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 transition from one modality to an‐ other and any relationship of greater or less similarity. For example, one cannot ask whether sweet is more like red or more like blue... Comparisons are possible only within each modality; we can cross over from blue through violet and carmine to scarlet, for example, and we can say that yellow is more like orange than like blue” (Helmholtz, 1878).
Nevertheless,m fro the very beginning of scientific investigation of sensory percep‐ tion, many findings pointed to the interrelation of the senses. In fact, contrary to Helmholtz’s claim, sweet can be red or blue, at least for a specific group of people called synaesthets. Synaesthesia is a rare familial condition involving a “crossing” of the senses — for example, ordinary activities such as reading or listening to music
8 SENSORY DOMINANCE IN PRODUCT EXPERIENCE
may be perceived with different colors or tastes (Simner & Ward, 2006). It ranges in vividness and can occur between different senses. For an adult, it is unusual to experience a sensation in one modality triggered by a sensation in another. But some researchers (e.g. Maurer, 1993; Baron‐Cohen, 1996) suggest that all babies might be synaesthetic at some point in their lives, probably up to about 4 months of age. Early in infancy all babies experience sensory input in an undifferentiated way. The normal development of perceptual system includes the differentiation of sensory modalities. Adult synaesthesia, according to this view, represents a failure to fully develop the perceptual system. More common everyday phenomena also demonstrate interactions between dif‐ ferent senses. For example, in a cinema we perceive a speaking person every time we hear words and see an actor moving his or her lips, while in reality the sound comes from the loudspeakers behind our back. This phenomenon is known as the ventriloquism effect (Bertelson, 1999). A ventriloquist synchronizes the movements of a puppet's mouth with his own speech while avoiding movements of his own head or lips. As a result, the audience perceives a speaking puppet. This effect re‐ veals audiovisual integration in the process of speech recognition. Multisensory integration is the process by which the brain synthesizes information from different senses to enhance sensitivity to external events (Wallace, 2004). The proper integration of information from the different sensory modalities helps us to perceive the world in an accurate and meaningful way. For example, reaction times are speeded in the presence of congruent multisensory cues when compared with responses to cues presented from a single modality (Hershenson, 1962; Hughes et al., 1994; Forster et al., 2002). Similarly, rapid eye movements are initiated faster in the presence of stimuli mfro more than a single sensory modality (Frens et al., 1995; Harrington & Peck, 1998; Colonius & Arndt, 2001; Amlot et al., 2003).
Many psychological experiments show the power of multisensory integration. For ex‐ ample, the parchment skin illusion illustrates auditory‐tactile interactions (Jousmäki & Hari, 1998). In this illusion, changinge th frequency of a sound coincident with rubbing a textured surface can vary the tactile perception from smooth to rough. Furthermore, the rubber hand illusion (Botvinick & Cohen, 1998) demonstrates a three‐way interac‐ tion between vision, touch and proprioception. Watching a rubber hand being stroked synchronously with one’s own unseen hand causes the rubber hand to be attributed to one’s own body, to “feel like it’s my hand.” Looking at the crossmodal interactions between hearing and touch, Zampini, Guest, and Spence (2003) asked their participants to evaluate the pleasantness and
9 INTRODUCTION
roughness of an electric toothbrush that they had to brush repeatedly across their front teeth. In line with the parchment skin illusion, the toothbrush was judged to be rougher and less pleasant when the overall sound level increased and when the high‐frequency sounds made by the toothbrush were amplified. The same type of auditory manipulation has also been found to affect the level of perceived carbona‐ tion in sparkling water drinks (Zampini & Spence, 2005) and the perceived crispness of potato chips (Zampini & Spence, 2004). Cross‐modal interactions can also influence affective information processing. The perception of facial expressions can be modulated by an associated voice (de Geld‐ er & Vroomen, 2000; Dolan, Morris, & de Gelder, 2001), and affective impressions of personality traits for people can be changed by fragrance (Baron, 1981; Fiore, 1992). Furthermore, studies on cross‐modal mere exposure effects between vision and touch (Suzuki & Gyoba, 2008) have demonstrated that previewing objects in‐ creased the preference judged by hand. Multisensory cues have also been shown to play a role in our comprehension of speech. For example, in the McGurk effect (McGurk and MacDonald, 1976), the pair‐ ing of the sound of the syllable /ba/ with the sight of a speaker mouthing the syllable /ga/ results in the perception of neither /ba/ nor /ga/, but rather the syllable /da/, reflecting a synthesis of the information contained in the two sensory channels.
Recently, it has been shown that an illusory flash can be induced by pairing a single flash with multiple sounds (Shams et al., 2000, 2002). Furthermore, vestibular cues produced by rotatory motion can alter a subject’s visual perception of line orienta‐ tion in a darkened room (Graybiel, 1952), and tactile acuity is improved on the fin‐ gertips when the subject can view the finger (Taylor‐Clarke et al., 2004). The list of such interactions is ever increasing. Taken together, these phenomena suggest that the human brain is able to synthesize information from the different senses, which allows us to create a multisensory view of the world.
Behavioral studies have explored the conditions under which crossmodal interac‐ tions ooccur. Tw key determinants of intersensory binding are synchronicity and spatial correspondence (Radeau, 1994). Thus, when two or more sensory stimuli occur at the same time and place, they are typically bound into a single percept and detected more rapidly than either input alone (Sekuler et al., 1997; Stein et al., 1989). Similar instances of crossmodal facilitation have also been shown to affect detection thresholds. For example, Frassinetti et al. (2002) found that subject’s sensitivity to visual stimuli presented below luminance threshold was increased by a simultaneous accessory sound burst presented at the same spatial location. This
10 SENSORY DOMINANCE IN PRODUCT EXPERIENCE
effect was eliminated when the two sensory inputs were separated in space or off‐ set by more than 500 ms. Similar crossmodal influences have also been reported for auditory and tactile detection thresholds (for reviews see Loveless et al., 1970; Welch & Warren, 1986). In addition to the parameters of time and space, the synthesis of multisensory in‐ puts can also be influenced by their semantic congruence. For example, hearing a dog’s bark emanating from the same approximate location as a visible cat is unlike‐ ly to create the impression of a barking cat (Calvert & Thesen, 2004). Other factors that mayy pla a role in mediating crossmodal interactions include task‐related fac‐ tor (e.g., whether subjects are required to detect or discriminate a target; Lloyd et al., 2001), as well as the prior sensory bias of the subjects (e.g., whether they are visually or acoustically primed) (Giard & Peronnet, 1999).
1.2. SPECIFICITY OF SENSORY SYSTEMS
The task of multisensory integration is not easy; it requires the interaction of vari‐ ous brain structures, synchronization and fine‐tuning of the complex neurological mechanisms. We may wonder why humans require all these different sensory channels to acquire information about the world. What determines the unique role of each sensory modality in our experience of the world?
1.2.1. VISION
One of the main characteristics of vision is its unique ability to organize sensory stimuli into objects. Goodale & Humphrey (1998) suggested that one of the major functions of the visual system is the creation of an internal model of the external world – a model that can be used in the recognition of objects and understanding their interrelations:
“The fundamental task of vision is to construct a representation of the three‐dimensional layout of the world… Vision gives us an experience of the world beyond our immediate body surface, a world full of objects and events that are imbued with dmeaning an significance… The goal of visual perception is… to reconstruct a detailed and accurate model or replica of the three‐dimensional world on the basis of the two‐dimensional data pre‐ sent at the retinas” (Goodale & Humphrey, 1998, p.181).
11 INTRODUCTION
Behavioral and neurocognitive studies have demonstrated that visual perception and mental representations share the same mechanisms, and that visual areas of the brain play a functional role in mental imagery (Kosslyn, 1980, 1983). These stu‐ dies led to the formulation of the theory that human knowledge is organized in the manner of mental pictures (Block, 1983). Visual representation plays a crucial role in cognitive activities related to the se‐ mantics of objects and scenes. Our visual perception of the world appears re‐ markably rich and detailed, but much of this perceptual representation is derived from memory rather than visual input (e.g. McConkie and Currie, 1996; O’Regan, 1992; Rensink et al., 1997). According to Neisser (1994), ‘seeing the world’ requires identification and classification of objects by a recognition system, which constantly relates present sensory input with the stored information about objects. The close relationship between vision and cognition has long been a focus of West‐ ern thought (Weimer, 1977). Modern cognitive linguistics stresses the similarity between vision and knowledge by pointing to the abundance of visual metaphors for knowledge and mental processes that exist in English and other European lan‐ guages (‘as illustrated by,’ ‘reflect on that,’ ‘see what I mean,’ ‘a brilliant scholar,’ ‘bright idea,’ ‘a clear explanation’). Sweetser (1990) suggests three reasons for the prominent relationship between vision and knowledge: (1) The focusing ability of the sense of vision enables people to pick up one stimulus from many, and, to‐ gether with its intentionality and directionality, differentiates it from the other senses. ) (2 Vision is our primary source of objective data about the world. Visual features are the most marked in children’s early categorization, and thus form an important source for concept formation. Vision provides data from a distance, which through metaphoric transfer become a characteristic of objectivity in the intellectual domain. (3) Vision is identical for different people who can take the same point of view.
1.2.2. HEARING
Vision and hearing are usually called ‘distant senses’ (Sekuler & Blake, 1994), be‐ cause they do not require direct contact to perceive objects. According to Sweetser (1990), this capacity links these two senses to objectivity and intellect.
The main function of hearing in humans is communication, which includes intellec‐ tual and emotional influences between people. The sense of hearing therefore is connected to internal receptivity and the understanding of ideas. Perhaps, because
12 SENSORY DOMINANCE IN PRODUCT EXPERIENCE
of this readiness to respond to someone’s ideas and wishes, the verb ‘hear’ also means ‘obey’ in many languages (e.g., in English). Auditory information is essential for language acquisition in children (Sloutsky and Napolitano, 2003). Language has been considered a central mechanism of thinking, either in the form of ‘mentalese’, the innate and unconscious ‘language of thought’ (Fodor, 1975), or in the form of ‘inner speech’, central to the socio‐cultural theory of thought (Vygotsky, 1986). Both these theories assume that internal representa‐ tions of knowledge are organised in symbols similar to those in natural language, and that thinking is similar to speaking to oneself.
The question whether thinking is similar to seeing mental pictures or to speaking to oneself is a subject of a long scientific controversy (see Block, 1983 for a review). According to pictorialism, cognition is similar to vision; for the opposing theory, descriptionalism, understanding is similar to hearing words. There is a third opin‐ ion, called ‘dual coding theory’, according to which cognition involves the activity of both systems: a verbal system specialized for dealing with language and an imagery system specialized for dealing with pictures (Paivio, 2006). Paivio (1971) and Richardson (1977) suggested that individuals can be classified as visualizers versus verbalizers according to their specific cognitive style, i.e. the way they acquire and process information. According to this view, visualizers rely primarily on visual im‐ ages when they perform cognitive tasks, whereas verbalisers rely primarily on ver‐ bal information and analytical strategies.
These differences may determine the attention individuals pay to visual and audi‐ tory information. Consumer research has demonstrated that aesthetic judgments differ among individuals with different cognitive styles (Childers et al. 1985; Hol‐ brook & Morris, 1986). For example, visualizers respond more sensitively to organic patterns and feature interactions, while verbalizers pay more attention to single stimuli and isolated details. Analogously, cognitive style could also influence the relative importance of vision and hearing in product experience.
