제품 디자인의 중요성이 증대되는 가운데 본 연구는 제품 디자인의 전형성과 조화성이라는 두 가지 디자인 원리가 소비자들에게 어떤 다양한 심리적 반응(정서 반응, 제품 기능성 평가, 선호도)을 일으키는지를 알아보았다. 특히, 본 연구는 디자인이 유발할 수 있는 정서를 정서가(긍정 vs. 부정)와 각성 수준(높음 vs. 낮음)의 두 차원을 기준으로 네 종류의 정서(즐거움, 안정감, 불안함, 지루함)로 분류하고, 디자인의 전형성과 조화성이 각 차원에 어떤 영향을 미치는지를 중점적으로 살펴보았다. 연구 결과에 의하면, 제품 디자인의 전형성이 높을수록 낮은 각성 수준의 정서인 안정감과 지루함은 높게 경험하는 반면 높은 각성 수준의 정서인 즐거움과 불안감을 낮게 경험하는 것으로 나타났다. 제품 디자인의 조화성이 높을수록 안정감과 지루함을 높게 경험하지만 반대로 불안함은 낮게 경험하는 것이 밝혀졌다. 제품 디자인으로부터 제품 성능을 추론하는 기능성 평가의 경우, 디자인의 전형성과 조화성이 각각 높을 때 제품의 성능을 가장 긍정적으로 평가하였다. 마지막으로 제품의 선호도에서는 디자인의 조화성만이 긍정적인 영향을 미친 것으로 나타났다. 본 연구의 의의는 제품 디자인의 전형성과 조화성이라는 주요한 디자인 원리를 체계적으로 조작하여 그에 대한 소비자의 정서 반응, 제품 기능성 평가 그리고 제품 선호도의 차이를 실증적으로 알아본 점이다.
This study founded how typicality and harmony, two main aesthetic principles of product design provoke a variety of psychological consumer responses such as emotion reaction, product functional appraisal and product preference. Especially, this study classified four different emotions such as joy, stability, anxiety and boredom according to two dimensions such as emotional valence and arousal, and this study focused on how typicality and harmony influence on each dimension. The results show as follows; firstly, the higher level of typicality of product design, the more experienced in low arousal level emotions (stability and boredom), on the other hand, less experienced in high arousal level emotions (joy and anxiety). Secondly, the higher level of harmony of product design, the more experienced in low arousal level emotions (stability and boredom), on the other hand, less experienced in high arousal level emotions (anxiety). Thirdly, product functional appraisal reasoning out product performance from product design confirmed the static relationship between the design principles and cognitive appraisal; the higher the levels of typicality and harmony, the better the product appears. Lastly, only harmony of product design has a significant static influence on the product preference. This study was performed in the systematic and empirical methodology in handling typicality and harmony principles and can help extend our understanding of consumer emotion responses, product functional appraisal and product preference.
김광수, 곽원일 (1998). 소비자 만족 형성 과정에 대한 감정 반응의 역할. 한국마케팅저널, 1(1), 1-38.
성영신, 정수정 (2003). 신기술 제품 디자인에 대한 소비자 반응 연구. 한국심리학회지: 소비자광고, 4(1), 1-23.
이명우 (2010). 제품 디자인의 미적 측면이 제품 평가에 미치는 영향: 소비자 특성과 제품군에 따른 차이를 중심으로. 한양대학교 대학원 박사학위 논문.
이주원, 성영신, 조경진 (2010). 제품 디자인의 심리사회적 의미 연구. 한국심리학회지: 소비자광고, 11(1), 159-182.
Armstrong, T., & Bedell, B. D. (2008). Beauty as an emotion: the exhilarating prospect of mastering a challenging world. Review of General Psychology, 12(4), 305-329.
Barsalou, L. W. (1985). Ideals, central tendency, and frequency of instantiation as determinants of graded structure. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 11, 629-654.
Berlyne, D. E. (1970), Aesthetics and psychobiology, New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Berlyne, D. E. (1971), Novelty, complexity, and hedonic value. Perception and Psychophysics, 8, 279-286.
Blijlevens, J., Carbon, C., Mugge R., & Schoormans J. P. L. (2012). Aesthetic appraisal of product designs: Independent effects of typicality and arousal. British Journal of Psychology, 103, 44-57.
Bloch, P. H. (1995). Seeking the ideal form: product design and consumer response. Journal of Marketing, 59, 16-29.
Bornstein, R. F. (1989). Exposure and affect: Overview and meta-analysis of research, 1968-1987. Psychological Bulletin, 106, 265- 289.
Coates, D. (2003). Watches tell more than time. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Creusen, M. E. H., & Schoormans, J. P. L. (2005). The different roles of product appearance in consumer choice. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 22, 63-81.
Davis, M. L. (1987). Visual Design in Dress. Englewood Cliffs.
Gordon, P. C., & Holyoak, K. J. (1983). Implicit learning and generalization of the “mere exposure” effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 492-500.
Graves, M. (1941). The art of color and design. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Harrison, A. A. Mere exposure. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology, 10. New York: Academic Press, 1977.
Halberstadt, J. (2006). The generality and ultimate origins of the attractiveness of prototypes. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10, 166-183.
Hassenzahl, M (2003). The thing and I: Understanding the relationship between user and product. Funology: From Usability to Enjoyment, 31-42.
