Probing the Extremes of Aesthetics: The Role of Typicality and Novelty in the Aesthetic Preference of Industrial Boilers

Abstract

There is a long history of humans attempting to understand what drives aesthetic preference. One line of inquiry examines the effects of typicality and novelty on aesthetic responses to designed products. There is currently a wide support towards the ‘Most Advanced Yet Acceptable’ (MAYA) principle, and studies underpinning this have focused on everyday objects. Despite the differences in the function of everyday objects, what they all have in common is their visibility. This do not tell us whether the aesthetic processing will be the same when applied to less visible objects. A study was undertaken using industrial boilers as stimuli and conducted on 7-point Likert scales with participants from Australia and China. The results are unequivocal: novelty makes a medium contribution, while typicality makes a low contribution. This is inconsistent with the notion that typicality is a major determinant of aesthetic preference, suggesting that the current models of aesthetic preference need elaboration.

Keywords

typicality novelty aesthetic preference industrial products product design

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Berghman

Hekkert

(2017). Towards a unified model of aesthetic pleasure in design. New Ideas in Psychology, 47, 136–144. doi:10.1016/j.newideapsych.2017.03.004

Blijlevens

Thurgood

Hekkert

Chen

L. L.

Leder

Whitfield

T. W.

(2017). The aesthetic pleasure in design scale: The development of a scale to measure aesthetic pleasure for designed artifacts. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 11(1), 86. doi:10.1037/aca0000098

Gärling

(1976). The structural analysis of environmental perception and cognition: A multidimensional scaling approach. Environment and Behaviour, 8, 385–415. doi:10.1177/136327527600800304

Hekkert

Snelders

Van Wieringen

P. C. W.

(2003). “Most advanced, yet acceptable”: Typicality and novelty as joint predictors of aesthetic preference in industrial design. British Journal of Psychology, 94, 111–124. doi:10.1348/000712603762842147

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.

Kaplan

Wendt

J. S.

(1972). Rated preference and complexity for natural and urban visual material. Perception and Psychophysics, 12, 354–356. doi:10.3758/BF03207221

Lindgaard

Fernandes

Dudek

Brown

(2006). Attention web designers: You have 50 milliseconds to make a good first impression!. Behaviour & Information Technology, 25(2), 115–126. doi:10.1080/01449290500330448

Lindgaard

Dudek

Sen

Sumegi

Noonan

(2011). An exploration of relations between visual appeal, trustworthiness and perceived usability of homepages. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction (TOCHI, 18(1), 1–30. doi:10.1145/1959022.1959023

Phillips

Norman

J. F.

Beers

A. M.

(2011). “Fechner’s aesthetics revisited”. In Solomon

(Ed.), Fechner's legacy in psychology: 150 years of elementary psychophysics (pp. 183–191). Leiden: Brill.

10.

Rosch

Mervis

C. B.

(1975). Family resemblances: Studies in the internal structure of categories. Cognitive Psychology, 7, 573–605. doi:10.1016/0010-0285(75)90024-9

11.

Rosch

Mervis

C. B.

Gray

W. D.

Johnson

D. M.

Boyes-Braem

(1976). Basic objects in natural categories. Cognitive Psychology, 8(3), 382–439. doi:10.1016/0010-0285(76)90013-X

12.

Rosch

(1988). “Principles of categorization,”. In Collins

Smith

E. E.

(Eds.), Readings in cognitive science: A perspective from psychology and artificial intelligence (pp. 312–322). San Mateo, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.

13.

Rosch

E. H.

(1978). Principles of categorization. Cognition and categorization (Rosch EH.

14.

Thai

C. H.

(2019). Electrophysiological Measures of Aesthetic Processing (Doctoral dissertation, Swinburne University of Technology).

15.

Tractinsky

Katz

A. S.

Ikar

(2000). What is beautiful is usable. Interacting with Computers, 13(2), 127–145. doi:10.1016/S0953-5438(00)00031-X

16.

Tyagi

Thurgood

Whitfield

T. W. A.

(2013). Unravelling Novelty. Paper presented at the the Doctoral Colloquium at IASDR 2013, Tokyo.

17.

Vasudevan

(2013). A quantitative assessment of product form and its impact on customer perception and design education.

18.

Whitfield

T. W. A.

Slatter

P. E.

(1979). The effects of categorisation and proto- typicality on aesthetic choice in a furniture selection task. British Journal of Psychology, 70, 65–75. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8295.1979.tb02144.x

19.

Whitfield

T. W. A.

(1983). Predicting preference for familiar, everyday objects: An experimental confrontation between two theories of aesthetic behaviour. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 3, 221–237. doi:10.1016/S0272-4944(83)80002-4

20.

Whitfield

T. W. A.

(2000). Beyond prototypicality: Toward a categorical-motivation model of aesthetics. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 18(1), 1–11. doi:10.2190/KM3A-G1NV-Y5ER-MR2V

21.

Whitfield

de Destefani

L. R.

(2011). Mundane aesthetics. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 5(3), 291.

22.

Yahaya

(2017). Investigating typicality and novelty through visual and tactile stimuli (Doctoral dissertation, Swinburne University of Technology).