ISSN: 2222-6990
Open access
This study aims to explore the relationship between consumer preferences and shape typicality cognition through the Unified Model of Aesthetic (UMA), with the goal of addressing the gaps in current research on computer products in terms of cognition, perception, social aspects, and aesthetic responses. The preferences of 100 participants for 10 computer images will be measured on a 7-point Likert scale using four sets of two-way adjectives (typical-novel, unified-variety, social belonging-individuality, and like-dislike). The data will undergo several statistical analyses via the IBM SPSS Statistics software. The findings shall demonstrate the role and significance of typicality, novelty, and other independent variables in influencing aesthetic preferences. The objectives of this study are: (1) To investigate whether the principles of unity and variety contribute to the aesthetic appreciation of computers at the perceptual level; (2) To identify the role of typicality and novelty in consumers' aesthetic preferences for computers; and (3) To explore how social connectedness and autonomy affect the aesthetic pleasure of computers. A thorough review of past studies on Project UMA revealed several gaps that must be addressed. Primarily, not many studies have looked on the relationship between typicality and preference at the cognitive level of computers. Secondly, limited research has explored the perceptual and social levels. This includes testing the relationship between the uniform appearance of computers and popularity at the perceptual level and whether computers can foster a sense of group belonging among the participants at the social level. Previous research demonstrated that people prefer typicality or familiarity and often associate familiarity with safety (Hekkert et al., 2003). Additionally, security stands as an important factor in this study where the research objective shall prove the relationship between security and aesthetic preference, which has great significance for computer appearance design and development.
Whitfield, A. T. W. (2005). Aesthetics as pre-linguistic knowledge: A psychological perspective. Design Issues, 21(1), 3–17. https://doi.org/10.1162/0747936053103002
Berlyne, D. E. (1970). Novelty, complexity, and hedonic value. Perception & Psychophysics, 8(5), 279–286. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03212593/METRICS
Bhandari, U., Chang, K., & Neben, T. (2019). Understanding the impact of perceived visual aesthetics on user evaluations: An emotional perspective. Information & Management, 56(1), 85–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.IM.2018.07.003
Bornioli, A., Parkhurst, G., & Morgan, P. L. (2019). Affective experiences of built environments and the promotion of urban walking. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 123, 200–215. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.TRA.2018.12.006
Cabanac, M. (1979). Sensory Pleasure. Https://Doi.Org/10.1086/410981, 54(1), 1–29. https://doi.org/10.1086/410981
CUPCHIK, G. C., & BERLYNE, D. E. (1979). The perception of collative properties in visual stimuli. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 20(1), 93–104. https://doi.org/10.1111/J.1467-9450.1979.TB00688.X
Damasio, A. R. (1994). Descartes’ error and the future of human life. Scientific American, 271(4), 144. https://doi.org/10.1038/SCIENTIFICAMERICAN1094-144
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2009). The “What” and “Why” of Goal Pursuits: Human Needs and the Self-Determination of Behavior. Https://Doi.Org/10.1207/S15327965PLI1104_01, 11(4), 227–268. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327965PLI1104_01
Eysenck, H. J., & Iwawaki, S. (2010). The Determination of Aesthetic Judgment by Race and Sex. Http://Dx.Doi.Org/10.1080/00224545.1975.9923256, 96(1), 11–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224545.1975.9923256
Geke D. S. Ludden;Hendrik N. J. Schifferstein;Paul Hekkert. (n.d.). Beyond Surprise: A Longitudinal Study on the Experience of Visual-Tactual Incongruities in Products. www.ijdesign.org
Gibson, J. J. (1962). PSYCHOLOGICAL REVIEW OBSERVATIONS ON ACTIVE TOUCH ’.
Hartel, G. F.-B. &, Leipzig, undefined, & 1876, undefined. (n.d.). Preschool of aesthetics. Aenneb.Github.Io. Retrieved August 29, 2023, from https://aenneb.github.io/files/Preshool%20of%20aesthetics%20by%20Aenne%20A%20Brielmann.pdf
Hekkert, P. (2006). Design aesthetics: principles of pleasure in design. Psychology Science, 48(2), 157–172.
Hekkert, P., Snelders, D., & 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(1), 111–124. https://doi.org/10.1348/000712603762842147
Higgins, E. T., Shah, J., & Friedman, R. (1997). Emotional Responses to Goal Attainment: Strength of Regulatory Focus as Moderator. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72(3), 515–525. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.72.3.515
Lynn, M., & Harris, J. (1997). The Desire for Unique Consumer Products: A New Individual Differences Scale.
