A large number of studies have focused on the aesthetic value of smoothly curved objects. By contrast, angular shapes tend to be associated with tertiary qualities such as threat, hardness, loudness, nervousness, etc. The present study focuses on the effect of curvilinearity vs angularity on the aesthetic experience of design artefacts. We used the drawings of everyday objects with novel shapes created by 56 designers (IUAV image dataset). Each drawing had two versions: a smooth and an angular version. To test new tertiary associations, beyond aesthetic value, we obtained ratings for seven characteristics (‘soft/hard, sad/cheerful, male/female, bad/good, aggressive/peaceful, agitated/serene, useless/useful’) from 174 naïve observers. Importantly, each naïve rater saw only one of the two versions of an object. The results confirmed a significant relation between smoothness and hardness as well as other (tertiary) associations. The link between smoothness and usefulness confirms that perceptual utility is significantly influenced by the shape of the object. This finding suggests that tertiary qualities convey both static and functional information about design objects. The role of perceptual constraints in drawing design artefacts is also discussed.
Purchase
Buy instant access (PDF download and unlimited online access):
Institutional Login
Log in with Open Athens, Shibboleth, or your institutional credentials
Personal login
Log in with your brill.com account
Alcaide-Marzal, J., Diego-Mas, J. A. and Acosta-Zazueta, G. (2020). A 3D shape generative method for aesthetic product design. Des. Stud., 66, 144–176. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2019.11.003.
Alexander, S. (1933). Beauty and Other Forms of Value. Macmillan, London, UK.
Arnheim, R. (1964). From function to expression. J. Aesthet. Art Crit., 23, 29–41. https://doi.org/10.2307/428136.
Arnheim, R. (1974). Art and Visual Perception: A Psychology of the Creative Eye. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA, USA.
Aronoff, J., Barclay, A. M. and Stevenson, L. A. (1988). The recognition of threatening facial stimuli. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol., 54, 647–665. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.54.4.647.
Aronoff, J., Woike, B. A. and Hyman, L. M. (1992). Which are the stimuli in facial displays of anger and happiness? Configurational bases of emotion recognition. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol., 62, 1050–1066. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.62.6.1050.
Bar, M. and Neta, M. (2006). Humans prefer curved visual objects. Psychol. Sci., 17, 645–648. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01759.x.
Bar, M. and Neta, M. (2007). Visual elements of subjective preference modulate amygdala activation. Neuropsychologica, 45, 2191–2200. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2007.03.008.
Batra, R., Seifert, C. and Brei, D. (Eds) (2000). The Psychology of Design: Creating Consumer Desire. Taylor and Francis, New York, NY, USA.
Becker, L., van Rompay, T. J. L., Schifferstein, H. N. J. and Galetzka, M. (2011). Tough package, strong taste: The influence of packaging design on taste impressions and product evaluations. Food Qual. Prefer., 22, 17–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2010.06.007.
Bernal, M., Haymaker, J. R. and Eastman, C. (2015). On the role of computational support for designers in action. Des. Stud., 41, 163–182. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.DESTUD.2015.08.001.
Bertamini, M. and Palumbo, L. (2014). The aesthetics of curvature in historical context, in: International Thematic Proceedings: Art and its Role in the History: Between Durability and Transient -Isms, pp. 729–740. Filozofski fakultet Univerziteta u Prištini, Kosovska Mitrovica, Kosovo.
Bertamini, M., Palumbo, L., Gheorghes, T. N. and Galatsidas, M. (2016). Do observers like curvature or do they dislike angularity? Br. J. Psychol., 107, 154–178. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjop.12132.
Bertamini, M., Palumbo, L. and Redies, C. (2019). An advantage for smooth compared to angular contours in the speed of processing shape. J. Exp. Psychol. Hum. Percept. Perform., 45, 1304–1318. https://doi.org/10.1037/xhp0000669.
Bertamini, M. and Sinico, M. (2019). A study of objects with smooth or sharp features created as line drawings by individuals trained in design. Empir. Stud. Arts, 39, 61–77. https://doi.org/10.1177/0276237419897048.
Bloch, P. H. (1995). Seeking the ideal form: Prduct design and consumer response. J.. Mark., 59, 16–29. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224299505900302.
Bosanquet, B. (1892). A History of Aesthetics. Macmillan, New York, NY, USA.