1.2.3. TOUCH
Touch and taste are often called ‘contact senses, or ‘proximity senses’, because they require closeness with the perceived object in order to perceive its properties (Sekuler & Blake, 1994). It may be suggested that these senses are more closely
13 INTRODUCTION
connected to subjectivity, intimacy and emotion than ‘distant senses’, such as vi‐ sion and hearing. Touch is unique among sensory systems. It is the most diverse system, comprising a family of submodalities that respond in a variety of ways to mechanical, thermal, and chemical energy; it has the largest sensory surface, neve if we ignore internal structures and consider only the skin. In addition, it is the system that is closely interwoven with affect, both positive and negative (Hollins, 2010). In everyday language the sense of touch has always been related to the field of emotions. Expressions such as “I’m deeply touched” or “touching words” are widely used in English.
Interpersonal touch has both emotional and communicative meaning (see Herten‐ stein et al., 2006 for a review). Many social and affiliative behaviors, as well as be‐ havior directed towards comfort and a feeling of well‐being, are directed towards pleasant touch (Rolls, 2005). Whether interpersonal touch is perceived as pleasant or unpleasant depends upon the genders and familiarity levels of dyad members, and the body site touched. Nguyen and colleagues (1975) found that receiving touch from a stranger was less pleasant and more invasive than that from a close acquaintance, especially for females receiving touch from males. Touch to the arms and hands were suggested as particularly pleasant.
The information we receive through touch is often accompanied by affect, which may be either positive (the pleasure of a kiss) or negative (the discomfort of feeling swea‐ ty on a hot day). Pain sensations, which also belong to the domain of touch, are strongly connected to negative emotions (Villemure et al., 2003; Bruehl et al., 2006). But pain is not a necessary component of a negative tactile sensation. Psychological research shows that warm and cold stimuli have affective components (Rolls, 2005). For example, a cool surface applied to the hand often feels unpleasant.
Touch is more precise than vision in assessing fine differences in textures. Texture, in a broad sense, means any mechanical properties that influence the feel of a surface. A multidimensional scaling study showed that roughness and hardness are the two main dimensions of texture space, with a slipperiness/stickiness dimension playing a secondary role for some individuals (Hollins et al., 2000). Texture perception also has an affective component. For instance, in neurological patients who lack myelinated mechanoreceptors and lost their tactile detection abilities, Olausson et al. (2002, 2008) found that tactile stimuli elicited vague, pleasant sensations that were difficult to localize. The authors proposed that unmyelinated mechanoreceptive afferents help trigger the emotional response to interpersonal touch.
14 SENSORY DOMINANCE IN PRODUCT EXPERIENCE
1.2.4. OLFACTION
Similar to touch, olfaction is strongly connected to affective reactions. It also seems to be the most “subjective” of the senses, because it has a direct non‐reflective link to personal memories. Odors can generate pleasant or unpleasant experiences (Schleidt et al., 1988), and the hedonic determination of an odor has been proposed to be the key function of olfaction (Yeshurun & Sobel, 2010). Pleasant odors can induce positive moods, whereas unpleasant odors can induce negative moods (Rétiveau et al., 2004; Schiffman et al., 1995). Studies with newborns suggested that at least some aspects of olfactory pleasantness may be innate (Soussignan et al. 1997, Steiner 1979). Odors have the powerful ability to spark off vivid emotional autobiographical memo‐ ries (Hinton & Henley, 1993; Chu & Downes, 2000, Willander & Larsson, 2006) and to evoke the associated emotions (Epple and Herz, 1999; Millot and Brand, 2001). Herz and Schooler (2002) found that odor ‐evoked memories are more emotion‐laden and make participants feel more "brought back" to the original event as compared with the same cue presented visually or verbally. Stevenson and Boakes (2003) argue that odor perception depends on the implicit memories that an odorant elicits. They sug‐ gest that odor perception relies more heavily on experience than do other senses, and that olfactory memory differs in many ways from other memory systems. Odor identification ability improves over a long period of development, which may extend into adolescence and early adulthood, while the major development of the visual system is nearly complete by 1 year, and audition (including spoken language com‐ prehension) is fully developed by 5 or 6 years.
Odors not only elicit moods and emotions (Chu & Downes, 2002; Weber & Heuber‐ ger, 2008), but odor perception also shares many common characteristics with mood and emotion. Pleasantness is the principal dimension of perception in both emotion (Fontaine et al., 2007) and olfaction (Khan et al., 2007). When using large numbers of verbal descriptors to describe odorants, pleasantness repeatedly emerges as the primary dimension in multidimensional analyses of semantic space (Khan et al., 2007; Moskowitz et al., 1976, Zarzo, 2008). Furthermore, odorant pleasantness was the primary aspect of odor spontaneously used by subjects in olfactory discrimination tasks (Schiffman, 1974) and the primary criterion sponta‐ neously used by subjects to combine odorants into groups (Berglund et al., 1973; Schiffman et al., 1977). Humans are very good at detecting an odorant but are poor at naming it. People are unable to name by smell at least 50% of the odorous household items they use
15 INTRODUCTION
daily (Cain, 1979; de Wijk et al., 1995; Lawless & Engen, 1977). The dissociation between knowledge about an odor concurrent with the inability to name it is evi‐ dent already at childhood. When smelling dangerous household products, children correctly named 15% of the odors, but correctly rated edibility of 79% of the same odors (De Wijk & Cain 1994). Hinton and Henley (1993) argue that the olfactory modality has a nonlexical coding system as opposed to the visual coding system which has lexical nature. There are relatively few olfactory terms in English and most of them refer to bad smells. Metaphorical meanings for smell verbs include the detection of bad characteristics, as in “something about his testimony stinks” (Caplan, 1973; Viberg, 1984; Sweetser, 1990) and to suspect, to guess, to sense something intuitively, as in “she could smell money, power, victory” (Ibarretxe‐Antuñano, 1999).
1.2.5. TASTE
While the connotation of ‘smelly’ is often negative, that of ‘tasty’ is positive, which Classen (1993) explains by the fact that people are confronted with foul smells more often than with foul tastes: “We can choose our food, but we cannot as read‐ ily close our noses to bad smells” (p. 53). Taste figuratively means ‘judgment of what is beautiful’ and is, therefore, characterized as a sense of aesthetic discrimi‐ nation. This relation between taste and preferences is very common cross‐ linguistically (Buck, 1949). Taste is an especially powerful sensory domain for eliciting affective reactions, be‐ cause food is a basic biological commodity, and because gustatory stimuli can elicit either positive or negative affective valence (Bartoshuk & Beauchamp, 1994; Pfaffmann, 1960; Rozin, 1999; Rozin & Schulkin, 1990).
Newborn infants respond positively to sweet sugars and reject bitter substances (Rozin, 1999). The liking for sweet substances is probably innate in humans and in most omnivores, possibly as an evolutionary selection of a diet rich in calories, vi‐ tamins and minerals, such as ripe fruits and vegetables (Bartoshuk & Beauchamp, 1994). Innate rejection of bitter substances may reflect the fact that many bitter compounds are toxic (Rozin & Schulkin, 1990).
Although we generally speak of tasting foods and beverages, much of the sensory input involved is actually olfactory. This confusion arises because there are two routes by which odorants can reach the odor receptors. One route is taken by the odorant when it is sniffed through the nose. Another route is taken by the odorant when it goes from 16 SENSORY DOMINANCE IN PRODUCT EXPERIENCE
the mouth up into the nasal cavity during chewing and swallowing. Because of this con‐ fusion, the majority of food studies investigates olfaction and taste together and de‐ scribes the integrative food sensation as flavor (Piggott, 1990; Rolls, 2008).
1.3. SENSORY DOMINANCE
Usually the information from different senses is integrated into a consistent ex‐ perience of objects or events. However, if this information is contradictory, the brain needs to solve the perceptual problem. It can ignore the information that does not fit the usual picture of the world or it can combine it in some compromise object. For example, in experiments with prismatic lenses that invert the perceived distances (objects that are close are perceived as if they are far away and vice versa) a person sees the mask of a face as if it were the inside of the mask (Yellott & Kaiwi, 1979), but perception of human faces remains unchanged. Apparently, the perceptual system allows individuals to see possible or the most likely objects, but ignores impossible or rare variants.
When the data from the different modalities are taken into account, the contribu‐ tion of each modality to the entire experience can be measured experimentally. A lot of such experiments were performed by cognitive scientists, and the results show the phenomenon of sensory dominance, that is the degree of the prevalence of one modality over the others in conflicting situations.
One of the earliest experiments addressing this topic was performed in the 19th century by the American psychologist George Stratton. For several days he wore prismatic lenses that made him see all things inverted, as if the whole field of view had been revolved on the line of sight through an angle of 180 degrees.
“All images at first appeared to be inverted; the room and all in it seemed upside down. The hands when stretched out from below into the visual field seemed to enter from above. Yet although these images were clear and definite, they did not at first seem to be real things, like the things we see in normal tvision, bu they seemed to be misplaced, false, or illusory im‐ ages between the observer and the objects or things themselves. All movements of the body at this time were awkward, uncertain, and full of surprises... The movement was a series of errors and attempts at correc‐ tion... I felt my hand to be in a different position from that in which I saw it, and could not, except by cool deliberation, use its visual image as a sign of impending tactual experience. After a time, however, repeated experience 17 INTRODUCTION
made this use of the visual image much less strange... The limbs began ac‐ tually to feel in the place where the new visual perception reported them to be. The seen images thus became real things just as in normal sight” (Stratton, 1897, p.349). One of the conclusions from Stratton’s experience is that different senses may have different degree of reliability. At first, Stratton relied entirely on the felt position of his body, because the visual picture was perceived as false and illusory. But in sev‐ eral days the visual picture became more real and “whatever there was of abnor‐ mality seemed to lie in myself, as if head and shoulders were inverted” (Stratton, 1897, p.468). Another important conclusion from Stratton’s experiment is that the dominant modality can change over time. At first visual information felt completely inade‐ quate. Stratton had to use his memory and tactile information to assess the loca‐ tion of objects. But after the adaptation he was able to rely on visual information. It was his body localization that felt inadequate now, as if his head was upside down. A lot of research that addressed the problem of sensory dominance used distortion of the visual image, but in most cases it was milder than in Stratton’s experiments. When the optical distortion is 10 degrees instead of 180 degrees participants usu‐ ally do not even notice it. They rely entirely on vision and completely ignore tactual information (Warren & Cleaves, 1971). For instance, in a classic study by Rock and Victor (1964) participants were presented with an object of which the visual shape, because of optical distortion, differed considerably from its actual shape perceived by touch. Participants examined a square object by hands and at the same time saw it through a lens which compressed its visual width to one half its original size. The conflict between visual and tactual size was resolved completely in favor of visual size. Vision was so powerful in comparison to touch that the object actually felt like a rectangle, and most subjects were unaware of a conflict.
Strong visual dominance over touch has been demonstrated in a variety of percep‐ tual tasks, involving the perception of size (Miller, 1972), length (Teghtsoonian & Teghtsoonian, 1970), curvature (Easton & Moran, 1978), depth (Singer & Day, 1969), and spatial location (Hay, Pick, & Ikeda, 1965). Some studies also demon‐ strated visual dominance over auditory sensory signals (Bertelson, 1999).
