Surprise and humor in product design designing sensory metaphors in multiple modalities

Humor

Volumn 25, Issue 3, 2012, Pages 285-309

  Ludden, Geke D S ^a   Kudrowitz, Barry M ^a   Schifferstein, Hendrik N J ^a   Hekkert, Paul ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

Amusement; Confusion; Design; Humor; Incongruity; Product design; Senses; Sensory metaphor; Surprise

Indexed keywords

EID: 84867844519     PISSN: 09331719     EISSN: 16133722     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1515/humor-2012-0015     Document Type: Article

References (30)

1. Berlyne, Daniel E. 1971. Aesthetics and psychobiology. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
2. Berlyne, Daniel E. 1972. Humor and its kin. In Jeffrey H. Goldstein & Paul E. McGhee (eds.), The psychology of humor, 43-60. New York: Wiley.
3. Buzan, Tony & Barry Buzan. 1994. The mind map book: How to use radiant thinking to maximize your brain's untapped potential. Boston: E. P. Dutton.
4. Cazeaux, Clive. 2002. Metaphor and the categorization of the senses. Metaphor and Symbol 17. 3-26.
5. Deckers, Lambert & Debra Salais. 1983. Humor as a negatively accelerated function of the degree of incongruity. Motivation and Emotion 7 (4). 357-363.
6. Derbaix, Christian & Joëlle Vanhamme. 2003. Inducing word-of-mouth by eliciting surprise - a pilot investigation. Journal of Economic Psychology 24 (1). 99-116.
7. Dubois, Daniele. 2000. Categories as acts of meaning: the case of categories in olfaction and audition. Cognitive Science Quarterly 1. 35-68.
8. Forceville, Charles. 2006. Non-verbal and multimodal metaphor in a cognitive framework: a gendas for research. In Gitte Kristiansen, Michel Achard, Rene Dirven & Francisco Ruiz de Mendoza (eds.), Cognitive linguistics: Current applications and future perspectives, 379-402. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
9. Hassenzahl, Marc. 2008. Aesthetics in interactive products: Correlates and consequences of beauty. In Hendrik N. J. Schifferstein & Paul Hekkert (eds.), Product Experience, 287-299. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
10. Herz, Rachel S., & Jonathan W. Schooler. 2002. A naturalistic study of autobiographical memories evoked by olfactory and visual cues: testing the Proustian hypothesis. American Journal of Psychology 115. 21-32.
11. Jones, Bill & Sandra O'Neil. 1985. Combining vision and touch in texture perception. Perception & Psychophysics 37. 66-72.
12. Lakoff, George & Mark Johnson. 1980. Metaphors we live by. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press.
13. Ludden, Geke D. S. & Hendrik N. J. Schifferstein. 2007. Effects of visual-auditory incongruity on product expression and surprise. International Journal of Design 1 (3). 29-39.
14. Ludden, Geke D. S., Hendrik N. J. Schifferstein & Paul Hekkert. 2008. Surprise as a design strategy. Design Issues 24 (2). 28-38.
15. Ludden, Geke D. S., Hendrik N. J. Schifferstein & Paul Hekkert. 2009. Visual-tactual incongruities in products as sources of surprise. Empirical Studies of the Arts 27 (1). 61-87.
16. Ludden, Geke D. S. & Hendrik N. J. Schifferstein. 2009. Should Mary smell like biscuit? Investigating scents in product design. International Journal of Design 3 (3). 1-12.
17. Ludden, Geke D. S., Hendrik N. J. Schifferstein & Paul Hekkert. 2012. Beyond surprise: A longitudinal study on the experience of visual-tactual incongruities in products. International Journal of Design 6 (1). 1-10.
18. Nerhardt, Göran. 1976. Incongruity and funniness: Toward a new descriptive model. In Antony J. Chapman & Hugh C. Foot (eds.), Humor and laughter: Theory, research and applications, 55-62. New York: Wiley.
19. Ortony, Andrew. 1993. The role of similarity in similes and metaphors. In Andrew Ortony (ed.), Metaphor and thought, 342-356. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
20. Roseman, Ira J., Ann A. Antoniou & Paul E. Jose. 1996. Appraisal determinants of emotions: Constructing a more accurate and comprehensive theory. Cognition & Emotion 10 (3). 241-277.
21. Rothbart, Mary K. 1976. Incongruity, problem-solving and laughter. In Antony J. Chapman & Hugh C. Foot (eds.), Humour and laughter: theory, research and applications, 37-54. London: John Wiley & Sons.
22. Schifferstein, Hendrik N. J. & Peeter W. J. Verlegh. 1996. The role of congruency and pleasantness in odor-induced taste enhancement. Acta Psychologica 94. 87-105.
23. Schifferstein, Hendrik N. J. & Marc P. H. D. Cleiren. 2005. Capturing product experiences: a splitmodality approach. Acta Psychologica 118. 293-318.
24. Schifferstein, Hendrik N. J. & Pieter M. A. Desmet. 2007. The effect of sensory impairments on product experience and personal well-being. Ergonomics 50. 2026-2048.
25. Schifferstein, Hendrik N. J., Jacco J. Otten, Fien Thoolen & Paul Hekkert. 2010. The experimental assessment of sensory dominance in a product development context. Journal of Design Research 8(2), 119-144.
26. Silvia, Paul J. What is interesting? Exploring the appraisal structure of interest. Emotion 5. 89-102.
27. Stevens, J. P. 1978. Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
28. Suls, Jerry M. 1972. A two-stage model for the appreciation of jokes and cartoons: an information processing analysis. In Jeffrey H. Goldstein, and Paul E. McGhee (eds.), The psychology of humor, 81-100. New York: Academic Press.
29. Veale, Tony. 2004. Incongruity in humor: Root cause or epiphenomenon. Humor: International Journal of Humor Research 17 (4). 419-428.
30. Wyer, Robert S. & James E. Collins. 1992. A theory of humor elicitation. Psychological Review 99. 663-688.