Bozzi, P. (1999). Fisica ingenua. Garzanti, Milan, Italy [part. Engl. transl. in: Paolo Bozzi’s Experimental Phenomenology, I. Bianchi and R. Davies (Eds), pp. 349–368. Routledge, London, UK, 2019].
Carbon, C.-C. (2010). The cycle of preference: Long-term dynamics of aesthetic appreciation. Acta Psychol. (Amst.), 134, 233–244. doi: 10.1016/j.actpsy.2010.02.004.
Carbon, C. C. (2019). Psychology of Design. Des. Sci., 5, e26. doi:10.1017/dsj.2019.25.
Chandrashekar, J., Yarmolinsky, D., von Buchholtz, L., Oka, Y., Sly, W., Ryba, N. J. P. and Zuker, C. S. (2009). The taste of carbonation. Science, 326, 443–445. doi: 10.1126/science.1174601.
Cotter, K.N. Silvia, P.J., Bertamini, M., Palumbo, L. and Vartanian, O. (2017). Curve appeal: exploring individual differences in preference for curved versus angular objects. i-Perception, 8, 2041669517693023. doi: 10.1177/2041669517693023.
Crilly, N., Moultrie, J. and Clarkson, P. J. (2004). Seeing things: consumer response to the visual domain in product design. Des. Stud., 25, 547–577. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2004.03.001.
Crozier, W. R. (1994). Manufactured Pleasures: Psychological Responses to Design. Manchester University Press, Manchester, UK.
Cross, N. (2001). Design cognition: Results from protocol and other empirical studies of design activity, in: Design Knowing and Learning: Cognition in Design Education, C. M. Eastman, W. M. McCracken and W. C. Newstetter (Eds), pp. 79–103. Elsevier, Oxford, UK. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-008043868-9/50005-X.
Dinar, M., Shah, J. J., Cagan, J., Leifer, L., Linsey, J., Smith, S. M. and Hernandez, N. V. (2015). Empirical studies of designer thinking: past, present, and future. J. Mechanical Des., 137, 21101. https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4029025.
Do, E. Y.-L., Gross, M. D., Neiman, B. and Zimring, C. (2000). Intentions in and relations among design drawings. Des. Stud., 21, 483–503. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0142-694X(00)00020-X.
Forsythe, A., Mulhern, G. and Sawey, M. (2008). Confounds in pictorial sets: The role of complexity and familiarity in basic-level picture processing. Behav. Res. Methods, 40, 116–129. https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.40.1.116.
Ghoshal, T., Boatwright, P. and Malika M. (2000). Curvature from all angles. an integrative review and implications for product design, in: The Psychology of Design: Creating Consumer Appeal, R. Batra, C. Seifertand D. Brei (Eds), pp. 91–106. Routledge, New York, NY, USA.
Goel, V. (1995). Sketches of Thought. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, USA.
Goldschmidt, G. (1991). The dialectics of sketching. Creat. Res. J., 4, 123–143. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419109534381.
Gómez-Puerto, G., Rosselló, J., Corradi, G., Acedo-Carmona, C., Munar, E. and Nadal, M. (2018). Preference for curved contours across cultures. Psychol. Aesthet. Creat. Arts, 12, 432–439. https://doi.org/10.1037/aca0000135.
Green, W. S. and Jordan, P. W. (Eds.) (2002). Pleasure with Products: Beyond Usability. Taylor and Francis, London, UK.
Harman, G. (1990). The intrinsic quality of experience. Philosophical Perspectives, Vol. 4. Action Theory and Philosophy of Mind, J. Tomberlin (Ed.), pp. 31–52. Ridgeview Publishing, Atascadero, CA, USA.
Hassenzahl, M. (2008). Aesthetics in interactive products: Correlates and consequences of beauty, in: Product experience, H. N. J. Schifferstein and P. Hekkert (Eds.), pp. 287–302. Elsevier, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-008045089-6.50014-9.
Hekkert, P. (2006). Design aesthetics: principles of pleasure in design. Psychol. Sci., 48, 157–172.
Ho, C.-H., Lu, Y.-N. and Chen, C.-H. (2016). Influence of curvature and expertise on aesthetic preferences for mobile device designs. Int. J. Design, 10, 17–25.
Hönekopp, J. (2006). Once more: Is beauty in the eye of the beholder? Relative contributions of private and shared taste to judgments of facial attractiveness. J. Exp. Psychol. Hum. Percept. Perform., 32, 199–209. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.32.2.199.