However, visual dominance does not occur in all instances. For example, in a study in which participants were presented with conflicting information regarding surface texture, vision and touch were weighed equally when subjects performed a texture identification task (Lederman & Abbott, 1981). When subjects were asked to judge
18 SENSORY DOMINANCE IN PRODUCT EXPERIENCE
surfaces according to their ‘roughness’, the relative weighing of visual and tactual inputs appeared to be 30% and 70%, respectively (Lederman, Thorne, & Jones, 1986). Shapiro et al. (1984) showed that the auditory modality may be superior to vision in alerting the organism to novel events. Furthermore, in a study without the involvement of the visual modality, a significant bias of proprioception on the per‐ ceived position of auditory stimuli has been reported (Caclin et al., 2002). Developmental studies have highlighted that significant changes take place in mul‐ tisensory processing as maturation progresses (Lewkowicz, 1996; Wallace and Stein, 1997). For instance, Sloutsky and Napolitano (2003) demonstrated that 4‐ year‐old children were more likely to process auditory than visual stimuli. The au‐ thors propose that the privileged status of the auditory modality may be function‐ ally important for language acquisition: “Because visual processing is parallel and auditory processing is serial, in the absence of privileged processing of auditory stimuli the visual modality would completely dominate the auditory modality, thus making the task of language acquisition very difficult, if not impossible” (Sloutsky & Napoli‐ tano, 2003, p.830).
1.3.1. EXPLANATIONS OF SENSORY DOMINANCE
Several hypotheses were proposed to explain why a particular modality can domi‐ nate in particular situations.
The modality appropriateness hypothesis (Welch, 1999) claims that dominance of a particular modality depends on its appropriateness for a particular task. For exam‐ ple, vision is more appropriate for spatial perception, audition is more appropriate for the detection of temporal events (Welch, 1999), while touch is best suited for tasks that relate to the material properties of objects (Lederman, Thorne, & Jones, 1986). In situations of conflicting intersensory stimulation the modality that best suits the task will be weighted more heavily.
Modality dominance can also depend on mechanisms of selective attention. This hy‐ pothesis suggests that the modality that receives the observers’ directed attention is the dominant modality (Posner, Nissen, & Klein, 1976). Researchers have shown that people can consciously direct their selective attention to a particular sense (Spence, Nicholls, & Driver, 2001). Attending to one sensory modality can facilitate the percep‐ tion of stimuli in that modality relative to when attention is diverted to another sen‐ sory modality. Guest & Spence (2003) found that when participants were presented
19 INTRODUCTION
with both visual and tactual information and asked to ignore the stimuli of one mo‐ dality, touch was the more difficult sense to ignore. Culture can play a role in determining what sensory modality is more important and to what modality people should pay more attention. Culture has been shown to influence a large variety of behaviors across many diverse disciplines, including consumer behavior (see Hofstede, 2001). McLuhan (1961) believed that the nature of media by which people communicate affects the ratio of their senses. For exam‐ ple, the alphabet stresses the sense of sight, which in turn causes people to think in linear, objective terms. Language is one of the core components of culture. It is central to communication and closely related to thought. A proposal of linguistic relativity emphasizes a dis‐ tinctive role of language in shaping experience and influencing thought (Gumperz and Levinson, 1996). In recent years, experimental studies have demonstrated that language has an important influence on various aspects of perception, including perception of space, time, and color (Boroditsky, 2001; Bowerman, 1996; Levinson, 1996). Studies have also shown that language characteristics can influence product experience (Lucy and Gaskins, 2001; Boroditsky et al., 2003).
Language can also influence the relative importance of sensory modalities through the metaphorical use of sensory descriptors. Metaphors often refer to sensory phenomena: good ideas are described as ‘brilliant,’ pleasant dreams as ‘sweet,’ important topics as ‘hot,’ and bright colors as ‘loud.’ These metaphorical meanings of sensory terms may vary between languages, which may affect product categori‐ zation and experience.
2. WHAT IS PRODUCT EXPERIENCE?
The theoretical framework of experience has long been at the margins of experimental psychology, being mostly in the focus of phenomenological philosophy (e.g. Husserl, 1962; Heidegger, 1964; Merleau‐Ponty, 1962) and counseling psychology (Ponterotto, 2005). Phenomenology studies conscious experiences as they are lived and verbally articulated from the first‐person point of view, including experiences of perception, action, memory, mental imagery, emotion, attention, empathy, dreaming, and so forth. According to phenomenology, all our experiences are intentional: they aim toward something beyond themselves. When we see, we see something; when we remember, we remember something; when we hope or fear, we hope for or fear something.
20 SENSORY DOMINANCE IN PRODUCT EXPERIENCE
Any experience is given directly to the person and only to that person. We cannot share each other’s thoughts, emotions, memories, pains, and so on. Such first‐ personal givenness is a primitive form of self‐consciousness in the sense that it does not require any act of reflection or introspection, but occurs spontaneously and involuntarily. In this respect, all experiences are conscious. Although not explic‐ itly accessed to attention and reflection, they are accessible in principle: they can become available to introspection and verbal report (Lutz & Thompson, 2003). Although conscious experience is the starting point of phenomenology, experience shades off into less overtly conscious phenomena. As Husserl and other philoso‐ phers stressed, we are only vaguely aware of things in the periphery of attention, and we are only implicitly aware of the wider horizon of things in the world around us. Moreover, as Heidegger stressed, in practical activities like walking along, or hammering a nail, or speaking our native tongue, we are not explicitly conscious of our habitual patterns of action. Furthermore, as psychoanalysts have stressed, much of our intentional mental activity is not conscious at all, but may become conscious in the process of therapy or analysis, as we come to realize how we feel or think about something. So, the domain of experience spreads out from con‐ scious experience into semi‐conscious and even unconscious mental activity.
For the entire 20th century, psychology has been dominated by the positivist re‐ search paradigm (Rennie, 2002), which aims at an explanation of psychological processes in order to predict and eventually to control them. Experiential phenom‐ ena were considered too vague, intractable, and therefore, not worth of scientific inquiry. Psychologists have only gradually come to acknowledge the possibility that phenomenology may be relevant for a scientific understanding of cognition. Re‐ cently, a growing number of cognitive scientists recognize the need to make sys‐ tematic use of introspective phenomenological reports in studying the brain basis of consciousness (Jack and Shallice, 2001; Jack and Roepstorff, 2002; Dehaene and Naccache, 2001). A research program of neurophenomenology stresses the impor‐ tance of gathering first‐person data as a strategy for describing and quantifying the physiological processes relevant to consciousness (Varela, 1996; Lutz, 2002; Ru‐ drauf et al., 2003). Neurophenomenology assumes that conscious experience is grounded in neural activity and embodied action.
Recently, the concept of experience has also made its way to the field of marketing and consumer behavior. The proclaimed new era of the experience economy and experience marketing (e.g. Pine & Gilmore, 1998; Schmitt, 1999) made experience a focus of consumer behavior research and other areas of applied psychology. Ac‐ cording to Schmitt (1999), for example, the ultimate goal of experiential marketing
21 INTRODUCTION
is to create a desirable, coherent, and consistent customer impression that en‐ hances the brand image. When people repeatedly encounter a particular brand within the context of a pleasant experience, they are more likely to develop a fa‐ vorable attitude towards this brand. In addition, characteristics of the atmosphere during the experience (e.g., modern, fresh, impressive) may become associated with the brand. Advocates of the “experience economy” emphasize that experiences can be inten‐ tionally designed: “An experience occurs when a company intentionally uses ser‐ vices as the stage, and the goods as props, to engage individual customer in a way that creates a memorable event” (Pine & Gilmore, 1998). They discuss the impor‐ tance of customer’s impressions which should be created by ‘positive cues’ and by the elimination of ‘negative cues’: “The more senses an experience engages, the more effective and memorable it can be”. Schmitt (1997) stresses that “in a world in which most consumers have their basic needs satisfied, value is easily provided by satisfying customers’ experiential needs – their aesthetic needs”. Industrial designers also realized that they do not only make products to satisfy consumers' needs, but create new user experiences. In the 1980s, emotional design started in Europe and North America (Norman, 2004; Jordan, 2000; Desmet, 2002). Independently, Kansei engineering spread in Japan from the early 1970s (Nagama‐ shi, 1989; Horigushi et al., 1995). Kansei engineering is defined as a product devel‐ opment methodology that translates consumers’ and users’ feelings, impressions, and emotions into concrete design parameters (Nagamashi, 1989). Nowadays, the design for experience approach becomes holistic, considering all sensory properties of a product and referring to the people’s global experience (Clos & Bouchard, 2010; Desmet & Schifferstein, 2010).
Product experience can be defined as “the awareness of the psychological effects elicited by the interaction with a product, including the degree to which all our senses are stimulated, the meanings and values we attach to the product, and the feelings and emotions that are elicited” (Hekkert & Schifferstein, 2008, p.2). Under‐ standing such experiences will allow designers to ‘design for experience’.
In this thesis we focus on the sensory aspects of product experience. Both in every‐ day life and in experimental research, it is difficult to differentiate the three main components of product experience outlined in this definition. Sensory perception, especially in the case of visual and auditory modalities, is closely connected to cog‐ nitive processes (Goodale & Humphrey, 1998; Neisser, 1994; Paivio, 2006). Also, some sensory modalities (especially touch, smell, and taste) are strongly associated
22 SENSORY DOMINANCE IN PRODUCT EXPERIENCE
with emotions (Hinton & Henley, 1993; Sweetser, 1990). Furthermore, emotion and cognitive processes, which are usually described as distinct, often blend to‐ gether in everyday life: our attention is drawn to emotional stimuli; emotional events are retained in memory; and judgment sometimes involves weighing emo‐ tional consequences (Hollins, 2010).
In the marketing literature, the utilitarian properties of products are often analyzed separately from their affective and aesthetic properties. Sometimes the separation even reaches to product groups in general, some of which are considered strictly utilitarian (‘think products’), while others are completely affective (‘feel products’). ‘Think’ products are bought mainly for utilitarian, cognitive reasons (Claeys, 1995), while purchase of ‘feel’ products is driven by the need to satisfy emotional wants (Hirschman and Holbrook, 1982), and by value‐expressive and affective motives (Park and Young, 1983), such as ego and sensory gratification, social acceptance (Ratchford, 1987; Rossiter and Percy, 1991).
From the phenomenological perspective, distinctions between ‘thinking’ and ‘feel‐ ing’ are not that clear and straightforward. Each consumer product can to some extent be experienced as utilitarian or affective depending on a usage situation, user personality, and particular product properties. Even practical products such as a dishwashing liquid can evoke a complex of user experiences, not all of them di‐ rectly related to the product’s utilitarian function.
2.1. SENSORY DOMINANCE IN PRODUCT EXPERIENCE
When people interact with products, they receive information through all the dif‐ ferent senses. Because all sensory inputs can affect the way in which users per‐ ceive, make sense of, experience, and evaluate a product, several authors have proposed a multisensory approach to product design, in which all perceptual im‐ pressions elicited when a potential user interacts with the product are explicitly created and evaluated (e.g., Adank and Warell, 2008; MacDonald, 2002; Schiffer‐ stein and Desmet, 2008). Nonetheless, information from some sensory modalities may be more important for certain product experiences than others. We define “sensory importance” as the relative contribution of each sensory modality to a particular product experience. The dominant sensory modality is the modality that has the largest effect on the specific experience. A general and popular belief seems to be that vision is the dominant sensory mo‐ dality in everyday experience. When people are asked which sensory modality ythe 23 INTRODUCTION
would miss most if they lost it, the majority is likely to indicate vision (Fiore and Kimle, 1997; Schifferstein, 2006). In addition, when people are asked to describe objects, they primarily use adjectives that refer to the visual (60%) or tactual (32%) modalities (Stadtlander and Murdoch, 2000).
