ISSN: 2222-6990
Open access
Aesthetics contribute to product usability and sales. Products with aesthetic appeal positively influence purchasing decisions, quality perceptions, and collections. In empirical aesthetics, many different theories and models of aesthetics have been proposed and empirically tested to explore human beings' unified aesthetic criteria and aesthetic psychological mechanisms. However, these findings suggest that aesthetic experience is multidimensional and that many conflicting viewpoints exist. Accordingly, the present review aims to explore the joint effect of two aesthetic models, the Unified Model of Aesthetics (UMA model) and the Categorical-Motivation model (CM model), on aesthetic preferences for product design in order to provide a more comprehensive understanding of the design aesthetics. Several keywords, including 'aesthetic preference,' 'aesthetic pleasure,' 'product design,' and 'product category,' were used to search literature in the online catalog. Sixty-five articles met the inclusion criteria through initial and full-text screening. The purpose is to understand how multiple dimensions of aesthetics and categories of products influence people's emotional responses. A review and critical analysis of previous ground-breaking research, theories, and principles of the levels of the UMA and CM models will be presented. Based on the critical insights, the strengths and limitations of each reviewed theory will be illustrated. Therefore, research gaps in the field are identified, and future research directions are proposed. It is hoped that design practitioners and researchers of empirical aesthetics will gain valuable insights from this review.
Althuizen, N. (2021). Revisiting Berlyne’s inverted U-shape relationship between complexity and liking: The role of effort, arousal, and status in the appreciation of product design aesthetics. Psychology & Marketing, 38(3), 481–503. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.21449
Berghman, M., & Hekkert, P. (2017). Towards a unified model of aesthetic pleasure in design. New Ideas in Psychology, 47, 136–144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.newideapsych.2017.03.004
Berlyne, D. E. (1960). Conflict, arousal, and curiosity. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Berlyne, D. E. (1966). Curiosity and Exploration: Animals spend much of their time seeking stimuli whose significance raises problems for psychology. Science, 153(3731), 25-33.
Berlyne, D. E. (1970). Novelty, complexity, and hedonic value. Perception & Psychophysics, 8(5), 279–286. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03212593
Berlyne, D. E., & Boudewijns, W. J. (1971). Hedonic effects of uniformity in variety. Canadian Journal of Psychology / Revue Canadienne de Psychologie, 25(3), 195–206. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0082381
Blijlevens, J., Carbon, C.-C., Mugge, R., & Schoormans, J. P. L. (2012). Aesthetic appraisal of product designs: Independent effects of typicality and arousal: Effects of typicality and arousal. British Journal of Psychology, 103(1), 44–57. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8295.2011.02038.x
Blijlevens, J., & Hekkert, P. P. M. (2014). Influence of social connectedness and autonomy on aesthetic pleasure for product designs. Proceedings of the 23rd Biennial Congress of the International Association of Empirical Aesthetics, 22-24 Augustus 2014, New York, USA. https://repository.tudelft.nl/islandora/object/uuid%3Ac01c9e65-0bc4-45df-b255-ef6192c4b77b
Blijlevens, J., & Hekkert, P. P. M. (2015). ‘ Autonomous, yet connected’: A social design principle explaining consumers’ aesthetic appreciation of products. 2015 Academy of Marketing Conference-the Magic in Marketing, 1–8.
Blijlevens, J., & Hekkert, P. (2019). “Autonomous, yet Connected”: An esthetic principle explaining our appreciation of product designs. Psychology & Marketing, 36(5), 530–546. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.21195
Boselie, F., & Leeuwenberg, E. (1985). Birkhoff revisited: Beauty as a function of effect and means. The American journal of psychology, 1-39.
Bourdieu, P. (1993). The field of cultural production: Essays on art and literature. New York: Columbia University Press.
Cohen, J. B. (1990). Attitude, affect, and consumer behavior. Affect and social behavior, 152-206.
Cupchik, G. C., & Berlyne, D. E. (1979). The perception of collative properties in visual stimuli. Scandinavian journal of psychology, 20(1), 93-104.
Cupchik, G. C., Spiegel, S., & Shereck, L. (1996). Unity in the diversity of aesthetic response. Visual Arts Research, 1-10.
Coughlan, P., & Mashman, R. (1999). Once is not enough: Repeated exposure to and aesthetic evaluation of an automobile design prototype. Design Studies, 20(6), 553–563. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0142-694X(99)00007-1
Desmet, P., & Hekkert, P. (2007). Framework of product experience. International Journal of Design, 1(1), 57–66.
