Product design: Preference for rounded versus angular design elements

Psychology and Marketing

Volumn 29, Issue 8, 2012, Pages 595-605

  Westerman, Steve J ^a   Gardner, Peter H ^a   Sutherland, Ed J ^a   White, Tom ^a   Jordan, Katie ^a   Watts, David ^a   Wells, Sophie ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF LEEDS   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84863606101     PISSN: 07426046     EISSN: 15206793     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/mar.20546     Document Type: Article

References (51)

1. Adolphs, R. (2008). Fear, faces, and the human amygdala. Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 18, 166-172.
2. Arnheim, R. (1974). Art and visual perception. London: Faber & Faber.
3. Aronoff, J., Barclay, A. M., & Stevenson, L. A. (1988). The recognition of threatening facial stimuli. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 647-655.
4. Aronoff, J., Woike, B. A., & Hyman, L. M. (1992). Which are the stimuli in facial displays of anger and happiness? Configurational bases of emotion recognition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62, 1050-1066.
5. Bar, M., & Neta M. (2006). Humans prefer curved visual objects. Psychological Science, 17, 645-648.
6. Bar, M., & Neta, M. (2007). Visual elements of subjective preference modulate amygdala activation. Neuropsychologica, 45, 10, 2191-2200.
7. Bar, M. & Neta, M. (2008). The proactive brain: Using rudimentary information to make predictive judgments. Journal of Consumer Behavior, 7, 319-330.
8. Bellizzi, J. A., & Hite, R. E. (1992). Environmental color, consumer feelings, and purchase likelihood. Psychology & Marketing, 9, 347-363.
9. Berlyne, D. E. (1960). Conflict, arousal, and curiosity. New York: McGraw-Hill.
10. Berlyne, D. E. (1976). Similarity and preference judgments of Indian and Canadian subjects exposed to Western paintings. International Journal of Psychology, 11, 43-55.
11. Bloch, P. H. (1995). Seeking the ideal form: Product design and consumer response. Journal of Marketing, 59, 16-29.
12. Carbon, C-C. (2010). The cycle of preference: Long-term dynamics of aesthetic appreciation. Acta Psychologica, 134, 233-244.
13. Dion, K., Berscheid, E., & Walster, E. (1972). What is beautiful is good. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 24, 285-290.
14. Fang, X., & Mowen, J. C. (2005). Exploring factors influencing logo effectiveness. An experimental inquiry. Advances in Consumer Research, 32, 161.
15. Folkes, V., & Matta, S. (2004). The effect of package shape on consumers' judgments of product volume: Attention as a mental contaminant. Journal of Consumer Research, 31, 390-401.
16. Garber, L. L., Hyatt, E. M., & Boya, U. O. (2008). The mediating effects if the appearance of nondurable consumer goods and their packaging on consumer behaviour. In H. N. J. Schifferstain & P. Hekkert (Eds.), Product experience. Amsterdam: Elsevier. 581--602.
17. Hassenzahl, M. (2008). Aesthetics in interactive products: Correlates and consequences of beauty. In H. N. J. Schifferstein & P. Hekkert (Eds.), Product experience. Amsterdam: Elsevier. 287--302.
18. Hekkert, P. (2006). Design aesthetics: Principles of pleasure in design. Psychology Science, 48, 157-172.
19. 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, 111-124.
20. Hertenstein, J. H., Platt, M. B., & Veryzer, R. W. (2005). The impact of design effectiveness on corporate financial performance. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 22, 3-21.
21. Hevner, K. (1935). Experimental studies of the affective value of colors and lines. Journal of Applied Psychology, 19, 385-398.
22. Jordan, P. W. (2000). Designing pleasurable products. London: Taylor & Francis.
23. Larson, C. L., Aronoff, J., & Stearns, J. J. (2007). The shape of threat: Simple geometric forms evoke rapid and sustained capture of attention. Emotion, 7, 526-534.
24. Larson, C. L., Aronoff, J., Sarinopoulous, I. C., & Zhu, D. C. (2009). Recognising threat: A simple geometric shape activates neural circuitry for threat detection. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 21, 1523-1535.