Research in the domain of product experience also suggests that visual dominance exists in the experience of consumer products. Schifferstein and Cleiren (2005) per‐ formed a study in which they showed that consumers acquired most of the infor‐ mation on products by vision and touch: this information was most detailed and the subjects were surest of their judgments. The experiment also showed that products were harder to identify by sound or smell than by vision or touch. Another study on the roles of sensory modalities in product experience (Schifferstein and Desmet, 2007) suggested that vision gathers the largest amount of information on a product within the shortest time frame.
A questionnaire study in which participants reported the importance of the sensory modalities during the usage of 45 different products (Schifferstein, 2006) demon‐ strated that on average the relative importance sequence of sensory modalities is vision, followed by touch, smell, audition and taste. In addition, when people were asked to rate how important they found the different modalities in their lives in general, most of them selected vision as the most important modality. However, the importance ratings for the sensory modalities differed greatly between prod‐ ucts. For almost half of the 45 products, the importance of vision was rated lower than one of the other modalities. For example, audition is the most important mo‐ dality for a washing machine and a coffee maker, which can be explained by the role of the sound in signaling the different stages of the process of washing or mak‐ ing coffee. Touch is most important for a computer mouse and a pen, and probably for any other hand tools as well. Smell plays a dominant role for a deodorant and (together with taste) for food products.
The relative importance of a modality may depend on various aspects, such as the availability of sources of sensory stimulation, the degree of variation in sensory stimula‐ tion over various products, the usefulness of the sensory information during functional use, the proportion of time a modality is used actively, and the role of the stimulation in enjoying the product. Hence, the roles of the modalities depend not only on whether a certain type of sensory information is present, but also on whether the information is perceived, how it is processed, and how people react to it emotionally.
24 SENSORY DOMINANCE IN PRODUCT EXPERIENCE
2.2. EMPIRICAL CATEGORISATION OF PRODUCT EXPERIENCE
To find out how people normally relate their product experience to sensory im‐ pressions, we performed an exploratory questionnaire study. We asked partici‐ pants (118 master students of the IDE Faculty of TU Delft) to describe the three most important experiential aspects of the products they had selected previously as familiar and important for them (e.g., I like my mobile phone because it is thin, elegant and smart, or: I dislike that my car is less powerful and fast than oth‐ ers, but I appreciate that it is quite silent). For each of these three characteristics separately we asked participants to indicate to what extent they could evaluate this aspect on the basis of (1) the smell, (2) the visual appearance, (3) the sound, (4) the tactual feel, and (5) the taste of the product, using a scale from 1 = not important at all to 5 = very important.
On the basis of the responses, we created product categories that were largely homogeneous in type of product (see Table 1.1). The largest categories in our sam‐ ple were personal products (wristwatches, bags, shoes, etc.), electronics (mobile phones, cameras, computer accessories), and electric appliances (such as coffee makers and washing machines).
We also made categories of the various experience aspects that were mentioned (see Table 1.2). The aspects mentioned most frequently by our respondents were related to product usage (comfortable, safe, easy to use, etc.,), functionality (durable, reliable, efficient, etc.), character (professional, smart), and appearance (elegant, simple). Then we determined the experiential aspects that were mentioned most often for the different product categories (about 18% or more):
9 Appliances: Usage, functional, character
9 Electronics: Usage, character, functional
9 Home: Character, appearance, functional, usage
9 Leisure: Usage, functional, character
9 Personal: Usage, appearance, character
9 Tool: Functional, usage, emotional 9 Vehicles: Usage, appearance, functional
25 INTRODUCTION
TABLE 1.1. PRODUCT GROUPS
Group Products Frequency %
Personal prod‐ Wristwatch (11), bag (4), backpack (4), shoes (2), perfume 34 30 ucts bottle (2), razor (2), agenda, Chinese fan, suitcase, tobacco package, wallet, dildo, dressing gown, sponge, toothbrush
Electronics Mobile phone (7), camera (4), computer mouse (3), laptop 26 22 (3), videogame (2), turntable (2), earphones, mobile hard disk, mp3 player, speakers, telephone
Electric appli‐ Coffee maker (6), blender, electric kettle, rice cooker, vac‐ 15 13 ances uum cleaner, washing machine, fan, sewing machine, elec‐ tric drill, electric trimmer
Home accesso‐ Clock (2), lamp (2), shaker (2), bed, bench, chaise longue, 15 13 ries candles, light switch, lock, garbage bin, jar, mug
Sport & leisure Flashlight (2), skateboard (2), camping stove, helmet, 12 9 equipment hockey guards, Rubik’s cube, snowboard, tennis racket, guitar
Tools Pencil sharpener (2), pocket knife (2), drawing set, mark‐ 8 7 ers, scissors, utility knife
Vehicles Car (3), bike (2), airplane, caravan 7 6
Total 117 100
These data show that different types of experience aspects are important for dif‐ ferent product groups. For instance, appearance is more important for home ac‐ cessories, personal products, and vehicles than for the other categories. Further‐ more, the emotional aspect of experience (attractive, nice, and friendly) was mainly important for tools. Functional and usage aspects of product experience were the most important aspects for all product groups. This result suggests that utilitarian product characteristics represent an important component of user experience, and that product experience should not be restricted only to affective and aesthetic product properties.
26 SENSORY DOMINANCE IN PRODUCT EXPERIENCE
TABLE 1.2. ASPECTS OF PRODUCT EXPERIENCE
Aspect Examples of aspects mentioned Frequency %
Functionality reliable (8), efficiency (5), multifunctional (5), durable (4), 64 18 powerful (3), practical (3)
Usage comfortable (24), usage (12), safety (7), ergonomics (6), 88 25 easy to use (6), feedback (5)
Appearance elegant (17), simple (8), appearance (6), design (5), color‐ 51 15 ful (3)
Vision + touch quality (7), material (3) 20 6
Touch light (7) / heavy (2), solid (3), robust (3) 20 6
Sound Sound (2), loud (2) / soft, noise (2) 9 2
Smell and taste taste of coffee (2), bad smell 6 2
Character professional (7), smart (5), original (3), authentic (3) 62 18
Emotional im‐ attractive (3), nice (2), friendly (2) 26 8 pact
Total 346 100
Subsequently, we calculated the mean importance ratings for all sensory modalities per product category. Our results show that all categories follow the general pat‐ tern that was found in previous studies (Schifferstein, 2006): For most categories, vision is most important on average, followed by touch > audition > smell and taste (see Table 1.3). The only exception is leisure products (musical instruments and sport equipment), for which touch is more important than vision. We also calculated the means for the modality importance ratings per experience aspect (see Table 1.4). These means per aspect deviate from the rule that modality importance follow the sequence vision > touch > audition > taste and smell. We see, for example, that for emotional and functional aspects of product experience vision and touch seem to be equally important. As expected, for sensory experi‐ ences related to sound, touch, and taste/smell, the respective modalities are domi‐ nant. For usage and vision/touch aspects, touch seems to be more important than vision. These findings indicate that the relative importance of sensory modalities
27 INTRODUCTION
differ between the various experiential product aspects. Therefore, it would be interesting to investigate in more detail to what extent sensory modalities affect different aspects of the experience, and to explore why those differences occur.
TABLE 1.3. MEAN MODALITY RATINGS PER PRODUCT GROUP
Product group Vision Audition Touch Smell Taste
personal 4,17 2,45 3,99 1,85 1,10
electronics 4,28 3,11 3,83 1,37 1,03
appliances 4,00 3,53 3,84 1,93 1,47
home 4,65 2,83 3,81 1,71 1,06
leisure 4,06 3,28 4,50 1,50 1,12
tools 4,24 2,60 4,20 1,52 1,04
vehicles 4,10 3,52 4,10 2,29 1,05
Total 4,23 2,93 3,98 1,70 1,12
TABLE 1.4. MEAN MODALITY RATINGS PER EXPERIENCE ASPECT
Experience aspect Vision Audition Touch Smell Taste
functional 4,23 3,30 4,14 1,66 1,08
usage 3,90 2,88 4,47 1,58 1,02
appearance 4,90 2,33 3,55 1,75 1,08
vision/touch 4,38 2,90 4,48 1,38 1,10
touch 3,75 2,65 4,35 1,40 1,10
sound 2,75 5,00 2,62 1,25 1,00
taste/smell 3,17 1,67 1,33 4,83 2,83
character 4,67 3,00 3,64 1,78 1,19
emotional 3,89 3,11 3,96 1,89 1,11
Total 4,24 2,91 3,99 1,70 1,12
28 SENSORY DOMINANCE IN PRODUCT EXPERIENCE
Some aspects of experience, such as comfortable (24), elegant (17), simple (8), reli‐ able (8), professional (7), light (7), safe (7), were mentioned repeatedly in our study. The analysis of these spontaneous descriptions reveals users’ own under‐ standing of product experience and its important aspects. It is interesting to relate this ‘naive’ understanding of product experience to the definition of product ex‐ perience proposed by Hekkert and Schifferstein (2008), which outlines the three main aspects of experience (sensory, symbolic, and emotional). Free elicitation used in our study provided relatively more symbolic aspects (such as elegant, pro‐ fessional, reliable). Sensory experiences were mentioned less often and included mostly visual (appearance, colorful) and tactile properties (comfortable, light). Sound and smell/taste characteristics were mentioned only by 2% of participants. Emotional experiences were also mentioned rarely (8%). We may wonder to what extent these data reflect the actual importance of affec‐ tive or sensory components of product experience, and to what extent they result from differences in awareness or accessibility of verbal descriptions of various ex‐ periential aspects. Some sensory experiences (i.e., visual) are easier to verbalize than others (i.e., smell and taste). Also, emotional aspects of experience might be more difficult to verbalize and to report spontaneously than cognitive aspects.
3. OVERVIEW OF THE THESIS
The main focus of this thesis is multisensory integration in product experience. Some of the sensory systems play a more important role in product experience than others. It is often assumed that vision dominates the other senses, but the previous discussion demonstrates that the importance of a particular sensory mo‐ dality may depend on the stage of product usage, on the cultural characteristics of users (such as the language they speak), and on the type of product experience. In the following chapters we will describe the studies that investigated these issues.
In the first two studies described in Chapters 2 and 3 we investigated dynamic aspects of sensory dominance. When consumers buy a product, they may pay more attention to its visual attributes. But with time other modalities can become more important. No matter how nice new shoes can look, during usage it becomes more important whether they are comfortable or not to wear. Kitchen tools can be too heavy to use; an iron can produce a bad smell while using; new linen may be not as soft as the old, and so on. In Chapter 2 we used a questionnaire approach to investigate the changes in sensory do‐ minance over time. We asked participants to describe their experiences with products 29 INTRODUCTION
in various situations: while buying a product, after the first week, the first month, and the first year of usage. In Chapter 3 we used an experimental approach to investigate how the sensory properties of a specific food product (dehydrated soup) influence the experience of naturalness of this product and emotional reactions to it at different stages of user‐product interaction. Verbalization is an important component of product experience, because it allows people to recall their experience and to communicate it to others. People describe their product experiences using adjectives that can be divided in three groups: sen‐ sory descriptors (e.g., hard, red, noisy); symbolic descriptors (e.g., interesting, ex‐ pensive, modern); and affective descriptors (e.g., pleasant, beautiful). In the study described in Chapter 4 we use a questionnaire approach to quantify the relative importance of the five sensory modalities for various descriptors of product experi‐ ence. We suggest that modality importance may be influenced by language differ‐ ences. To test this hypothesis, we use two groups of participants, native speakers of Dutch and Russian. We also discuss the relationships between literal and meta‐ phoric meaning of sensory product properties. In cognitive science, the modality appropriateness hypothesis was proposed to explain the phenomena of sensory dominance (Welch, 1999). In the area of prod‐ uct experience this hypothesis may be reformulated as the experience appropri‐ ateness hypotheses. The sensory modality that best suits the specific product ex‐ perience may be more important than other senses. For instance, touch may be dominant for the experience of warmth in products, while audition may be domi‐ nant for the experience of noisiness. This hypothesis was tested in three experi‐ mental studies discussed in Chapters 5, 6, and 7. We investigated sensory domi‐ nance for three product experiences: freshness, warmth, and noisiness. In each of these three experiments, we also looked at the importance of sensory modalities for affective product experiences (pleasantness and annoyance).