Fechner, G. T. (1876). Preschool of Aesthetics. Wiesbaden: Breitkopf & Härtel.
Gu, F., Zhao, D., & Zhao, J. (2018). Trendiness and Emotion, Two Key Factors for Predicting Aesthetic Preference on Automotive Interior Form Design Among Chinese Consumers. In P.-L. P. Rau (Ed.), Cross-Cultural Design. Methods, Tools, and Users (pp. 412–422). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-92141-9_32
Hashmi, H. B. A., Shu, C., Haider, S. W., Khalid, A., & Munir, Y. (2021). Bridging the Gap Between Product Design and Customer Engagement: Role of Self-Determined Needs Satisfaction. SAGE Open, 11(4), 21582440211056598. https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440211056598
Hekkert, P., & Leder, H. (2008). Product aesthetics. Product Experience, 259–285.
Hekkert, P. (2014). Aesthetic responses to design: A battle of impulses. In P. P. L. Tinio & J. K. Smith (Eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of the Psychology of Aesthetics and the Arts (1st ed., pp. 277–299). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139207058.015
He, Y., Li, X., Lin, J. J. Wang, l. (2022). A review and prospect of research on visual elements in brand aesthetics. Foreign Economics & Management, 44(08).
Hu, H., Liu, Y., Lu, W. F., & Guo, X. (2022). A quantitative aesthetic measurement method for product appearance design. Advanced Engineering Informatics, 53, 101644. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aei.2022.101644
Landwehr, J. R., Wentzel, D., & Herrmann, A. (2013). Product design for the long run: Consumer responses to typical and atypical designs at different stages of exposure. Journal of Marketing, 77(5), 92–107.
Leder, H., & Nadal, M. (2014). Ten years of a model of aesthetic appreciation and aesthetic judgments. British Journal of Psychology, 105(4), 443–464.
Leder, H., Carbon, C. C., & Ripsas, A. L. (2006). Entitling art: Influence of title information on understanding and appreciation of paintings. Acta psychologica, 121(2), 176-198.
Lee, E.-J. (2021). Impact of visual typicality on the adoption of wearables. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 20(3), 762–775. https://doi.org/10.1002/cb.1904
Li, S., Zhang, P., & Wood, E. (2024). Familiarity and novelty in aesthetic appreciation: The case of intangible cultural heritage in China. Annals of Tourism Research, 105, 103696. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2023.103696
Ceballos, L. M., Hodges, N., & Watchravesringkan, K. (2021). Consumer preference and apparel products: Investigating the role of the Centrality of Visual Product Aesthetics concept. International Journal of Fashion Design, Technology and Education, 14(3), 325–337. https://doi.org/10.1080/17543266.2021.1940309
Lindgaard, G., & Whitfield, T. W. A. (2004). Integrating aesthetics within an evolutionary and psychological framework. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 5(1), 73–90. https://doi.org/10.1080/1463922031000086726
Loewy, R. (2002). Never leave well enough alone. JHU Press.
Logkizidou, M. (2021). The neglected unity-in-variety principle: A holistic rather than a single-factor approach in conceptualising a visual merchandise display. Journal of Global Fashion Marketing, 12(4), 309–326. https://doi.org/10.1080/20932685.2021.1930097
Loos, S., Wolk, S. V. D., Graaf, N. D., Hekkert, P., & Wu, J. (2022). Towards intentional aesthetics within topology optimization by applying the principle of unity-in-variety. Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization, 65(7), 185. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00158-022-03288-9
Mayer, S., & Landwehr, J. R. (2018). Objective measures of design typicality. Design Studies, 54, 146–161.
Nadal, M., & Ureña, E. (2021). One hundred years of Empirical Aesthetics: Fechner to Berlyne (1876–1976) [Preprint]. PsyArXiv. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/c92y7
Nasar, J. L. (1994). Urban design aesthetics: The evaluative qualities of building exteriors. Environment and behavior, 26(3), 377-401.
Mata, M., Ahmed-Kristensen, S., Brockhoff, P. B., & Yanagisawa, H. (2017). Investigating the influence of product perception and geometric features. Research in Engineering Design, 28, 357-379.
Post, R., da Silva, O., & Hekkert, P. (2015). The Beauty In Product-Service-Systems. IASDR2015-Interplay, Brisbane, Australia, 1717–1729.
Post, R. A. G., Blijlevens, J., & Hekkert, P. (2016). ‘To preserve unity while almost allowing for chaos’: Testing the aesthetic principle of unity-in-variety in product design. Acta Psychologica, 163, 142–152.
