Abstract
The aim was to propose a testing procedure that allows measuring ecological valid judgments as a tool for selecting e.g. surface materials in the design process. Precise measures are essential for evaluation processes for example in design research and applied studies. Contextual effects in form of top-down processes often lead to biases in measures such as quality or liking judgments. We examined contextual effects of such factors by varying specific instructions, which were based on everyday life scenarios. We also investigated the stability and ecological validity of evaluations with the focus on a multisensory approach involving vision plus touch, touch-only and vision-only conditions. Participants evaluated the materials, for preference in experiment 1, and for perceived material properties (thermal conductivity, hardness and roughness) in experiment 2—either with or without specific instructions. Results showed higher consistency in the vision plus touch condition than in the unimodal conditions. Moreover, preferences and perceived material properties strongly varied according to the presence and the content of instruction (scenarios). These results demonstrate the strong impact of top-down processes on tactile as well as visual judgments.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Adelson EH (1993) Perceptual organization and the judgment of brightness. Science 262(5142):2042–2044
Alais D, Burr D (2004) The ventriloquist effect results from near-optimal bimodal integration. Curr Biol 14(3):257–262
Battarbee K, Koskinen I (2008) Co-experience: product experience as social interaction. In: Schifferstein HNJ, Hekkert P (eds) Product experience. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 461–475
Belke B, Leder H, Augustin MD (2006) Mastering style–effects of explicit style-related information, art knowledge and affective state on appreciation of abstract paintings. Psychol Sci 48(2):115–134
Bell-Krotoski JA, Fess EE, Figarola JH, Hiltz D (1995) Threshold detection and Semmes-Weinstein monofilaments. J Hand Ther Off J Am Soc Hand Ther 8(2):155–162
Brewer MB, Hewstone M (2004) Social cognition. Blackwell, Oxford
Carbon C-C (2010) The cycle of preference: long-term dynamics of aesthetic appreciation. Acta Psychol 134(2):233–244
Carbon C-C, Leder H (2005) The repeated evaluation technique (RET). A method to capture dynamic effects of innovativeness and attractiveness. Appl Cogn Psychol 19(5):587–601
Carbon C-C, Michael L, Leder H (2008) Design evaluation by combination of repeated evaluation technique and measurement of electrodermal activity. Res Eng Design 19(2–3):143–149
Coughlan P, Mashman R (1999) Once is not enough: repeated exposure to and aesthetic evaluation of an automobile design prototype. Des Stud 20(6):553–563
Creusen MEH, Schoormans JPL (2005) The different roles of product appearance in consumer choice. J Prod Innov Manage 22(1):63–81
Crilly N, Moultrie J, Clarkson PJ (2004) Seeing things: consumer response to the visual domain in product design. Des Stud 25(6):547–577
Desmet PMA, Hekkert P (2007) Framework of product experience. Int J Design 1(1):57–66
Du Z, Yu W (2007) A comprehensive handle evaluation system for fabrics: I. Measurement and characterization of mass and bending properties. Meas Sci Technol 18:3547–3553
Ernst MO, Banks MS, Bulthoff HH (2000) Touch can change visual slant perception. Nat Neurosci 3(1):69–73
Faerber SJ, Leder H, Gerger G, Carbon C-C (2010) Priming semantic concepts affects the dynamics of aesthetic appreciation. Acta Psychol 135(2):191–200
Gepshtein S, Banks MS (2003) Viewing geometry determines how vision and haptics combine in size perception. Curr Biol 13(6):483–488
Hekkert P, Schifferstein HNJ (2008) Introducing product experience. In: Schifferstein HNJ, Hekkert P (eds) Product experience. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 3–8
Hekkert P, Snelders D, van Wieringen PCW (2003) ‘Most advanced, yet acceptable’: typicality and novelty as joint predictors of aesthetic preference in industrial design. Br J Psychol 94:111–124