In Chapter 8 we discuss the general findings all the studies, outline the possibilities for future research, and formulate the implications of our findings for industrial designers.
Chapter 2 was published as:
Fenko, A., Schifferstein, H.N.J., Hekkert, P. (2010) Shifts in sensory dominance be‐ tween various stages of user‐product interactions. Journal of Applied Ergonomics, 41, 34–40.
30
CHAPTER 2 SHIFTS IN SENSORY DOMINANCE BETWEEN VARIOUS STAGES OF USER‐PRODUCT INTERACTIONS
1. INTRODUCTION
Consumer experience with products is always multisensory. For example, when making coffee a person sees the coffeemaker, touches its buttons, hears the sound it makes, enjoys the smell of fresh coffee and, eventually, tastes the coffee. All sen‐ sory modalities contribute to this experience to some extent. But which are the most important? The answer to this question can be of practical interest to indus‐ trial designers. If they concentrate their efforts on the most important modalities, they are more likely to create an agreeable sensory product experience and to pre‐ vent user disappointment. Another strategy is to design new properties for a sen‐ sory modality that has until then been considered unimportant, in order to enrich the overall multisensory product experience.
31 CHAPTER 2
1.1. RESEARCH ON SENSORY DOMINANCE
In experimental psychological research strong dominance of vision over touch has been demonstrated in a variety of perceptual tasks, involving the determination of shape (Rock and Victor, 1964), size (Miller, 1972), length (Teghtsoonian and Teghtsoonian, 1970), curvature (Easton and Moran, 1978), depth (Singer and Day, 1969), and spatial location (Hay et ,al. 1965). In addition, some studies have demonstrated visual domi‐ nance over auditory sensory signals (Bertelson, 1999). However, vision is not dominant in all situations. When subjects are asked to judge surfaces according to their rough‐ ness, they exhibit considerably greater emphasis on the tactual as opposed to visual cues (Lederman, Thorne, & Jones, 1986). Furthermore, the auditory modality may be superior to vision in alerting the organism to novel events (Shapiro et al., 1984). In one of the earliest experiments on sensory dominance, a dominance effect of proprioception over vision was demonstrated. For several days George Stratton wore prismatic lenses that made him see objects inverted, as if the whole field of view had been revolved on the line of sight through an angle of 180 degrees. At first Stratton relied entirely on the felt position of his body. The visual picture was perceived as “false” and “illusory”. But in several days the visual picture became more “real” and “whatever there was of abnormality seemed to lie in myself, as if head and shoulders were inverted” (Stratton, 1897). Stratton’s experiment also indicates that the dominant modality can change over time. At first visual informa‐ tion felt completely inadequate and Stratton used his memory and touch to assess the location of objects, but after the process of adaptation had taken place, he was able to rely on visual information again. Research in the domain of product experience also suggests that visual dominance exists in the experience of consumer products. Schifferstein and Cleiren (2005) per‐ formed a study in which they showed that consumers acquired most of the infor‐ mation on products by vision and touch: this information was most detailed and the subjects were surest of their judgments. The experiment also showed that products were harder to identify by sound or smell than by vision or touch. Another study on the roles of sensory modalities in product experience (Schifferstein and Desmet, 2007) suggested that vision gathers the largest amount of information on a product within the shortest time frame. A questionnaire study in which participants reported the importance of the sensory modalities during eth usage of 45 different products (Schifferstein, 2006) demon‐ strated that on average the relative importance sequence of sensory modalities is vision, followed by touch, smell, audition and taste. In addition, when people were asked to rate how important they found the different modalities in their lives in
32 SENSORY DOMINANCE IN PRODUCT EXPERIENCE
general, most of them selected vision as the most important modality. However, the importance ratings for the sensory modalities differed greatly between prod‐ ucts. For almost half of the 45 products, the importance of vision was rated lower than one of the other modalities. For example, audition is the most important mo‐ dality for a washing machine and a coffee maker, which can be explained by the role of the sound in signalling the different stages of the process of washing or making coffee. Touch is most important for a computer mouse and a pen, and probably for any other hand tools as well. Smell plays a dominant role for a de‐ odorant and (together with taste) for food products. Culture may play a role in determining what sensory modality is more important. McLuhan (1961) believed that the nature of media by which people communicate affects the ratio of their senses. For example, the alphabet stresses the sense of sight, which in turn causes people to think in linear, objective terms. He argued that Euro‐ peans and North Americans live in the visual mode, while for native Africans and other non‐literate societies the auditory modality is dominant. Anthropological re‐ search demonstrates that there is considerable sensory diversity among non‐literal peoples. For example, Classen (2005) describes three non‐literate societies: the Tzotzil of Mexico, the Ongee of the Little Andaman Island and the Desana of Colum‐ bia. The Tzotzil accord primacy to heat in their cosmology, the Ongee to odor, and the Desana to color. The sensory modality most symbolically elaborated by a culture is not necessarily the modality of most practical importance. All three cultures exam‐ ined by Classen (2005) can be classified as oral cultures with regard to their dominant medium of communication, but the Tzotzil symbolically orient themselves by tem‐ perature, the Ongee by smell, and Desana can be regarded as visualists.
1.2. THE PRESENT STUDY
In the present study we address an aspect of sensory dominance that has not been investigated since Stratton’s early experiments, that is how sensory dominance changes over time. We wonder which sensory modalities contribute most to differ‐ ent stages of product experiences. In addition, we investigate whether any differ‐ ences exists in modality importance for pleasant and unpleasant experiences.
The importance of the different sensory modalities may vary during different epi‐ sodes of product usage. When consumers buy a product they are likely to pay at‐ tention primarily to its visual attributes, simply because other options to explore most products in a store are limited. But with time, other modalities can become
33 CHAPTER 2
more important. No matter how nice new shoes look, during usage it becomes more important whether they are comfortable or not; kitchen tools can be too heavy to use; an iron can produce a bad smell when used; new linen may not be as soft as the old, and so on. Furthermore, due to the emphasis of Western culture on the visual modality, designers may pay more attention to the visual properties of the products they create. This may result in a more satisfactory visual product ex‐ perience and more disappointing experiences in other modalities.
We developed a questionnaire with open‐ended questions. We asked respondents to describe how important they found the various sensory modalities in different stages of the user‐product interaction. Because we wanted to know the context in which the particular product experience had occurred, we asked respondents to describe the situation and their experience in their own words. To interpret the data, we combined qualitative analysis with statistical methods.
2. METHOD
2.1. PARTICIPANTS
The questionnaire was distributed among 243 Master students at the Department of Industrial Design, Delft University of Technology. All respondents were between 22 and 32 years of age; 44% of the participants were women.
2.2. PROCEDURE
The questionnaire was part of a course assignment. At the beginning of this course each student selected a product that was analyzed repeatedly during the course for various assignments. Students were asked to select a product that they had used themselves and to which they had formed a positive or negative attitude. This pro‐ vided a wide variety of different products, which allowed us to generalize our con‐ clusions about the influence of sensory modalities on product experience. The par‐ ticipants selected 93 different products (see Table 2.1).
Respondents answered three open‐ended questions. First, they described the most pleasant/satisfactory sensory experience with their product and assessed qualita‐ tively and comparatively to what extent the different sensory modalities contrib‐ uted to this experience. Second, they described the biggest disappointment with
34 SENSORY DOMINANCE IN PRODUCT EXPERIENCE
their product and assessed to what extent the different senses contributed to this experience. Third, they assessed what sensory modality was the most important for consumer experience with their product in the following situations: a) choosing the product in the shop; b) during the first week of usage; c) after the first month of usage; d) after the first year of usage. We also asked participants to explain why they thought the particular modality dominated, and, in case any change in impor‐ tance had occurred over time, why the dominant modality had changed.
TABLE 2.1. PRODUCTS CHOSEN BY THE RESPONDENTS
Categories Products
Electronics and MP3 player (13), camera (12), mobile phone (11), radio alarm clock (8), turn‐ electric appli‐ table (4), game computer (6), computer mouse (3), musical centre (2), printer ances (2), tape recorder (2), audio device (2), headphones (2), desk telephone (2), USB‐hub, external hard disc, microphone, pocket PC, laptop, TV
Tools Epilator (4), electric toothbrush (3), electric shaver (2), shaver (2), drawing tablet (2), hair dryer (2), flashlight (2), power drill (2), stapler, sewing machine, paintbrush, glue gun, sanding machine, stapler
Home appli‐ Coffeemaker (24), blender (4), water heater (3), fan (3), tea infuser (2), rice ances cooker (2), toaster (2), popcorn maker, refrigerator, BBQ, storage containers, saucepan, vacuum cleaner, hot water bottle, ice cream maker, juicer
Personal acces‐ Shoes (27), wristwatch (8), perfume (3), jacket (2), bag (2), backpack (2), suit‐ sories case, eye glasses, lipstick, wallet, hairbrush, money box, pocket knife, book
Sport equip‐ Surfboard (2), helmet (2), sport wheelchair, snowboard, hockey stick, power ment ball, wetsuit, backgammon game, tent, kite, yoga mat
Musical instru‐ Guitar (4), synthesizer (2), digital piano, metronome ments
Vehicles Bicycle (5), car (2), scooter
Furniture Lamp (4), armchair (3)
Fast moving Bottle of wine (2), candy, cigarettes goods
Non‐consumer Elevator, payment terminal products
* Frequency is given between parentheses if >1.
35 CHAPTER 2
2.3. DATA ANALYSES
The results were analyzed both qualitatively and quantitatively by content analysis methods usually employed to analyze free and semi‐structured interviews (Bran‐ nen, 1992; Krippendorff, 1980). We used semantic categorization of the situations in which pleasant and unpleasant product experiences occurred. The process of categorization followed the procedure of inductive category development, which aims to reduce the contextual diversity of the material (van Dijk and Kintsch, 1983). Tentative categories were deduced step by step from the respondents’ descrip‐ tions, and then revised (merging similar categories and renaming the merged cate‐ gories), eventually leading to 10 main categories.
We also noted the importance hierarchy of modalities mentioned by respondents in reply to the first two questions. We used these to derive a quantitative estimate of the importance of the modalities for pleasant and unpleasant experience and for various stages of user‐product interaction. When only one modality was men‐ tioned, it was given the rating 1 and all other modalities were given 0. If several modalities were mentioned, they received ratings according to the priority given by the respondent, so that the sum of their ratings equaled 1 and the ratios between consecutive ratings were equal (2:1). For example, if two modalities were men‐ tioned, they were given ratings 0.67 and 0.33; for three modalities the ratings were 0.57, 0.29, 0.14, and so on. By keeping the sum of ratings for each participant equal to 1, the contribution of each participant to the overall result is kept equal. The ratio between consecutive ratings had to be logically larger than 1, but was chosen arbitrarily to be 2:1. By choosing 2:1 the resulting numbers clearly showed that one modality was more important than the other one. In addition, it made sure that with 2 or 3 modalities mentioned, all modalities would still have a notable impact on the overall results (all ratings >0.10). Furthermore, analyses performed in which only one dominant modality was recorded per participant, yielded approximately similar outcomes.