25. Lavie, T., & Tractinsky, N. (2004). Assessing dimensions of perceived visual aesthetics of web sites. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 60, 269-298.
26. Leder, H., & Carbon, C-C. (2005). Dimensions in appreciation of car interior design. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 19, 603-618.
27. Liu, C. H. (1997). Symbols: Circles and spheres represent the same referents. Metaphor and Symbol, 12, 135-147.
28. Liu, Y. (2003). Engineering aesthetics and aesthetic ergonomics: Theoretical foundations and a dual-process research methodology. Ergonomics, 46, 1273-1292.
29. Lundholm, H. (1921). The affective tone of lines: Experimental researches. Psychological Review, 28, 43-60.
30. Luo, L., Kannan, P. K., & Ratchford, B. T. (2008). Incorporating subjective characteristics in product design and evaluations. Journal of Marketing Research, 45, 182-194.
31. Martindale, C., Moore, K., & West, A. (1988). Relationship of preference judgments to typicality, novelty, and mere exposure. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 6, 79-96.
32. Martindale, C., Moore, K., & Borkum, J. (1990). Aesthetic preference: Anomalous findings for Berlyne's psychobiological theory. American Journal of Psychology, 103, 53-80.
33. Moore, R. S., Stammerjohan, C. A., & Coulter, R. A. (2005). Banner advertiser-web site congruity and color effects on attention and attitudes. Journal of Advertising, 34, 71-84.
34. Murray, E. A. (2007). The amygdala, reward and emotion. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 11, 489-497.
35. Nagamachi, M. (2002). Kansei engineering as a powerful consumer-oriented technology for product development. Applied Ergonomics, 33, 289-294.
36. Nickerson, R. S. (1998). Confirmation bias: A ubiquitous phenomenon in many guises. Review of General Psychology, 2, 175-220.
37. Norman, D. A. (2004). Emotional design. New York: Basic Books.
38. Orth, U. R., & Malkewitz, K. (2008). Holistic package design and consumer brand impressions. Journal of Marketing, 72, 64-81.
39. Özsomer, A., & Altaras, S. (2008). Global brand purchase likelihood: A critical synthesis and an integrated conceptual framework. Journal of International Marketing, 16, 1-28.
40. Poffenberger, A. T., & Barrows, B. E. (1924). The feeling value of lines. Journal of Applied Psychology, 8, 187-205.
41. Reber, R., Schwartz, N., & Winkielman, P. (2004). Processing fluency and aesthetic pleasure: Is beauty in the perceiver's processing experience? Personality and Social Psychological Review, 8, 364-382.
42. Riley, M. W., Cochran, D. J., & Ballard, J. L. (1982). An investigation of preferred shapes for warning labels. Human Factors, 24, 737-742.
43. Schoormans, J. P. L., & Robben, H. S. J. (1997). The effect of new package design on product attention, categorisation and evaluation. Journal of Economic Psychology, 18, 271-287.
44. Silvia, P. J., & Barona, C. M. (2009). Do people prefer curved objects? Angularity, expertise, and aesthetic preference. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 27, 25-42.
45. Snelders, D., & Schoormans, J. P. L. (2004). An exploratory study of the relation between concrete and abstract product attributes. Journal of Economic Psychology, 25, 803-820.
46. Takahashi, S. (1995). Aesthetic properties of pictorial perception. Psychological Review, 102, 671-683.
47. Tractinsky, N., Katz, A. S., & Ikar, D. (2000). What is beautiful is usable. Interacting with Computers, 13, 127-145.
48. Veryzer, R. W., & Hutchinson, J. W. (1998). The influence of unity and prototypicality on aesthetic response to new product designs. Journal of Consumer Research, 24, 374-394.
49. Walker, S. (2006). Sustainable by design. explorations in theory and practice. London: Earthscan.
50. Yeung, R. M. W., & Morris, J. (2006). An empirical study of the impact of consumer perceived risk on purchase likelihood: A modelling approach. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 30, 294-305.
51. Zhang, Y., Feick, L., & Price, L. J. (2006). The impact of self-construal on aesthetic preference for angular versus rounded shapes. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32, 794-805.