Hyun, K. H. and Lee, J.-H. (2018). Balancing homogeneity and heterogeneity in design exploration by synthesizing novel design alternatives based on genetic algorithm and strategic styling decision. Adv. Eng. Inform., 38, 113–128. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.AEI.2018.06.005.
Jordan, P. W. (2000). Designing Pleasurable Products: An Introduction to the New Human Factors. Taylor and Francis, London, UK.
Kavakli, M., Suwa, M., Gero, J. S. and Purcell, T. (1999). Sketching interpretation in novice and expert designers, in: Visual and Spatial Reasoning in Design, J. S. Gero and B. Tversky (Eds), pp. 209–220. Key Centre of Design Computing and Cognition, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
Köhler, W. (1929/1947). Gestalt Psychology. Liveright, New York, NY, USA.
Köhler, W. (1938). The Place of Value in a World of Facts. Liveright, New York, NY, USA.
Koffka, K. (1935). Principles of Gestalt Psychology. Harcourt Brace, New York, NY, USA.
Kurosu, M. and Kashimura, K. (1995). Apparent usability vs. inherent usability: Experimental analysis on the determinants of the apparent usability, in: CHI95: Conference Companion on Human Factors in Computing Systems, C. Plaisant (Ed.), pp. 292–293. ACM, New York, NY, USA. https://doi.org/10.1145/223355.223680.
Kwok, S. C., Fantoni, C., Tamburini, L., Wang, L. and Gerbino, W. (2018). A biphasic effect of cross-modal priming on visual shape recognition. Acta Psychol., 183, 43–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2017.12.013.
Landwehr, J. R., McGill, A. L. and Herrmann, A. (2011). It’s got the look: The effect of friendly and aggressive “facial” expressions on product liking and sales. J. Mark., 75, 132–146. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.75.3.132.
Latto, R. (1995). The brain of the beholder, in: The Artful Eye, R.L. Gregory J. Harris, P. Heard and D. Rose (Eds), pp. 66–94. Oxford University Press, New York, NY, USA.
Lawson, B. (1980). How Designers Think. Architectural Press, Oxford, UK.
Leder, H. and Carbon, C.-C. (2005). Dimensions in appreciation of car interior design. Appl. Cogn. Psychol., 19, 603–618. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.1088.
Lindauer, M. S. (1990). The meanings of the physiognomic stimuli taketa and maluma. Bull. Psychon. Soc., 28, 47–50. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03337645.
Locke, J. (2008[1690]). An Essay Concerning Human Understanding. Digireads, Stilwell, KS, USA.
Madani Nejad, K. (2003). Curvilinearity in Architecture: Emotional Effect of Curvilinear Forms in Interior Design. Doctoral Dissertation, Texas AandM University.
Maezawa, T., Tanda, T. and Kawahara, J. I. (2020). Replicability of the curvature effect as a function of presentation time and response measure in Japanese observers. I-Perception, 11, 2041669520915204. https://doi.org/10.1177/2041669520915204.
Mao, X., Galil, O., Parrish, Q. and Sen, C. (2020). Evidence of cognitive chunking in freehand sketching during design ideation. Des. Stud., 67, 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2019.11.009.
McManus, I. C. (1980). The aesthetics of simple figures. Br. J. Psychol., 71, 505–524. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044–8295.1980.tb01763.x.
Metzger, W. (1941/1963). Psychologie. Steinkopff, Darmstadt, Germany.
Milan, E., Iborra, O., de Cordoba, M. J., Juarez-Ramos, V., Artacho, M. A. R. and Rubio, J. L. (2013). The Kiki-Bouba effect a case of personification and ideaesthesia. J. Consc. Stud., 20, 84–102.
Monö, R. (1997). Design for Product Understanding. Liber, Stockholm, Sweden.
Mugge, R. and Schoormans, J. P. L. (2012). Product design and apparent usability. The influence of novelty in product appearance. Appl. Ergon., 43, 1081–1088. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2012.03.009.
Nagamachi, M. (1997). Kansei engineering and comfort. Int. J. Ind. Ergon., 19, 79–80. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-8141(96)00022-4.
Nagamachi, M. and Lokman, A.M. (2011). Innovations of Kansei Engineering. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, USA.