The ratings were subjected to repeated measures analysis of variance (see Labovitz (1970), who has demonstrated that ordinal variables can be treated as if they con‐ form to interval scales). All post hoc paired comparison tests were performed with Bonferroni adjustment. Participants’ explanations of the change in dominant mo‐ dality over time were used to illustrate and interpret the data.
36 SENSORY DOMINANCE IN PRODUCT EXPERIENCE
3. RESULTS
3.1. PLEASANT VERSUS UNPLEASANT PRODUCT EXPERIENCE
The semantic analysis of the situations in which the most pleasant and unpleasant product experiences occur (Table 2.2) showed that pleasant experiences were most often connected to the everyday usage of a product (making coffee, cooking, print‐ ing). We put an experience into this category when respondents highlighted func‐ tional characteristics of a product (easy to use, good quality) and expressed their satisfaction with the results of the interaction (fast and efficient shaving, making delicious rice). The second source of pleasure consisted of pleasant sensory experi‐ ences (products look beautiful; have good smell, pleasant sound). About one sixth of the respondents mentioned the first interaction with their product as the most pleasant and exciting experience.
TABLE 2.2. SITUATIONS ASSOCIATED WITH PLEASANT AND UNPLEASANT PRODUCT EXPERIENCES Pleasant experience (N=205) %
Everyday usage 42.2
Pleasant sensory experience 32.5
Enjoying a new product 16.5
Using on a special occasion 8.8
Unpleasant experience (N=204)
Unpleasant sensory experience 31.4
Accidents causing pain or discomfort 23.0
Bad design causing problems 22.6
Difficult to use, special skills needed 11.0
Damage after long use 8.1
Disappointment with the first usage 3.9
37 CHAPTER 2
The unpleasant product experiences were most often connected to unpleasant sensations (bad smell, annoying noise). The sudden dysfunction of a product or accidents that happened during usage (the engine broke down, users burnt their fingers, or cut themselves with the razor) formed the second source of unpleasant experiences with products. The third reason for disappointment was bad design, such as ‘the screwdriver is too big for small spaces’, ‘it’s difficult to read the mes‐ sage because the screen is too reflective’. In a repeated measures ANOVA with the importance rating as dependent variable and Modality (vision, audition, touch, olfaction, and taste) and Affect (pleasant and unpleasant experiences) as within‐subjects factors, the effect of Modality was sig‐ nificant [F (4, 776) = 92.52, p < 0.001, η2 = 0.32], while the Modality*Affect interac‐ tion showed a tendency towards significance [F (4, 776) = 3.76, p = 0.054, η2= 0.02]. There was no Affect main effect because the sum of all ratings for both the pleas‐ ant and unpleasant interactions equaled 1 for each participant.
0,5
0,4
0,3 pleasant unpleasant 0,2 importance rating rating importance
0,1
0 vision audition touch smell taste
FIGURE 2.1. IMPORTANCE RATING (WITH STANDARD ERRORS) FOR SENSORY MODALITIES FOR PLEASANT AND UNPLEASANT EXPERIENCES
Because the Modality*Affect interaction tended to be significant, we also investigated the relative importances for the sensory modalities for pleasant and unpleasant experi‐ ences separately (Figure 2.1). For pleasant experiences, the effect of Modality was sig‐
38 SENSORY DOMINANCE IN PRODUCT EXPERIENCE
nificant [F (4, 816) = 53.51, p < 0.001, η2 = 0.21]. Vision was mentioned most often as the dominant modality for pleasant experiences, followed by touch, audition, smell and taste. Post hoc paired comparison tests showed no significant differences between vision and touch (p>0.20). The other differences between modalities were all significant (p < 0.001). For unpleasant experiences the main effect of Modality was also significant [F (4, 812) = 45.63, p < 0.001, η2 = 0.18]. Touch was dominant for unpleasant product experiences, followed by vision, audition, smell and taste. Post hoc paired comparison tests significant differences between all modalities (p<0.001), except for the difference between vision and audition (p>0.20). We also tested for each modality whether it obtained similar importance ratings for pleasant and unpleasant product experiences. These two‐tailed paired t‐tests showed a sig‐ nificant difference for vision (p<0.05) and a tendency towards significance for touch (p=0.060), but no differences for the other modalities (p>0.15).
3.2. CHANGES IN THE DOMINANT MODALITY OVER TIME
To differentiate the relative modality importance over time, we performed an overall repeated measures ANOVA on the modality importance ratings with Modality and Time as within‐subject factors. The results showed significant effects of Modality [F (4, 844) = 137.1, p < 0.001, η2 =0.39] and Time*Modality [F (12, 2532) = 69.8, p < 0.001, η2 = 0.25]. There was no Time main effect because the sum of all ratings for each respondent, in each period, equaled 1. Separate repeated measures ANOVAs were performed to test the effect of Time for each modality and to test the differ‐ ences between Modalities at each moment of time (see Figure 2.2).
Analyses for the four different time episodes showed that at the time of buying the effect of modality was significant [F (4, 844) = 525.5, p < 0.001, η2 = 0.71]. The im‐ portance of vision was higher than the importance of all the other modalities (p < 0.001). Touch occupied the second position and was significantly different from all the others (p<0.001). Audition, smell and taste played a very small role at the time of buying, and the differences between them were not significant (p>0.20).
Since at the buying stage the possibility to interact with the products is mostly lim‐ ited to the visual modality, we performed an additional analysis looking at the ef‐ fect of time during only the three in‐use stages: one week, one month and one year. This analysis confirmed the overall analysis with significant effects of Modality [F (4, 844) = 71.3, p < 0.001, η2 = 0.25] and the Time*Modality interaction [F (8, 1688) = 7.5, p < 0.001, η2 = 0.04].
39 CHAPTER 2
1
0,8
0,6 vis ion audition touch 0,4 olfaction taste Importance rating Importance
0,2
0 buying 1 week 1 month 1 year Time
FIGURE 2.2. CHANGING DOMINANT MODALITY OVER TIME
After the first week of usage the modalities were still significantly different [F (4, 844) = 60.8, p < 0.001, η2 = 0.22]. Vision and touch became equally important (p>0.20). They showed the highest level of importance and differed significantly from all the other modalities (p<0.001). Audition occupied the second position (p<0.001); smell and taste were the least important at this stage. The differences between smell and taste were not significant (p<0.05). eAfter th first month of product usage the importance of the modalities remained different [F (4, 844) = 41.4, p < 0.001, η2 = 0.16]. The differences between touch and audition and be‐ tween audition and vision were no longer significant (p>0.20). On the other hand, the difference between touch and vision became significant (p<0.05). Smell and taste rated significantly less important than the first three modalities (p<0.001), but were not significantly different from each other (p>0.05). After the first year of us‐ age the effect of modality was still significant [F (4, 844) = 28.5, p < 0.001, η2 = 0.12], but the differences between vision, audition and touch were no longer sig‐ nificant (p>0.20). Smell rated second, and taste was the least important; both mo‐ dalities differed significantly from the rest and from each other (p<0.05).
Analyses for each of the modalities separately showed that the importance of vi‐ sion changed significantly over time [F (3, 633) = 149.2, p < 0.001, η2 = 0.41]. It de‐ creased from the buying stage to the first week (p<0.001) and from the first week
40 SENSORY DOMINANCE IN PRODUCT EXPERIENCE
to the first month of usage (p<0.05). The importance of vision increased slightly, but significantly, during the first year (p<0.05). The importance of touch also changed significantly [F (3, 633) = 31.8, p < 0.001, η2 = 0.13]. It increased (p<0.001) after buying, remained constant during the first month (p>0.20), and decreased slightly, but significantly, during the first year (p<0.05). The importance of audition also changed significantly over time [F (3, 633) = 40.8, p < 0.001, η2 = 0.16]. It in‐ creased from the buying stage to the first week (p<0.001) and from the first week to the first month (p<0.001). After that, the importance of audition did not change anymore (p>0.20). The importance of smell also changed significantly [F (3, 633) = 7.73, p < 0.001, η2 = 0.03]. It increased (p<0.05) after buying and during the first week. Then it remained constant (p>0.20). The time variations in the importance of taste were not significant during the whole period of usage [F (3, 633) = 5.7, p > 0.05, η2 = 0.02].
The qualitative analysis of the students’ answers helps to clarify these results. For the majority of the respondents, vision is the most important modality for choosing a product in a shop. Participants note that usually the only way to explore the product before buying is simply by looking at it. Some respondents, however, men‐ tioned the importance of touch and audition during buying, but commented that trying a product in a shop is time consuming and sometimes unpractical: “It is em‐ barrassing to play all possible instruments inside a shop to hear which one sounds best.”
After the first week of usage, the importance of vision is lower than at the buying stage. Respondents indicated that “It is important that it looks nice but how it works gets more important [sewing machine],” and “Consumers are getting used to or bored by the looks of the product [alarm clock].” At the same time the impor‐ tance of touch and sound increase, because they are important for everyday use: “The touch is most important. When it is uncomfortable to wear, you will not use it [backpack]”. Sound becomes particularly important for products with an electric motor: “The sound of the product is really annoying [printer].”
Many respondents noted that after the product has been acquired, the dominant modality depends on its primary function: “The sound is dominant throughout the life of the product, because the primary function of the guitar is to produce a beau‐ tiful sound.” “Touch dominates for a hockey stick because it affects its playing abili‐ ties.” “The most important is the smell and taste of the coffee because that is what a coffeemaker is for.”
41 CHAPTER 2
The importance of the visual experience increases again during the first year of usage, because the product becomes old, dirty, and scratchy: “After one year the iPod looks used, there are scratches visible on the surface.” “The visual aspect be‐ comes more important again when the boots get a little damaged.” Another reason is that after one year fashion changes may occur and the product becomes out‐ dated (lipstick, backpack, water heater). The user faces the choice whether to con‐ tinue using a product or to get rid of it: “After a long time it becomes more and more important if the device still appeals to you [drawing tablet].”
3.3. SEPARATE PRODUCT CATEGORIES
A wide range of products was included in our analysis (93 different products) to enhance the generalizability of the results. Nevertheless, to check whether our pat‐ tern of results also applies to various product categories we performed separate analyses on three homogeneous product groups that occurred relatively frequently in our sample. The first group consisted of hi‐tech devices with a visual display and main auditory function: mobile phones, mp3‐players and radio alarm clocks (N=32). The second group consisted of shoes (N=27), while the third group consisted of electric coffee makers (N=24). The patterns of changes in the importance ratings in modalities over time for these three product groups are shown in Figure 2.3. For all three product categories, the pattern of results bears similarities to the ag‐ gregate results shown in Figure 2.2. Most importantly, for all three categories vi‐ sion dominates the buying stage. After one week other modalities come into play. The exact modalities differ between products.
For the hi‐tech products, both touch and audition are important throughout usage. The importance of touch increases during the first week, and then remains constant. The importance of audition increases during the first week and the first month, when it becomes the dominant modality. For shoes, the tactual modality immediately be‐ comes important, and after one month the importance of olfaction appears to in‐ crease. After one year vision and touch become equally important, and olfaction is the second important modality. For the coffee maker touch is relatively important after one week, but audition and, to a lesser degree, olfaction become important after one month. After one year of usage audition remains dominant.