Heufler G (2004) Design basics. From ideas to products. Niggli Verlag AG, Sulgen/Zürich
Holt R, Barnes C (2010) Towards an integrated approach to “Design for X”: an agenda for decision-based DFX research. Res Eng Design 21(2):123–136
Jansson-Boyd C, Marlow N (2007) Not only in the eye of the beholder: tactile information can affect aesthetic evaluation. Psychol Aesthet Creat Arts 1(3):170–173
Kahrimanovic M, Tiest WMB, Kappers AML (2009) Context effects in haptic perception of roughness. Exp Brain Res 194(2):287–297
Krishna A, Morrin M (2008) Does touch affect taste? The perceptual transfer of product container haptic cues. J Consum Res 34(6):807–818
Kunst-Wilson WR, Zajonc RB (1980) Affective discrimination of stimuli that cannot be recognized. Science 207:557–558
Leder H, Carbon CC, Ripsas A (2006) Entitling art: influence of title information on understanding and appreciation of paintings. Acta Psychol 121(2):176–198
Loewy R (1953) Never leave well enough alone. Simon and Schuster, New York
Ludden GDS, Schifferstein HNJ, Hekkert P (2007) Effects of visual–auditory incongruity on product expression and surprise. Int J Design 1(3):29–39
Ludden GDS, Schifferstein HNJ, Hekkert P (2009) Visual–tactual incongruities in products as sources of surprise. Emp Stud Arts 27(1):61–87
Mooy SC, Robben HSJ (2002) Managing consumers’ product evaluations through direct product experience. J Prod Brand Manage 11(6/7):432–446
Oldfield RC (1971) Assessment and analysis of handedness–Edinburgh Inventory. Neuropsychologia 9(1):97–113
Oruç I, Maloney LT, Landy MS (2003) Weighted linear cue combination with possibly correlated error. Vis Res 43(23):2451–2468
Pahl G, Beitz W, Feldhusen J, Grote KH (2007) Engineering design. A systematic approach. Springer, London
Ritterfeld U (2002) Social heuristics in interior design preferences. J Environ Psychol 22:369–386
Russell PA (2003) Effort after meaning and the hedonic value of paintings. Br J Psychol 94:99–110
Schifferstein HNJ (2006) The perceived importance of sensory modalities in product usage: A study of self-reports. Acta Psychol 121(1):41–64
Schifferstein HNJ, Spence C (2008) Multisensory product experience. In: Schifferstein HNJ, Hekkert P (eds) product experience. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 133–161
Schönhammer R (2001) Haptische Wahrnehmung und Design [Haptic perception and Design]. In: Grunwald M, Beyer L (eds) Der bewegte Sinn. Grundlagen und Anwendungen zur haptischen Wahrnehmung. [The active sense. Basics and applications of haptic perception.]. Birkhäuser, Basel, pp 151–160
Weinstein S (1993) Fifty years of somatosensory research: from the Semmes-Weinstein monofilaments to the Weinstein Enhanced Sensory Test. J Hand Ther Off J Am Soc Hand Ther 6(1):11–22
Zajonc RB (1968) Attitudinal effects of mere exposure. J Pers Soc Psychol 9(2):1–27
Zajonc RB, VanKreveld D, Tavris C, Shaver P (1972) Exposure, satiation, and stimulus discriminability. J Pers Soc Psychol 21(3):270–280
Acknowledgments
This research was supported by a URP (University Research Program) Award to CCC and HL by the Henry Ford Foundation, Dearborn, USA (Award Number 20059015). We would like to thank the participants for taking part in the study, and the Ford Forschungszentrum Aachen (FFA) for providing the Sensotact V2 and V3 reference frames. We would also like to thank our student co-workers for their support in testing and three anonymous reviewers and the editors, Petra Badke-Schaub and Yoram Reich, for their valuable hints for extending and improving the manuscript.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Jakesch, M., Zachhuber, M., Leder, H. et al. Scenario-based touching: on the influence of top-down processes on tactile and visual appreciation. Res Eng Design 22, 143–152 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00163-010-0102-5
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00163-010-0102-5