Nanda, U., Pati, D., Ghamari, H. and Bajema, R. (2013). Lessons from neuroscience: form follows function, emotions follow form. Intell. Buildings Int., 5, Suppl. 1, 61–78. https://doi.org/10.1080/17508975.2013.807767.
Ngo, M. K.., Misra, R. and Spence, C. (2011). Assessing the shapes and speech sounds that people associate with chocolate samples varying in cocoa content. Food Qual. Pref., 22, 567–572. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2011.03.009.
Norman, D. (2013). The Design of Everyday Things. Revised and Expanded Edition. Basic Books, New York, NY, USA.
Ortlieb,S. A., Fischer, U. C. and Carbon, C.0C. (2016). Enquiry into the origin of our ideas of the sublime and beautiful: is there a male gaze in empirical aesthetics? Art Percept., 4, 205–224. https://doi.org/10.1163/22134913-00002051.
Ortlieb, S. A., Kügel, W. A. and Carbon, C.-C. (2020). Fechner (1866): The aesthetic association principle-A commented translation. i-Perception, 11, 2041669520920309. https://doi.org/10.1177/2041669520920309.
Palumbo, L., Ogden, R., Makin, A. D. J. and Bertamini, M. (2014). Examining visual complexity and its influence on perceived duration. J. Vis., 14. doi: https://doi.org/10.1167/14.14.3.
Palumbo, L., Rampone, G. and Bertamini, M. (2021). The role of gender and academic degree on preference for smooth curvature of abstract shapes. PeerJ, 9, e10877. doi: 10.7717/peerj.10877.
Palumbo, L., Ruta, N. and Bertamini, M. (2015). Comparing angular and curved shapes in terms of implicit associations and approach/avoidance responses. PLoS ONE, 10, e0140043. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0140043.
Peirce, J. W. (2007). PsychoPy — Psychophysics software in Python. J. Neurosci. Methods, 162, 8–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jneumeth.2006.11.017.
Petrelli D, Soranzo A, Ciolfi L. and Reidy J (2016) Exploring the aesthetics of tangible interaction: experiments on the perception of hybrid objects, in: Proceedings of the TEI’16: Tenth International Conference on Tangible, Embedded, and Embodied Interaction, pp. 100–108. ACM, New York, USA. 108https://doi.org/10.1145/2839462.2839478.
Ramachandran, V. S. and Hirstein, W. (1999). the science of art: a neurological theory of aesthetic experience. J. Consc. Stud., 6, 15–51.
Schon, D. A. and Wiggins, G. (1992). Kinds of seeing and their functions in designing. Des. Stud., 13, 135–156. https://doi.org/10.1016/0142-694X(92)90268-F.
Sievers, B., Lee. C., Haslett, W. and Wheatley, T. (2019). A multi-sensory code for emotional arousal. Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci., 286, 20190513. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2019.0513.
Silvia, P. J. and Barona, C. M. (2009). Do people prefer curved objects? Angularity, expertise, and aesthetic preference. Empir. Stud. Arts, 27, 25–42. https://doi.org/10.2190/EM.27.1.b.
Sinico, M. (2012). ‘Galileo Perceptionist’. Perception, 41, 483–488. https://doi.org/10.1068/p7155.
Sinico, M. (2015). Tertiary qualities, from Galileo to Gestalt psychology. Hist. Hum. Sci., 28, 68–79. https://doi.org/10.1177/0952695115591409.
Sinico, M. (2019). To communicate without signs through expressive qualities. Gestalt Theory, 41, 47–60. https://doi.org/10.2478/gth-2019-0004.
Sinico, M. (2020). Landscape. Expressive landscapes, perception and design, in: Mind and Places, A. Anzani (Ed.), pp. 81–91. Springer, Cham, Switzerland. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-45566-8_6.
Soranzo, A. Petrelli D. Ciolfi L. and Reidy J. (2018). On the perceptual aesthetics of interactive objects. Q. J. Exp. Psychol., 71, 2586–2602. https://doi.org/10.1177/1747021817749228.
Spence, C. (2012). Managing sensory expectations concerning products and brands: Capitalizing on the potential of sound and shape symbolism. J. Consum. Psychol., 22, 37–54. doi: 10.1016/j.jcps.2011.09.004.
Stroessner, S. J., Benitez, J., Perez, M. A., Wyman, A. B., Carpinella, C. M. and Johnson, K. L. (2020). What’s in a shape? Evidence of gender category associations with basic forms. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol., 87, 103915. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2019.103915.
