Balancing typicality and novelty in ceramic design: A study on consumer aesthetic preferences
Vol 9, Issue 11, 2024, Article identifier:
VIEWS - 135 (Abstract) 35 (PDF)
Abstract
This study addresses the challenge of balancing typicality and novelty in ceramic design to optimise consumer aesthetic preferences. The objective is to analyse how these two dimensions—typicality, which provides familiarity, and novelty, which introduces cognitive interest—influence aesthetic appeal using the Unified Model of Aesthetics (UMA) framework. Employing a sample of 120 Chinese participants, the methodology involved evaluating ten ceramic designs on a seven-point Likert scale. Data analysis was conducted using Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance (ANOVA), partial correlation, and Generalized Estimation Equations (GEE) to assess the roles of typicality and novelty. Results reveal that while typicality strongly influences aesthetic preference, novelty provides moderate cognitive engagement, aligning with the MAYA (Most Advanced Yet Acceptable) principle. Age and gender showed minimal impact on preferences, suggesting design elements as primary determinants of aesthetic appeal. This study underscores the importance of balancing typicality and novelty in ceramic design, offering practical insights for designers to enhance consumer satisfaction through controlled innovative elements.
Keywords
Full Text:
PDFReferences
1. Artacho MA, Alcantara E, Martinez N. Multisensory Analysis of Consumer–Product Interaction During Ceramic Tile Shopping Experiences. Multisens Res. 2020;33(2):213-249. doi:10.1163/22134808-20191391.
2. Toyong N., Abidin S.Z., & Mokhtar S. A Case for Intuition-Driven Design Expertise. In: Chakrabarti A., Poovaiah R., Bokil P., Kant V. (eds) Design for Tomorrow—Volume 3. Smart Innovation, Systems and Technologies. Springer, Singapore; 2021:223. doi:10.1007/978-981-16-0084-5_10.
3. Triyanto T, Mujiyono M, Sugiarto E. Aesthetic Adaptation as a Culture Strategy in Preserving the Local Creative Potentials. Komunitas. 2017;9(2):255-266. doi:10.15294/KOMUNITAS.V9I2.9522.
4. Wang Y, Zhao Q, Chen J, Wang W, Yu S, Yang X. Color Design Decisions for Ceramic Products Based on Quantification of Perceptual Characteristics. Sensors. 2022;22(14):5415. doi:10.3390/S22145415.
5. Li L. Application of visual aesthetic feeling of intelligent computer color in ceramic art design. 2024;13075:446-453. doi:10.1117/12.3026292.
6. Berghman M, Hekkert P. Towards a unified model of aesthetic pleasure in design. New Ideas Psychol. 2017;47:136-144. doi:10.1016/J.NEWIDEAPSYCH.2017.03.004.
7. Qi W, bin Yahaya MF, Tai L, Qianhui R. Integrated The Unified Model of Aesthetics and The Categorical-Motivation Model. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences. 2024;14(2). doi:10.6007/IJARBSS/V14-I2/20754.
8. Yahaya MF. Investigating typicality and novelty through visual and tactile stimuli. Published online 2017. Accessed August 29, 2023. https://researchbank.swinburne.edu.au/items/daaa042a-f94b-4d59-845b-dacbdb6fb349/1/mohd_yahaya_thesis.pdf.
9. Ceballos LM, Hodges NN, Watchravesringkan K. The MAYA principle as applied to apparel products: The effects of typicality and novelty on aesthetic preference. Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management. 2019;23(4):587-607. doi:10.1108/JFMM-09-2018-0116/FULL/PDF.
10. Post RAG, Blijlevens J, Hekkert P. The Influence of Unity-in-Variety on Aesthetic Appreciation of Car Interiors. Published online 2015.
11. Tyagi SCW. Unravelling Novelty. design-cu.jp. Published online 2013. Accessed August 29, 2023. http://design-cu.jp/iasdr2013/papers/1808-1b.pdf.
12. Suhaimi SN. Investigating the Significance of Typicality and Novelty in the Aesthetic Preference of Industrial Products. Published online 2021.
13. Thurgood C, Hekkert P, Blijlevens J. The joint effect of typicality and novelty on aesthetic pleasure for product designs: Influences of safety and risk. Proceedings of the 23rd Biennial Congress of the International Association of Empirical Aesthetics. Published online 2014. Accessed August 29, 2023. https://repository.tudelft.nl/islandora/object/uuid%3A650f4b20-9632-4810-a046-88695b9a01da.
14. Song J, Kwak Y, Kim CY. Familiarity and Novelty in Aesthetic Preference: The Effects of the Properties of the Artwork and the Beholder. Front Psychol. 2021;12:694927. doi:10.3389/FPSYG.2021.694927/BIBTEX.
15. Bianchi M. Novelty, preferences, and fashion: when goods are unsettling. J Econ Behav Organ. 2002;47(1):1-18. doi:10.1016/S0167-2681(01)00162-7.
16. Kalinichenko LS, Wang AL, Mühle C, et al. Neutral ceramidase is a marker for cognitive performance in rats and monkeys. Pharmacological Reports. 2021;73(1):73-84. doi:10.1007/S43440-020-00159-2/FIGURES/4.
