Sensory Dominance in Product Experience
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
SENSORY DOMINANCE IN PRODUCT EXPERIENCE ANNA FENKO SENSORY DOMINANCE IN PRODUCT EXPERIENCE PROEFSCHRIFT ter verkrijging van de graad van doctor aan de Technische Universiteit Delft, op gezag van de Rector Magnificus prof. ir. K.C.A.M.Luyben, voorzitter van het College voor Promoties, in het openbaar te verdedigen op donderdag 2 december 2010 om 12:30 uur DOOR ANNA FENKO Candidate of psychological sciences Moscow State University, Russia geboren te Moskou, Rusland Dit proefschrift is goedgekeurd door de promotor: Prof. dr. P.P.M. Hekkert COPROMOTOR: Dr. ir. H.N.J. Schifferstein SAMENSTELLING PROMOTIECOMMISSIE: Rector Magnificus, voorzitter Prof. dr. P.P.M. Hekkert, Technische Universiteit Delft, promotor Dr. ir. H.N.J. Schifferstein, Technische Universiteit Delft, copromotor Prof. dr. H. de Ridder, Technische Universiteit Delft Prof. dr. G.J. Steen, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam Prof. dr. C. Spence, University of Oxford Prof. dr. G.B. Dijksterhuis, University of Copenhagen Dr. A. Heylighen, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven Prof. dr. D.V. Keyson, Technische Universiteit Delft, reservelid This research was partly supported by MAGW OC grant 400‐03‐131 of the Nether‐ lands Organization for Scientific Research (NWO) awarded to H.N.J. Schifferstein. © ANNA FENKO [email protected] CONTENTS CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION...................................................................... 7 1. What is multisensory integration ............................................. 8 2. What is product experience.................................................... 20 3. Overview of the thesis ............................................................ 29 CHAPTER 2. SHIFTS IN SENSORY DOMINANCE BETWEEN VARIOUS STAGES OF USER‐PRODUCT INTERACTIONS .......................................................... 31 1. Introduction............................................................................ 31 2. Method ................................................................................... 34 3. Results .................................................................................... 37 4. Discussion .............................................................................. 44 4. Conclusions ............................................................................ 47 CHAPTER 3. THE ROLE OF SENSORY MODALITIES IN THE DYNAMICS OF NATURALNESS OF A DEHYDRATED FOOD PRODUCT ........................... 49 1. Introduction............................................................................ 49 2. Methods.................................................................................. 57 3. Results..................................................................................... 60 4. Discussion ............................................................................... 72 5. Conclusion............................................................................... 76 CHAPTER 4. DESCRIBING PRODUCT EXPERIENCE IN DIFFERENT LANGUAGES: THE ROLE OF SENSORY MODALITIES ....................................................... 79 1. Introduction............................................................................ 79 2. Study 1. Selecting a sensory neutral experience ................... 89 3. Study 2. Modality importance for sensory descriptions ........ 94 4. Discussion ............................................................................. 100 5. Conclusion............................................................................. 104 CHAPTER 5. LOOKING HOT OR FEELING HOT: WHAT DETERMINES THE PRODUCT EXPERIENCE OF WARMTH? ........... 107 1. Introduction.......................................................................... 107 2. Pre‐study .............................................................................. 113 3. The main study ..................................................................... 116 4. Interview study .................................................................... 121 5. Discussion ............................................................................ 123 6. Conclusion............................................................................. 125 CHAPTER 6. WHAT MAKES PRODUCTS FRESH: THE SMELL OR THE COLOR? .................................................................. 127 1. Introduction.......................................................................... 127 2. Pre‐study............................................................................... 133 3. Main study ............................................................................ 137 4. Discussion ............................................................................. 142 5. Conclusions........................................................................... 145 CHAPTER 7. NOISY PRODUCTS: DOES APPEARANCE MATTER?............ 147 1. Introduction.......................................................................... 147 2. Pre‐study............................................................................... 151 3. Main study ........................................................................... 156 4. Discussion ............................................................................. 160 CHAPTER 8. DISCUSSION ....................................................................... 165 1. General findings ................................................................... 165 2. Theoretical problems ........................................................... 169 3. Perspectives for future research .......................................... 176 4. Implications for designers .................................................... 180 SUMMARY............................................................................................... 181 SAMENVATTING...................................................................................... 187 REFERENCES............................................................................................ 193 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ........................................................................... 219 ABOUT THE AUTHOR.............................................................................. 221 LIST OF PUBLICATIONS ........................................................................... 223 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION When I started writing this thesis, my friends gave me an appropriate present: a fountain pen. Of course, it was never used to write the thesis, but I enjoy writing with it on special occasions. Adjusting my writing habits to this elegant instrument was not easy. In the beginning the peno felt to wide and heavy to hold, and when I pushed down too hard, I scraped the paper and created little balls of fiber and ink on the end of the nib. Pulling them off the pen made a mess to my fingers, and when I tried to refill the pen, I smeared my blouse with ink. But after I stopped treating my fountain pen as though it were a ballpoint pen, I started to enjoy writ‐ ing with it. Rather than pressing hard, I simply glide the pen over the paper allow‐ ing the ink to flow freely through the nib to the paper. The result is a more elegant and smooth writing stroke that does not tire my hand as quickly as writing with a ballpoint pen. I like the way my handwriting looks with the fountain pen; it became more elegant and flowing. I enjoy a smooth feel and a soft sound of the gold nib on the paper. The wide grip of the pen feels comfortable now and actually reduces hand strain. I started to enjoy handwriting rather than dread it like I used to, when I was writing with a ballpoint pen. People perceive the world around them with their five senses: vision, audition, touch, smell, and taste. Information from different modalities is integrated in the brain to create a stable and meaningful experience of objects and events. Writing with a fountain pen is an example of a multisensory experience. It involves looking 7 INTRODUCTION at the pen and the text you are writing, a comfortable feeling of the pen in your hand, a soft sound of the nib touching the paper, and a faint but distinctive smell of ink. Most consumer products evoke complex multisensory experiences that may contribute to enjoyment or disappointment of product .use In product design, various sensory properties of products (such as color, shape, tex‐ ture, smell, sound, etc.) can be manipulated to evoke certain product experiences (such as luxury, novelty, grace, and so on). Some sensory modalities may play a more important role in product experience than others. Hence, the aim of the present re‐ search is to understand which sensory modalities are more important for certain product experiences, how information from different senses is integrated, and how product experience can be influenced by various combinations of sensory stimuli in products. We will start with clarifying two general questions: (1) What is multisensory integration? and (2) What is product experience? 1. WHAT IS MULTISENSORY INTEGRATION? In cognitive psychology, the perception through different sensory modalities has been traditionally investigated separately. The main reason for this separation is the striking anatomical differences of various perceptual organs and corresponding sensory receptors, which process different kinds of information and use different physical principals. As Hermann Helmholtz, one of the early researchers of percep‐ tion, pointed out, “The distinctions among sensations which belong to different modalities, such as the differences among blue, warm, sweet, and high‐pitched, are so fundamental as to exclude any possible