42 SENSORY DOMINANCE IN PRODUCT EXPERIENCE
Hi-tech products
1
0,8
vis ion 0,6 audition touch 0,4 olfaction taste modality importance modality 0,2
0 bying 1 week 1 month 1 year time
Shoes
1
0,8
vis ion 0,6 audition touch 0,4 olfaction taste modality importance modality 0,2
0 bying 1 week 1 month 1 year time
Coffee maker
1
0,8
vi s ion 0,6 audition touch 0,4 olfaction taste modality importance modality 0,2
0 bying 1 week 1 month 1 year time
FIGURE 2.3. CHANGING DOMINANT MODALITY OVER TIME FOR HI‐TECH PRODUCTS, SHOES AND COFFEE MAKERS
43 CHAPTER 2
4. DISCUSSION
4.1. MAJOR FINDINGS
Our results show that vision and touch are the modalities that are most often in‐ volved in positive product experiences. For negative experiences, our participants reported significantly more events involving the tactile modality than the visual or auditory modalities. This might suggest that designers tend to pay more attention to creating beautiful visual properties of products, rather than to improving their tactile properties. Furthermore, we found that the dominant sensory modality depends on the period of product usage and the type of product. When buying a product, vision is the most important modality, but after the first week of usage the importance of vision decreases and the other modalities become more important. In general, for the 93 products analyzed in our study, vision is not dominant during usage. After one month of usage touch becomes dominant, and after one year vision, touch and audition become equally important. The analyses of separate product categories indicate that the importance of the various sensory modalities is product‐ dependent: after one year of usage audition is dominant for hi‐tech products and coffee makers, while touch and vision are equally important for shoes.
The changes in modality importance can be explained by changes in the product‐ user interaction. In a shop the interaction with the product is mostly visual. But most products are bought for purposes other than visual enjoyment: they are used to cook, print, make coffee, listen to music, and so on. During usage the dominant sensory modality mainly seems to depend on the primary product function: touch for hand tools, sound for an alarm‐clock, smell and taste for food. However, the dynamics of sensory dominance can also depend on specific product features that are non‐functional, such as the noise of an electric motor. In addition, the specific characteristics of the user‐product interaction affect modality importance. For ex‐ ample, wearing shoes for a long time makes them more comfortable for touch but less pleasant visually (as they accumulate dirt and scratches) and olfactorily (as they may start to smell bad).
Our data suggest that modality dominance can depend on the different roles sensory modalities play in the everyday life. Vision can be important in the situation of buying, when people have to compare multiple slightly different products to make an optimal decision, because it gathers the largest amount of
44 SENSORY DOMINANCE IN PRODUCT EXPERIENCE
information on a product within the shortest time frame (Schifferstein and Clei‐ ren, 2005; Schifferstein and Desmet, 2007). When the user becomes ac‐ quainted with the product, the need for other types of information increases, such as the motor skills required to operate a product, which increases the im‐ portance of touch. At the same time, the emotional components of product experience become more important. Several studies have pointed out the role of audition and olfaction in emotional experience (Hinton and Henley, 1993; Herz, 1998; Schifferstein and Desmet, 2007). For example, after users gain ex‐ pertise with their electric tools, they do not pay attention to their visual attrib‐ utes anymore, but start to notice the sound of the motor, which they often de‐ scribe as irritating and annoying. Furthermore, even if a coffee machine makes a loud noise most users will describe it as pleasant, because in their memory this sound is associated with the pleasant smell and taste of fresh coffee.
In an ethnographic study, Karapanos, Hassenzahl and Martens (2008) suggested that changes in user experience over time were related to changes in product meaning. While early experiences seemed to relate mostly to hedonic aspects of product use, prolonged experiences became increasingly more tied to aspects re‐ flecting how the product becomes meaningful in one’s life. These conclusions are quite similar to those obtained in a study of consumer‐product attachment. Schif‐ ferstein and Zwartkruis‐Pelgrim (2008) found that enjoyment is one of the main determinants of attachment for recently acquired products (<1 year), while memo‐ ries contributed mainly to the attachment for products owned for a long time (>20 years). If using a product is pleasurable and evokes positive emotions, the chances are high that a user becomes attached to the product (see Mugge et al., 2004). Be‐ cause the enjoyment a product evokes is affected to a large degree by the sensory impressions it creates, sensory modalities can contribute to the formation of the bond with the product. Furthermore, it was suggested earlier that touch plays an important role in experiencing a product as familiar and somebody’s own: when tactual perception is blocked, familiar products feel strange and people feel alien‐ ated from their surroundings (Schifferstein and Desmet, 2007). Therefore, we can assume that tactile experience plays a particularly important role in the develop‐ ment of product attachment. A good illustration is shoes: some respondents in our study admit that they postpone buying new shoes even if their old shoes look worn out, because they just love wearing their old shoes.
45 CHAPTER 2
4.2. METHODOLOGICAL LIMITATIONS
There are some limitations to our data because of the method we used. One of the disadvantages of questionnaire research is that respondents describe their experi‐ ences on the basis of their memory. The actual experiences during product usage could be different from what they remember. To avoid this downside, longitudinal ethnographic studies can be performed to investigate the real‐time dynamics of product experience using observations, in‐depth interviews, and diaries. Unfortu‐ nately, such studies are restricted to a small amount of products and a small num‐ ber of respondents (Karapanos, Hassenzahl and Martens, 2008). The current me‐ thod has the advantage that it allows collecting a wide range of information and generalizing over products.
Another problem in questionnaire studies can arise because experiences of differ‐ ent sensory modalities may have different degrees of awareness. For example, most respondents found it difficult to describe their olfactory experiences. The fact that linguistic categories of visual experiences are much richer and more elabo‐ rated in Western languages could explain why descriptions of other sensory experi‐ ences are less common (Hinton and Henley, 1993).
Furthermore, it can be argued that to use industrial design students as participants in research on product experience is inappropriate, as it is inappropriate to use clinical psychology students to validate personality tests. Well‐informed subjects can be inappropriate indeed if experimenters conceal the real purposes of the study. However, our questions were direct and they did neither require nor pro‐ hibit any special knowledge. In fact, we think that using design students was an advantage, because they may have better awareness of their own consumer ex‐ perience than other user groups.
Also, the products in the sample may have affected the outcomes of the current study. As shown in Figure 3 the dynamics of modality importance in user‐product interaction is clearly product‐specific. The analyses of pleasant and unpleasant product experiences suggest that touch, vision, and audition are about equally im‐ portant both for pleasant and unpleasant product experiences during usage, while smell and taste play a smaller role. However, this outcome may be due to the small amount of dfoo products in our sample. We plan to gather more data for different product categories and consumer groups to validate the current outcomes. Finally, the way we derived importance rating for the different modalities might be improved in future questionnaire research by using more common rating scales, such
46 SENSORY DOMINANCE IN PRODUCT EXPERIENCE
as 5‐point Likert‐type items (from “not important at all” to “very important”). The advantage of using rating scales would be that we have one explicit rating for each modality. In that case, we would not have to make so many assumptions in the analy‐ sis. However, whether individual Likert items can be considered as interval‐level data, or whether they should be considered merely ordered‐categorical data is the subject of disagreement (Meyers et al., 2005). Direct‐rating methods were also criticised for the lack of nomological validity (Harte and Koele, 1995). In addition, Jaccard et al. (1986) found low correlations between the importance of attributes measured using the free‐elicitation method and the importance of attributes measured using the di‐ rect‐rating method. Because of the lack of convergent validity among different meth‐ ods of attribute‐importance measurement (Van Ittersum et al., 2007), we are cur‐ rently also exploring methods to measure the degree of sensory dominance through experimental manipulations (Fenko et al., 2009).
4.3. PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS
Although it is difficult to formulate practical implications for retailers at this stage of the research, the obvious conclusion is that the presentation of the majority of prod‐ ucts in shops is inadequate. “Why decide on vision while the most important modal‐ ity is touch?” asked one of our respondents describing the process of choosing a shaver in a store. To avoid consumers’ disappointment, retailers should think of ways to demonstrate the non‐visual properties of products at the buying stage (how a computer mouse feels, what kind of noise a coffee maker makes, and so on).
5. CONCLUSIONS
Information on sensory dominance is important for product design. If designers know which sensory modality dominates the experience of the particular product, they can concentrate on creating appropriate sensory attributes for it. Our research suggests that the dominant sensory modality depends on the period of product usage. At the time of buying vision is the most important modality, but at later stages touch and audition become equally important, followed by smell and taste. Which modality will dominate at the later stages of product usage depends on the primary function of a product and on the characteristics of the user‐product inter‐ action. Our findings imply that stimuli of any sensory modality can provide both
47 CHAPTER 2
pleasant and unpleasant product experiences. To create a rich and long‐lasting product experience, it is important to consider user‐product interaction at different stages of product usage, and to determine which sensory experience is more im‐ portant for consumers at each stage of usage.
48
CHAPTER 3 THE ROLE OF SENSORY MODALITIES IN THE DYNAMICS OF NATURALNESS OF A DEHYDRATED FOOD PRODUCT
1. INTRODUCTION
During user‐product interaction, different types of experiences can be evoked con‐ secutively. At different stages of the user‐product interaction, various senses may be used and different emotions may be elicited. Product experience includes the perception of sensory attributes (such as taste, smell, temperature, etc.), the meaning attached to products (such as elegant, modern, feminine), and emotional reactions to products (such as attraction, surprise, or boredom) (Hekkert & Schif‐ ferstein, 2008).
In order to provide a more comprehensive insight into dynamic changes in user ex‐ perience, we used an interaction with a food product for an experimental study. Food products are unique among industrial products, because sensory experience with these products involves all five senses: vision, audition, touch, smell, and taste. That is why they provide a good example of the dynamics of sensory dominance during the various stages of product usage. We selected a dehydrated food product, be‐ cause it is a packaged product, and the package may play an important role in food
49 CHAPTER 3
experience. Unlike other packaged products, such as snacks or soft drinks, a dehy‐ drated food product requires preparation before consumption, which makes an in‐ teraction with this product more complex and more interesting to investigate. The aim of this research is to identify the temporal changes during user‐product interaction with a dehydrated food product. The study aims to highlight the domi‐ nant sensory dimensions at several stages of product usage: when choosing a product in a supermarket, during package opening, preparation, consumption, and re‐purchase. We are specifically interested in the links between sensory properties of a product, emotional reactions to them, and how they interact to create the ex‐ perience of naturalness.
1.1. SENSORY DOMINANCE
In the area of product design, sensory dominance can be defined as the relative importance of different sensory modalities for product experience. Product attrib‐ utes may be perceived through various sensory modalities. Nevertheless, it is often assumed that vision dominates the other senses. In a previous study (Fenko, Schif‐ ferstein, & Hekkert, 2009), we asked 243 participants to describe their experiences with consumer products in various situations: while buying a product, after the first week, the first month, and the first year of usage. The data suggest that the domi‐ nant sensory modality depends on the period of product usage. At the moment of buying, vision is the most important modality, but during the usage the other sen‐ sory modalities gain importance. The roles of the different modalities during usage are product‐dependent. Averaged over 93 products analyzed in this study, after one month of usage touch became more important than vision, and after one year vision, touch and audition appeared to be equally important. To create a long‐ lasting positive product experience, designers need to consider user‐product inter‐ action at different stages of product usage and to evaluate which roles the sensory modalities play at each stage.
