Research in Engineering Design

, Volume 28, Issue 3, pp 357–379 | Cite as

Investigating the influence of product perception and geometric features

  • Marta Perez Mata
  • Saeema Ahmed-Kristensen
  • Per Brunn Brockhoff
  • Hideyoshi Yanagisawa
Original Paper


Research in emotional design and Kansei Engineering has shown that aesthetics play a significant role in the appeal of a product. This paper contributes to establishing a methodology to identify the relationships between perceptions, aesthetic features, desire to own and background of consumers. Surveys were conducted with 71 participants to gather their perceptions of 11 vase concepts. Advanced statistical analyses, including mixed models, were applied to allow generalisation of the results beyond the data sample. Significant relations between the desire to own a product and how the product is perceived were found (the desire to own was found to be related to beautiful, expensive, elegant, exciting, feminine, common and dynamic vases), as well as between the perceptions and the parameters describing the form of the vases (a vase was perceived as beautiful if it had many curved lines and was simple and tall). An automated mixed model analysis was conducted and revealed that general rules can be found between aesthetic features, perceptions and ownership, which can apply across gender and culture. The findings include design rules that link aesthetic features with perceptions. These contribute to research as guidelines for design synthesis and can either be implemented via shape grammars or parametric modelling approaches. These rules are also interesting for 3D printing applications, especially important when the consumer is the designer. Some of these design rules are linked to the desire to own a product, they have implications for industry, and they offer guidelines to creating attractive products that people want to own.


Emotional design Kansei Engineering Aesthetics Perception Product form and geometry 



The authors acknowledge Stelton and the industrial designers for provision of the vase concepts and thank the participants who kindly undertook the study and the reviewers for their valuable feedback. The authors also thank Sofiane Achiche for his contribution in the design of the survey.