Post, R., Nguyen, T., & Hekkert, P. (2017). Unity in Variety in website aesthetics: A systematic inquiry. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 103, 48–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2017.02.003
Post, R. A. G., Blijlevens, J., Hekkert, P., Saakes, D., & Arango, L. (2023). Why we like to touch: Consumers’ tactile esthetic appreciation explained by a balanced combination of unity and variety in product designs. Psychology & Marketing, 40(6), 1249–1262. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.21798
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), 364–382. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327957pspr0804_3
Reimann, M., Zaichkowsky, J., Neuhaus, C., Bender, T., & Weber, B. (2010). Aesthetic package design: A behavioral, neural, and psychological investigation. Journal of consumer psychology, 20(4), 431-441.
Rosch, E. (1978). Principles of categorization. In Cognition and categorization (pp. 27–48). Routledge. https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/edit/10.4324/9781032633275-4/principles-categorization-eleanor-rosch
Sasaki, H., Kato, T., & Yanagisawa, H. (2023). Quantification of ‘novelty’ based on free-energy principle and its application for ‘aesthetic liking’ for industrial products. RESEARCH IN ENGINEERING DESIGN. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00163-023-00422-6
Seifert, C., & Chattaraman, V. (2020). A picture is worth a thousand words! How visual storytelling transforms the aesthetic experience of novel designs. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 29(7), 913-926.
Shi, A., Huo, F., & Hou, G. (2021). Effects of Design Aesthetics on the Perceived Value of a Product. FRONTIERS IN PSYCHOLOGY, 12, 670800. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.670800
Suhaimi, S. N. (2021). Investigating the Significance of Typicality and Novelty in the Aesthetic Preference of Industrial Products.
Suhaimi, S. N., Kuys, B., Barron, D., Li, N., Rahman, Z., & Whitfield, A. (2023). Probing the Extremes of Aesthetics: The Role of Typicality and Novelty in the Aesthetic Preference of Industrial Boilers. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 41(1), 216–230. https://doi.org/10.1177/02762374221094137
Thurgood, C., Hekkert, P., & Blijlevens, J. (2014). The joint effect of typicality and novelty on aesthetic pleasure for product designs: Influences of safety and risk. Congress of the International Association of Empirical Aesthetics.
Toufani, S., Stanton, J. P., & Chikweche, T. (2017). The importance of aesthetics on customers’ intentions to purchase smartphones. Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 35(3), 316-338.
Tversky, A. (1977). Features of similarity. Psychological review, 84(4), 327.
Tyagi, S. (2017). The influence of individual elements on the aesthetic pleasure of furniture designs.
Tyagi, S., Thurgood, C., & Whitfield, T. A. (2013). Unravelling Novelty. Consilience and Innovation in Design: Proc of the 5th IASDR Conf. Tokyo. http://design-cu.jp/iasdr2013/papers/1808-1b.pdf
Tyan-Yu, W., Chueh-Yung, T., & Cian-Yu, S. (2017). Unity enhances product aesthetics and emotion. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 59, 92–99. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ergon.2017.02.003
Veryzer, R. W., Jr., & Hutchinson, J. W. (1998). The Influence of Unity and Prototypicality on Aesthetic Responses to New Product Designs. Journal of Consumer Research, 24(4), 374–394. https://doi.org/10.1086/209516
Vogel, T., Ingendahl, M., & Winkielman, P. (2021). The architecture of prototype preferences: Typicality, fluency, and valence. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 150(1), 187–194. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000798
Wang, R. (2024). A Review of the Impact of Aesthetic Experience on Consumers’ Purchase Decisions. Highlights in Business, Economics and Management, 27, 312–318. https://doi.org/10.54097/c23kp344
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. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 18(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.2190/KM3A-G1NV-Y5ER-MR2V
Whitfield, T. W. A. (2005). Aesthetics as Pre-linguistic Knowledge: A Psychological Perspective. Design Issues, 21(1), 3–17. https://doi.org/10.1162/0747936053103002
Whitfield, T. W. A. (2009). Theory Confrontation: Testing the Categorical-Motivation Model. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 27(1), 43–59. https://doi.org/10.2190/EM.27.1.c
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. (2017). Investigating typicality and novelty through visual and tactile stimuli.
Gao, Y., Yahaya, M. F. Bin, Tai, L.-C., Rahman, A. R. B. A., & Ma, J. (2024). The Joint Effect of the Unified Model of Aesthetics and Categorical-Motivation Model on Aesthetic Preferences for Product Design: A Review. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, 14(9), 639–655.
Copyright: © 2024 The Author(s)
Published by HRMARS (www.hrmars.com)
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