Maslow. (1943). Preface to Motivation Theory?: Psychosomatic Medicine. Psychosomatic Medicine 5. https://journals.lww.com/psychosomaticmedicine/Abstract/1943/01000/Preface_to_Motivation_Theory.12.aspx
Miller, C. A., & Hübner, R. (2020). Two routes to aesthetic preference, one route to aesthetic inference. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 14(2), 237–249. https://doi.org/10.1037/ACA0000241
Palmer, S. E., Schloss, K. B., & Sammartino, J. (2013). Visual Aesthetics and Human Preference. Https://Doi.Org/10.1146/Annurev-Psych-120710-100504, 64, 77–107. https://doi.org/10.1146/ANNUREV-PSYCH-120710-100504
Reber, R., Schwarz, N., & Winkielman, P. (2004). Processing Fluency and Aesthetic Pleasure: Is Beauty in the Perceiver’s Processing Experience? Http://Dx.Doi.Org/10.1207/S15327957pspr0804_3, 8(4), 364–382. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327957PSPR0804_3
Rosch, E. (1978). Principles of categorization. https://philpapers.org/rec/ROSPOC
Snyder, C. R., & Fromkin, H. L. (1977). Abnormality as a positive characteristic: The development and validation of a scale measuring need for uniqueness. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 86(5), 518–527. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-843X.86.5.518
Snyder, C. R., & Lopez, S. J. (n.d.). Handbook of Positive Psychology.
Suhaimi, S. N. (2021). Investigating the Significance of Typicality and Novelty in the Aesthetic Preference of Industrial Products.
Thurgood, C., Hekkert ppmhekkert, P., & Blijlevens jannekeblijlevens, J. (2014a). 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, New York (USA), 22-24 Aug. 2014. https://repository.tudelft.nl/islandora/object/uuid%3A650f4b20-9632-4810-a046-88695b9a01da
Thurgood ClementineThurgood, C., Hekkert ppmhekkert, P., & Blijlevens jannekeblijlevens, J. (2014b). 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, New York (USA), 22-24 Aug. 2014. https://repository.tudelft.nl/islandora/object/uuid%3A650f4b20-9632-4810-a046-88695b9a01da
Tyagi, S., Thurgood, C., … T. W. I. in D. P. of, & 2013, undefined. (n.d.). Unravelling Novelty. Design-Cu.Jp. Retrieved August 29, 2023, from http://design-cu.jp/iasdr2013/papers/1808-1b.pdf
Weber. (n.d.). Zusätze zur Lehre vom Baue und den verrichtungen der Geschlechtsorgane - Catalog - UW-Madison Libraries. Retrieved August 29, 2023, from https://search.library.wisc.edu/catalog/9910067735102121
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(3), 221–237. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0272-4944(83)80002-4
Whitfield, T. W. A. (2000). Beyond Prototypicality: Toward a Categorical-Motivation Model of Aesthetics. Http://Dx.Doi.Org/10.2190/KM3A-G1NV-Y5ER-MR2V, 18(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.2190/KM3A-G1NV-Y5ER-MR2V
Whitfield, T. W. A. (2008). Theory Confrontation: Testing the Categorical-Motivation Model. Http://Dx.Doi.Org/10.2190/EM.27.1.c, 27(1), 43–59. https://doi.org/10.2190/EM.27.1.C
Whitfield, T. W. A., & de Destefani, L. R. (2011). Mundane aesthetics. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 5(3), 291–299. https://doi.org/10.1037/A0023038
Whitfield, T. W. A., & Slatter, P. E. (1979). The effects of categorization and prototypicality on aesthetic choice in a furniture selection task. British Journal of Psychology, 70(1), 65–75. https://doi.org/10.1111/J.2044-8295.1979.TB02144.X
Yahaya, M. F. (2017). Investigating typicality and novelty through visual and tactile stimuli. https://researchbank.swinburne.edu.au/items/daaa042a-f94b-4d59-845b-dacbdb6fb349/1/mohd_yahaya_thesis.pdf
In-Text Citation: (Hu et al., 2023)
To Cite this Article: Hu, Y., Yahaya, M. F. Bin, & Na, D. (2023). Investigating the Aesthetic Appraisal of Computers Based on the Unified Model of Aesthetics (UMA). International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, 13(9), 888–897.
Copyright: © 2023 The Author(s)
This article is published under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) license. Anyone may reproduce, distribute, translate and create derivative works of this article (for both commercial and non-commercial purposes), subject to full attribution to the original publication and authors. The full terms of this license may be seen at: http://creativecommons.org/licences/by/4.0/legalcode