Hassenzahl, M (2004). The interplay of beauty, goodness, and usability in interactive products. Human-Computer Interaction, 19, 319-349.
Hekkert, P., & van Wieringen, P. C. W. (1990). Complexity and prototypicality as determinants of the appraisal of cubist paintings. British Journal of Psychology, 81, 483-495.
Hekkert, P., Snelders, D., Piet, C. W. & Wieringen, V. (2003). Most advanced, yet acceptable: typicality and novelty as joint predictors of aesthetic preference in industrial design. British Journal of Psychology, 94, 111- 124.
Hekkert, P. (2006). Design aesthetic: principles of pleasure in product design. Psychology Science, 48, 157-172.
Hoegg, J., Alba, J. W., & Dahl, D. W. (2010). The good, the bad, and the ugly - Influence of aesthetics on product feature judgments. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 20, 419-430.
Holbrook, M. B., & Hirschman, E. (1982). The experiential aspects of consumption: consumer fantasies, feelings, and fun. Journal of Consumer Research, 9, 132-140.
Hutchinson, J. W. (1986). Discrete attribute models of brand switching. Marketing Sciences, 5, 350-371.
Kim, N. (2006). A history of design theory in art education. Journal of Aesthetic Education, 40, 12-28.
Kumar, M. & Garg, N. (2010). “Aesthetic principles and cognitive emotion appraisals: how much of the beauty lies in the eye of the beholder?,” Journal of Consumer Psychology, 20, 485-494.
Laros, F. J. M., & Steenkamp, J. E. M. (2005). Emotions in consumer behavior: a hierarchical approach. Journal of Business Research, 58. 1437-1445.
Loken, B., & Ward, J. (1990). Alternative approaches to understanding the determinants of typicality. Journal of Consumer Research, 17, 111-126.
Mandler, G. (1982). The structure of value: accounting for taste, in Affect and Cognition: The Seventeenth Annual Carnegie Symposium, ed. Margaret S. C. and Susan T. Fiske, Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 3-36.
Mandler, G. (1990). A constructivist theory of emotion. In Stein, N. S., Leventhal, B. L., & Trabasso, T. (Eds.), Psychological and biological approaches to emotion, 21-43. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Association, Inc.
Mano, H. & Oliver R. L. (1993). Assessing the dimensionality and structure of the consumption experience: evaluation, feeling, and satisfaction. Journal of Consumer Research, 20, 451-466.
Martindale, C., & Moore, K. (1988). Priming, prototypicality, and preference. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perceptions and Performance, 14. 661-670.
McAlister, L. & Pessemier, E. (1982). Variety seeking behavior: an interdisciplinary review. Journal of Consumer Research, 9, 311-322.
Meyers-Levy, J., & Tybout, A. M. (1989). Schema congruity as a basis for product evaluation. Journal of Consumer Research, 16, 39-54.
Norbert, S. (2000). Emotion, cognition, and decision making. Cognition and Emotion, 14, 433-440.
Page, C., & Herr, P. M. (2002). An investigation of the processes by which product design and brand strength interact to determine initial affect and quality judgments. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 12, 133-147.
Pedersen, D. M. (1986). Perception of interior designs. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 63, 671-677.
Purcell, A. T. (1984). The aesthetic experience and mundane reality. In W. R. Crozier & A. J. Chapman (Eds.), Cognitive processes in the perception of art, 189-210. Amsterdam: North- Holland.
Ramachandran, V. S., & Hirstein, W. (1999). The science of art: a neurological theory of aesthetic experience. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 6, 15-51.
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, 364-382.
Repp, B. H. (1997). The aesthetic quality of a quantitatively average music performance: two preliminary experiments. Music Perception, 14, 419-444.
Richins, M, L. (1997). Measuring emotions in the consumption experience. Journal of Consumer Research, 24, 127-146.
Rindova, V. P., & Petkova, A. P. (2007). When is a new thing a good thing? Technological change, product form design, and perceptions of value for product innovations. Organization Science, 18, 217-232.
Rosch, E. (1978). Principles of categorization, in Cognition and Categorization, ed. E. Rosch and B. B. Lloyd, Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 27-47.
Schneider,W., & Shiffrin, R. M. (1977). Controlled and automatic human information processing: I. Detection, search, and attention. Psychological Review, 84, 1-66.
Simonson, I., & Nowlis, S. M. (2000). The role of explanations and need for uniqueness in consumer decision making: Unconventional choices based on reasons. Journal of Consumer Research, 27, 49-68.
Sonderegger, A., & Sauer, J. (2010). The influence of design aesthetics in usability testing: effects on user performance and perceived usability. Applied Ergonomics. 41, 403-410.
Stern, L. D., Marrs, S., Millar, M. G., & Cole, E. (1984). Processing time and the recall of inconsistent and consistent behaviors of individuals and groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47, 253-62.
Veryzer, R. W. Jr. (1993). Aesthetic response and the influence of design principles on product preference. Advances in Consumer Research, 20, 224-228.
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, 374-394.
Yamamoto, M., & Lambert, D. R. (1994). The Impact of Product Aesthetics on the Evaluation of Industrial Products. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 11. 309-324.
Zajonc, R. B. (1968). Attitudinal effects of mere exposure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Monograph Supplement, 9, 1-27.
.png){kind=logo}