17. Jamaludin, M.S., Zulkapli, M.F., & Zainal Abidin, S. The characteristics of form in relation to product emotion. In Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Engineering and Product Design Education: Design Education - Growing Our Future, EPDE 2013. 2013:716-721.
18. Chumiran, M.H., Abidin, S. Z., & Mohamed Kamil, M. J. Pre–Post Observation Research Fosters a Preliminary Study in Product Form Identity. In L., Buck, E. Bohemia, & H. Grierson, Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference on Engineering and Product Design Education, E and PDE 2020. Institution of Engineering Designers, The Design Society; 2020.
19. Suhaimi SN, Kuys B, Barron D, Li N, Rahman Z, Whitfield A. Probing the Extremes of Aesthetics: The Role of Typicality and Novelty in the Aesthetic Preference of Industrial Boilers. 2022;41(1):216-230. doi:10.1177/02762374221094137.
20. Hu Y, Yahaya MF Bin, Na D. Investigating the Aesthetic Appraisal of Computers Based on the Unified Model of Aesthetics (UMA). International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences. 2023;13(9). doi:10.6007/IJARBSS/V13-I9/18475.
21. Mulder-Nijkamp M. Bridging the gap between design and behavioral research: (Re)searching the optimum design strategy for brands and new product innovations. Creativity and Innovation Management. 2020;29(S1):11-26. doi:10.1111/caim.12393.
22. Van Tilburg M, Lieven T, Herrmann A, Townsend C. Beyond “Pink It and Shrink It”: Perceived Product Gender, Aesthetics, and Product Evaluation. Psychol Mark. 2015;32(4):422-437. doi:10.1002/MAR.20789.
23. Oyibo K, Vassileva J. The Interplay of Aesthetics, Usability, and Credibility in Mobile Website Design and the Effect of Gender. Journal on Interactive Systems. 2017;8(2). doi:10.5753/JIS.2017.679.
24. Yeh Y, Peng YY. The Influences of Aesthetic Life Experience and Expertise on Aesthetic Judgment and Emotion in Mundane Arts. International Journal of Art & Design Education. 2019;38(2):492-507. doi:10.1111/JADE.12213.
25. Fugate DL, Phillips J. Product gender perceptions and antecedents of product gender congruence. Journal of Consumer Marketing. 2010;27(3):251-261. doi:10.1108/07363761011038329/FULL/XML.
26. Gilal FG, Zhang J, Gilal NG, Gilal RG. Integrating self-determined needs into the relationship among product design, willingness-to-pay a premium, and word-of-mouth: a cross-cultural gender-specific study. Psychol Res Behav Manag. 2018;11:227-241. doi:10.2147/PRBM.S161269.
27. Soch J, Richter A, Schütze H, et al. A comprehensive score reflecting memory-related fMRI activations and deactivations as potential biomarker for neurocognitive aging. Hum Brain Mapp. 2021;42(14):4478-4496. doi:10.1002/HBM.25559.
28. Steiger TK, Sobczak A, Reineke R, Bunzeck N. Novelty processing associated with neural beta oscillations improves recognition memory in young and older adults. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2022;1511(1):228-243. doi:10.1111/NYAS.14750.
29. Zainal Abidin, S., Sigurjonsson, J., Liem, A., & Keitsch, M. On the role of formgiving in design. New Perspectives in Design Education. In DS 46: Proceeding of the 10th International Conference on Engineering and Product Design Education. Universitat Politecnica de Catalnya: Barcelona, Spain; 2008:365–370.
30. Post R, Nguyen T, Hekkert P. Unity in Variety in website aesthetics: A systematic inquiry. International Journal of Human Computer Studies. 2017;103:48-62. doi:10.1016/j.ijhcs.2017.02.003.
31. Tyagi S. The Influence of Individual Elements on the Aesthetic Pleasure of Furniture Designs. 2017.
32. Honda S, Yanagisawa H. SHAPE GENERATION SYSTEM FOR OPTIMIZING AESTHETIC INTEREST ASSOCIATED WITH NOVELTY AND COMPLEXITY. Proceedings of the Design Society. 2023;3:3155-3164. doi:10.1017/PDS.2023.316.
33. Blijlevens J, Hekkert P, Leder H, Thurgood C, Chen LL, Whitfield TWA. The aesthetic pleasure in design scale: The development of a scale to measure aesthetic pleasure for designed artifacts. Psychol Aesthet Creat Arts. 2017;11(1):86-98. doi:10.1037/aca0000098.
34. Abidin, S.Z., Christoforidou, D., & Liem, A. Thinking and re-thinking verbal protocol analysis in design research. In DS 58-2: Proceedings of ICED 09, the 17th International Conference on Engineering Design. 2009;Vol. 2:1-12.
35. Gómez-Martínez, S., Cámara, C., Gonçalves, M.J., Mirão, J.A.P., & Beltrame, M. Morpho-functional, decorative and petrographic study of Islamic glazed/unglazed ceramics from the cities of Évora, Mértola and Silves. Published online 2023.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.59429/esp.v9i11.3223
(135 Abstract Views, 35 PDF Downloads)
Refbacks
- There are currently no refbacks.
Copyright (c) 2024 Liling Wang, Shahriman Zainal Abidin, Verly Veto Vermol
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.