu; Çagri. (2000). Complexity; liking and familiarity: architecture and non-architecture turkish students’assessments of traditional and modern house facades. Journal of Environmental Psychology; 20(1); 5-16.
Jacobsen; Thomas; & Höfel; L. (2002). Aesthetic judgments of novel graphic patterns: Analyses of individual judgments. Perceptual and Motor Skills; 95(3); 755-766.
Latto; Richard; Brain; Douglas; & Kelly; Brian. (2000). An oblique effect in aesthetics: Homage to
Mondrian (1872-1944). Perception; 29(8); 981-988.
Leder; Helmut; & Carbon; Claus-Christian. (2005). Dimensions in appreciation of car interior design. Applied Cognitive Psychology; 19(5); 603-618. doi: 10.1002/acp.1088
Leder; Helmut; Tinio; Pablo P L; & Bar; Moshe. (2011). Emotional valence modulates the preference for curved objects. Perception; 40(6); 649-655. doi: 10.1068/p6845
Liu; Yili. (2003). Engineering aesthetics and aesthetic ergonomics: theoretical foundations and a dual-process research methodology. Ergonomics; 46(13-14); 273-1292.
Lu; Yen-nien; & Ho; Chun-heng. (2013). Difference Curvature of Product Shape Evoked Emotional Variation in Preferences. Paper presented at the 5th International Congress of International Association of Society of Design Research; Tokyo.
Miller; E.A. (1972). Interaction of vision and touch in conflict and nonconflict form perception tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology; 96(1); 114.
Reber; R; Schwarz; N; & Winkielman; P. (2004). Processing fluency and aesthetic pleasure: Is beauty in the perceiver’s processing experience? Personality and Social Psychology Review; 8(4);
364.
Rock; I.; & Victor; J. (1964). Vision and touch: An experimentally created conflict between the two senses. Science; 143 (3606); 594-596.
Schifferstein; H.N.J.; & Desmet; P.M.A. (2007). The effects of sensory impairments on product experience and personal well-being. Ergonomics; 50(12); 2026-2048.
Schneider; W; Eschman; A; & Zuccolotto; A. (2002). E-Prime user’s guide. Pittsburgh: PA: Psychology Software Tools; Inc.
Silvia; Paul J; & Barona; Christopher M. (2009). Do people prefer curved objects? Angularity; expertise; and aesthetic preference. Empirical Studies of the Arts; 27(1); 25-42.
Tinio; Pablo PL; & Leder; Helmut. (2009). Just how stable are stable aesthetic features? Symmetry; complexity; and the jaws of massive familiarization. Acta Psychologica; 130(3); 241-250.