Suwa, M. and Tversky, B. (1997). What do architects and students perceive in their design sketches? A protocol analysis. Des. Stud., 18, 385–403. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0142-694X(97)00008-2.
Tinio, P. P. L., Leder, H. and Strasser, M. (2011). Image quality and the aesthetic judgment of photographs: Contrast, sharpness, and grain teased apart and put together. Psychol. Aesthet. Creat. Arts, 5, 165–176. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019542.
Tractinsky, N., Katz, A. S. and Ikar, D. (2000). What is beautiful is usable. Interact. Comput., 13, 127–145. doi: 10.1016/s0953-5438(00)00031-x.
Tversky, B., Suwa, M., Agrawala, M., Heiser, J., Stolte, C., Hanrahan, P., Phan, D., Klingner, J., Daniel, M.-P., Lee, P. and Haymaker, J. (2003). Sketches for design and design of sketches, in: Human Behaviour in Design, U. Lindemann (Ed.), pp. 79–86. Springer, Berlin, Germany. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-07811-2_9.
Tye, M. (2000). Consciousness, Color, and Content. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, US.
van der Lugt, R. (2005). How sketching can affect the idea generation process in design group meetings. Des. Stud., 26, 101–112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2004.08.003.
van Sommers, P. (1984). Drawing and cognition: descriptive and experimental studies of graphic production processes. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, MA, USA. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511897672.
Vartanian, O., Navarrete, G., Chatterjee, A., Fich, L. B., Leder, H., Modroño, C., Rostrup, N., Skov, M., Corradi, G. and Nadal, M. (2019). Preference for curvilinear contour in interior architectural spaces: Evidence from experts and nonexperts. Psychol. Aesthet. Creat. Arts 13, 110–116. https://doi.org/10.1037/aca0000150.
Velasco, C., Salgado-Montejo, A., Marmolejo-Ramos, F. and Spence, C. (2014). Predictive packaging design: Tasting shapes, typefaces, names, and sounds. Food Qual. Prefer., 34, 88–95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2013.12.005.
Walker, P. (2012). Cross-sensory correspondences and cross talk between dimensions of connotative meaning: Visual angularity is hard, high-pitched, and bright. Atten. Percept. Psychophys., 74, 1792–1809. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-012-0341-9.
Westerman, S. J., Gardner, P. H., Sutherland, E. J., White, T., Jordan, K., Watts, D. and Wells, S. (2012). Product design: preference for rounded versus angular design elements. Psychol. Mark., 29, 595–605. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.20546.
Windhager, S., Slice, D. E., Schaefer, K., Oberzaucher, E., Thorstensen, T. and Grammer, K. (2008). Face to Face: The Perception of Automotive Designs. Hum. Nat., 19, 331–346. doi: 10.1007/s12110-008-9047-z.
All Time | Past 365 days | Past 30 Days | |
---|---|---|---|
Abstract Views | 790 | 151 | 16 |
Full Text Views | 56 | 19 | 0 |
PDF Views & Downloads | 106 | 47 | 0 |
A large number of studies have focused on the aesthetic value of smoothly curved objects. By contrast, angular shapes tend to be associated with tertiary qualities such as threat, hardness, loudness, nervousness, etc. The present study focuses on the effect of curvilinearity vs angularity on the aesthetic experience of design artefacts. We used the drawings of everyday objects with novel shapes created by 56 designers (IUAV image dataset). Each drawing had two versions: a smooth and an angular version. To test new tertiary associations, beyond aesthetic value, we obtained ratings for seven characteristics (‘soft/hard, sad/cheerful, male/female, bad/good, aggressive/peaceful, agitated/serene, useless/useful’) from 174 naïve observers. Importantly, each naïve rater saw only one of the two versions of an object. The results confirmed a significant relation between smoothness and hardness as well as other (tertiary) associations. The link between smoothness and usefulness confirms that perceptual utility is significantly influenced by the shape of the object. This finding suggests that tertiary qualities convey both static and functional information about design objects. The role of perceptual constraints in drawing design artefacts is also discussed.
All Time | Past 365 days | Past 30 Days | |
---|---|---|---|
Abstract Views | 790 | 151 | 16 |
Full Text Views | 56 | 19 | 0 |
PDF Views & Downloads | 106 | 47 | 0 |