  1. Achiche S, Ahmed S (2008) Mapping shape geometry and emotions using fuzzy logic. In: ASME international design engineering technical conferences and computers and information in engineering conferenceGoogle Scholar
  2. Achiche S, Ahmed-Kristensen S (2011) Genetic fuzzy modeling of user perception of three-dimensional shapes. Artif Intell Eng Des Anal Manuf 25:93–107. doi: 10.1017/S0890060410000466 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ahmed S, Boelskifte P (2006) Investigation of designers intentions and a users perception of product character. In: Proceedings of the NORD conferenceGoogle Scholar
  4. Bates D, Maechler M, Bolker B, Walker S (2014) lme4: linear mixed-effects models using Eigen and S4_. R package version 1.1-7Google Scholar
  5. Berkowitz EN, Kerin RA, Hartley SW, Rudelius W (1994) Marketing. In: Irwin RD (Ed), 4th edn. Burr RidgeGoogle Scholar
  6. Blijlevens J, Creusen MEH, Schoormans JPL (2009) How consumers perceive product appearance: the identification of three product appearance attributes. Int J Des 3:27–35Google Scholar
  7. Bloch PH (1995) Seeking the ideal form: product design and consumer response. J Mark 59:16–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brunel FF, Kumar R (2007) Design and the big five: linking visual product aesthetics to product personality. Adv Consum Res N Am Conf Proc 34:238–239Google Scholar
  9. Cherry K (2012) Theories of emotion. Major theories of emotion.
  10. Colwill J, Childs THC, de Pennington A, Rait J, Robins TM, Jones K, Workman C et al (2003) Affective design (Kansei Engineering) in Japan: a report from a DTI International Technology Service Mission. Faraday Packaging Partnership, LeedsGoogle Scholar
  11. Choungourian A (1968) Color preferences and cultural variation. Percept Mot Skills 26:1203–1206CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Choungourian A (1969) Color preferences: a cross-cultural and cross-sectional study. Percept Mot Skills 28:801–802CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cochran WG (1977) Sampling techniques. In: Wiley (ed), 3rd edn. New YorkGoogle Scholar
  14. Desmet PMA (2010) Three levels of product emotion. In: Proceedings of the international conference on Kansei engineering and emotion research, pp 238–248Google Scholar
  15. Dwayne Ball A, Tasaki LH (1992) The role and measurement of attachment in consumer behavior. J Consum Psychol 1:155–172. doi: 10.1016/S1057-7408(08)80055-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Goldman A (1995) Aesthetic value. Westview Press, BoulderGoogle Scholar
  17. Govers PCM, Schoormans JPL (2005) Product personality and its influence on consumer preference. J Consum Mark 22:189–197. doi: 10.1108/07363760510605308 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Grieve KW (1991) Traditional beliefs and colour perception. Percept Mot Skills 72:1319–1323. doi: 10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hatcher L (1994) A step-by-step approach to using the SAS system for factor analysis and structural equation modeling. 1st edn. SAS PublishingGoogle Scholar
  20. Hekkert P (2006) Design aesthetics: principles of pleasure in design. Psychol Sci 48:157–172Google Scholar
  21. Hekkert P (2014) Aesthetic responses to design: a battle of impulses. In: Smith T, Tinio P (eds) Cambridge handbook of the psychology of aesthetics and the arts. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 277–299Google Scholar
  22. Hsiao K-A, Chen L-L (2006) Fundamental dimensions of affective responses to product shapes. Int J Ind Ergon 36:553–564. doi: 10.1016/j.ergon.2005.11.009 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hsu S, Chuang M, Chang C (2000) A semantic differential study of designers’ and users’ product form perception. Int J Ind Ergon 25:375–391CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Johnson G (2009) Theories of emotions. In: Internet encyclopedia of philosophy. Accessed 14 Feb 2012
  25. Jolliffe IT (2002) Principal component analysis. Springer, New YorkMATHGoogle Scholar
  26. Jordan P (2000) The four pleasures designing pleasurable products. CRC Press, Boca Raton, pp 11–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kotler P, Rath GA (1984) Design: a powerful but neglected strategic tool. J Bus Strateg 5(2):16–21Google Scholar
  28. Kuznetsova A, Brockhoff PB, Christensen RHB (2015a) LmerTest: tests in linear mixed effect models. R package version 2.0-25.
  29. Kuznetsova A, Christensen RHB, Bavay C, Brockhoff PB (2015b) Automated mixed ANOVA modeling of sensory and consumer data. Food Qual Prefer 40:31–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Lai H-HH, Chang Y-MM, Chang H-CC (2005) A robust design approach for enhancing the feeling quality of a product: a car profile case study. Int J Ind Ergon 35:445–460. doi: 10.1016/j.ergon.2004.10.008 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lawson B (1983) How designers think: the design process demystified. Architectural Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  32. Mathworks (2012) MATLAB: documentation. Accessed 27 April 2012
  33. McManus IC, Jones AL, Cottrell J, McManus IC, Amanda LJ, Jill C (1981) The aesthetics of colour. Perception 10:651–666. doi: 10.1068/p100651 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Myers D (2004) Theories of emotion, 7th edn. Worth Publishers, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  35. Norman DA (2004) Emotional design: why we love (or hate) everyday things. Basic Books, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  36. Ortony A, Turner TJ (1990) What’s basic about basic emotions? Psycol Rev 97:315–331CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Osborn S, Cagan J, Boatwright P (2009) Quantifying aesthetic form preference in a utility function. J Mech Eng 131:61001–61010. doi: 10.1115/1.3116260 Google Scholar
  38. Osgood CE, Suci GJ, Tannenbaum PH (1957) The measurement of meaning. University of Illinois Press, UrbanaGoogle Scholar
  39. Ou LC, Luo MR, Woodcock A, Wright A (2004) A study of colour emotion and colour preference. Part I: colour emotions for single colours. Color Res Appl 29:232–240. doi: 10.1002/col.20010 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Perez Mata M, Ahmed-Kristensen S (2015) Principles for designing for perceptions. In: Proceedings of the 20th international conference on engineering design (ICED 15), vol 9. User-Centred Design Socio-Technical Systems, Milan, 27–30 July 2015, pp 239–248Google Scholar
  41. Perez Mata M, Ahmed-Kristensen S, Yanagisawa H (2013) Perception of aesthetics in consumer Products. In Proceedings of the 19th international conference on engineering design (ICED13). Design for Harmonies, Design Society, vol 7, pp 527–536Google Scholar
  42. Pham B (1999) Design for aesthetics: interactions of design variables and aesthetic properties. In: SPIE IS&T/SPIE 11th annual symposium on electronic imaging’ 99, pp 364–371Google Scholar
  43. Roussos L, Dentsoras A (2013) Formulation and use of criteria for the evaluation of aesthetic attributes of products in engineering design. In: International conference on engineering design ICED13, pp 1–10Google Scholar
  44. Schifferstein HNJ, Zwartkruis-Pelgrim E (2008) Consumer-product attachment: measurement and design implications. Int J Des 2:1–13Google Scholar
  45. Schütte S, Eklund J (2005) Design of rocker switches for work-vehicles: an application of Kansei Engineering. Appl Ergon 36:557–567. doi: 10.1016/j.apergo.2005.02.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. StatSoft I (2013) Electronic statistics textbook. StatSoft, TulsaGoogle Scholar
  47. Ulrich KT (2006) Aesthetics in design. In: Design: Creation of artifacts in society, Pontifica PressGoogle Scholar
  48. Van Bremen EJJ, Knoop WG, Horvath I et al (1998) Developing a methodology for design for aesthetics based on analogy of communication. In: Proceedings of the 1998 ASME design engineering technical conferencesGoogle Scholar
  49. Weinberg P, Gottwald W (1982) Impulsive consumer buying as a result of emotions. J Bus Res 10:43–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Wertheimer M (1938) Laws of organization in perceptual forms: a source book gestalt psychology. Harcourt, Brace and Co., New York, pp 71–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Yanagisawa H, Fukuda S (2005) Interactive reduct evolutional computation for aesthetic design. J Comput Inf Sci Eng 5:1. doi: 10.1115/1.1846055 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Management EngineeringTechnical University of DenmarkKongens LyngbyDenmark
  2. 2.Dyson School of Design EngineeringImperial College LondonLondonUK
  3. 3.Department of Applied Mathematics and Computer ScienceTechnical University of DenmarkKongens LyngbyDenmark
  4. 4.Department of Mechanical EngineeringThe University of TokyoTokyoJapan

Personalised recommendations