In the area of food research, the dominant sensation is defined as the most intense sensation (Labbe et al., 2009). The evaluation of the temporality of the sensory perception in food products is mainly assessed using the time–intensity (TI) meth‐ odology. The time intensity method (TI) was developed to take into account the dynamics of perception (Larson‐ Powers & Pangborn, 1978). The time intensity method consists of recording the evolution of the intensity of a given sensory at‐ tribute over time using a cursor connected to a recorder. For each evaluation of an
50 SENSORY DOMINANCE IN PRODUCT EXPERIENCE
attribute, the panelist is asked to move the cursor along the sensation scale. The panelist moves the cursor up (or to the right) when the perceived intensity in‐ creases and down (or to the left) when it drops off. Time intensity scaling is a well known method to record the evolution of one specific attribute over time. This ap‐ proach is useful for studying the temporal aspects of the perception of a given sen‐ sory attribute in a product. However, it is still not broadly used as a routine method, mainly because it is a time consuming and expensive tool (Le Reverend et al., 2008), because one run is needed per attribute (Pineau et al., 2009).
The temporal dominance of sensation method (TDS) has been developed to provide dynamic information on products in a quicker way compared to TI and to gain additional information regarding the sequence of sensations (Pineau et al., s2003). Thi descriptive sensory method makes it possible to collect tempo‐ ral data during one single evaluation for up to 10 attributes on complex food products. The method consists in presenting the entire set of attributes to the panelist on the computer screen. Along the tasting of one product, the panelist has to indicate what the dominant sensory perception is, and to score the cor‐ responding attribute. Each time the panelist thinks the dominant sensory per‐ ception has changed, either in intensity or in quality, he/she has to score the new perception. For each run, this method enables to collect a sequence of sensory attributes (and their respective scoring) quoted at different times along the tasting. TDS and TI results exhibit similar patterns, but TDS is found to bet‐ ter discriminate the sequence of the sensations over time (Pineau et al., 2009). TDS provides information on the dynamic of perception after product consump‐ tion that is not available using a conventional profiling method and that may be critical for the understanding of complex perceptions such as refreshing (Labbe et al., 2009). TDS could be used to illustrate product perception as a function of time, whereas TI would be better suited if the determination of the dynamics of one specific attribute is required (Le Reverend et al., 2008).
Unlike the TI and TDS methods, in the current study we do not focus on the sepa‐ rate taste sensations during product use. Instead, we ask participants to assess the contributions of the various sensory modalities to the entire product experience. Also, we do not register these responses continuously, but we assess them at spe‐ cific stages of the user‐product interaction.
51 CHAPTER 3
1.2. NATURALNESS
The concept “natural” is frequently encountered in modern Western life, typically in a very positive context. For example, in five European countries and the United States, free associations to the word “natural” are almost entirely positive. Humans may have an innate desire (“biophilia”) for the experience of their ancestral envi‐ ronment (Wilson, 1984; Kellert &Wilson, 1993). Rozin and colleagues (2004) de‐ scribed this phenomenon as “natural preference” and documented it for the do‐ main of foods. These authors found that the great majority of respondents pref‐ ered a natural product to the corresponding commercial product. Natural products are often thought to be healthier, more appealing to the senses, or kinder to the environment than products that are not natural. In addition, the natural is pre‐ ferred just because it is inherently better ‐ more moral, more aesthetic, or simply “right.” This preference does not shift to indifference even when the natural and commercial products are chemically identical (Rozin et al., 2004). Chemical manipulations ‐ such as boiling, minor subtractions of natural compo‐ nents or minor additions of natural or unnatural entities, and genetic engineering ‐ produce major reductions in naturalness (Rozin, 2005). In contrast, physical trans‐ formations have minor effects. Adding small amounts of unnatural substances re‐ duces naturalness substantially (Nemeroff & Rozin, 1994, 2000; Rozin & Nemeroff, 1990). The decrease in naturalness from adding a small amount of a natural addi‐ tive is almost the same as the decrease in naturalness from adding twice the amount (the dose‐insensitivity feature of contagion). The contaminating effect of non‐natural traces in “natural” substances is found not only for typical negative contaminants (e.g., a cockroach, a toxin), but even for innocuous, often‐consumed unnatural entities, like minerals.
The concept of naturalness is widely used by producers and consumers of so called organic food in contrast to the unnaturalness of products of conventional agricul‐ ture. In qualitative interviews with consumers of organic products, the following aspects of natural were distinguished (Verhoog et al., 2003):
9 The concept of nature has an emotional meaning related to peacefulness, silence, freedom, becoming your own self, and holidays. 9 Naturalness in general is associated with simple, pure, non‐artificial, not spoilt, and fair. 9 The amount and way of processing food products influences the natural‐ ness. Less processed food, or food processed in a traditional way without additives is associated with more natural food.
52 SENSORY DOMINANCE IN PRODUCT EXPERIENCE
9 The more artificial the food production and process, the less natural it is. Genetic engineering is from that point of view very unnatural. 9 Production related to season and region, amount of energy input, but also the kind of package material, affects the (perceived) naturalness of food.
While ‘natural’ food is considered healthy by most of the population in the West (Rozin, 2005), from a chemical point of view ‘natural’ food additives are not much safer than artificial. Some experts even define ‘natural’ ingredients as ‘the same ingredients produced by outdated technology’ (Schlosser, 2001).
A complicating factor in understanding naturalness is the fact that most consumers have little knowledge of food production in general. Genetically modified products represent the most striking example of the clash between techno‐science and pub‐ lic discourse on ‘healthy’ and ‘natural’ food. For instance, consumers not only re‐ ject genetically engineered food, but are equally likely to reject ‘mutated’ foods, even if the mutation occurs (as it does in nearly every food product) through cross‐ breeding, hybridization, and other conventional methods. In a survey of consumer attitudes (Hamstra, 1998), only 28% of respondents in New Jersey thought they had ever eaten a hybrid fruit or vegetable ethat was th product of traditional cros‐ sbreeding. Moreover, 40% did not approve of making hybrid plants. The consensus view held it was best “not to meddle with nature”.
1.3. FOOD AND EMOTIONS
Our relationship with the world is inherently emotional. Emotions evoked by prod‐ ucts enhance the pleasure of buying, owning, and using them (Hirschman & Hol‐ brook, 1982). It has often been argued that the emotional quality of products is becoming more and more important for differential advantage in the marketplace, because products are now often similar with respect to quality and price. In some purchase decisions, especially in food domain, emotional responses may be a deci‐ sive factor (e.g., Desmet and Schifferstein, 2008). Eating is an activity laden with affect. Almost all potential foods are either liked or disliked; people are rarely neutral in their judgments about food products. Some food likes and dislikes seem to be culture‐wide, while others vary within culture (Rozin, 1990). Although cultural forces play a major role in the acquisition of food likes and dislikes, most people have substantial choice in foods, over and above the “choices” made by their culture (Warde, 1997). As a result, most people choose foods they like, and hence eating is, for the most part, a positive experience. Al‐
53 CHAPTER 3
though some foods are consumed primarily out of necessity or for instrumental reasons (gaining nutrition, losing weight, or being a member of the group), the principal basis for food choice is liking for the flavor (Roos and Wandel, 2005). It has been suggested that hedonic value is a good predictor of both the amount of food consumed and food preferences (McCrory et al., 2006). Empirical studies show that food choices directly depend on sensory liking (Eertmans et al., 2001) and that sensory aspects of food products (taste, smell) are the determining factors in food choice and preference (Mela, 2006). According to Birch (1999), food prefer‐ ences are established early in infancy based on primary sensory reactions, probably related to the survival of the species. Indeed, babies prefer some tastes such as sweet and reject others such as sour and bitter. Food may be both a pleasure and a poison. Negative emotions associated with spe‐ cific foods help us to avoid the dangers of eating poisonous food. For instance, the cultural evolution of disgust (Rozin et al., 1997) suggests that this emotion derives from the food rejection system of mammals as a response to a bad smell and taste of food (which is usually associated with harmful effects). Food‐related disgust seems to develop somewhere between the ages of 4 and 7 years (Rozin, 1999). In the developed world, where industrially produced food has become abundant and excessive, eating is often associated with fear and guilt (Kass, 1994). In the late 20th century, science ebecam obsessed with health promotion, and the dominant scientific discourse focused on the concepts of healthy eating, healthy living, exer‐ cising, and environmental pollution (Turner, 1984). Information about the health effects of different patterns of eating and different foods has become widely avail‐ able through the media (Kalucy, 1987). This has led to frequent new concerns about particular dietary items, and resulted in the rise of confusion and anxiety about food. For instance, in a survey of American college students, over 10% of women claim that they would be embarrassed to buy a chocolate bar in the store, and about 30% ysay the would be willing to opt for a nutrient pill, safe, nutritionally complete, and cheap, as a substitute for eating (Rozin, 1999). Misinterpretations of medical studies and dietician’s recommendations lead to popular beliefs that certain food products are either ‘good’ or ‘bad’. The level of intake drops out of the equation. Thus, a lot of people think of fat and salt as tox‐ ins: even a trace of each in food is considered unhealthy (Rozin, Ashmore & Mark‐ with, 1996). As a result, consumption of even small amounts of fat and salt may evoke strong emotions of fear and guilt. The influence of emotions on food behavior and its health consequences can be illus‐ trated by the phenomenon to which European health experts refer as the ‘American paradox’ (Heini & Weinsier, 1997; Astrup, 1998), while their colleagues across the 54 SENSORY DOMINANCE IN PRODUCT EXPERIENCE
Atlantic call it the ‘French paradox’ (Renaud, & Logeril, 1992). The American food market is flooded with fat‐ and sugar‐reduced products, but obesity in the American population is the highest in the world. On the other hand, the French eat a higher fat diet than Americans, have higher levels of blood cholesterol, and yet have a cardio‐ vascular disease rate about one‐third less than Americans. Medical researchers tend to explain this paradox in dietary terms, such as a protective effect of red wine (Renaud & Logeril, 1992). An alternative explanation is that, in comparison to the food‐poison attitude of Americans associated with high stress and anxiety, the French demonstrate a food‐pleasure attitude, which is associated with the lower stress and more positive emotions with respect to food (Rozin, 1999).
1.4. MEASURING EMOTIONS
The quest for instruments to measure emotions has a long history. Traditionally, attempts to measure emotions have been done in the field of psychology and soci‐ ology. More recently, acknowledging the important role of emotions in their field of research, consumer and marketing researchers have developed instruments that measure consumer experiences and the emotional responses to advertisement. Both the number of reported instruments and the diversity in approaches to meas‐ ure emotions is abundant. Today’s instruments range from simple pen‐and‐paper rating scales to dazzling high‐tech equipment that measures brain waves or eye movements.
Most research on emotions involves some form of self‐report, asking participants in a study to report their feelings in a more or less formal way, from open‐ended ver‐ balizations to psychometric scales and questionnaires (Russell, 2003; Scherer, 2005). One disadvantage of these tools is their length, as a lengthy questionnaire can be less acceptabler fo the research participants and be too taxing to be admin‐ istered repetitively. When considering self‐report tools for the measurement of emotion, researchers face a trade‐off between the length of the scale and the qual‐ ity and richness of the measurement (Laurans & Desmet, 2008).
Physiological activation is an important aspect of neuroscience research on emo‐ tions. A wealth of empirical research describes the correlation between different physiological systems and emotion or related phenomena (Cacioppo et al, 1993). Psychophysiological techniques in user experience research have some advantages: they do not demand the users’ attention and avoid some of the biases influencing self‐reports, such as a priming effect of the questions, interference of a self‐report with the experience, or a tendency to give socially approved answers (Nisbett & 55 CHAPTER 3
Wilson, 1977). The disadvantages of these tools is the need for specific expertise, the complex equipment needed, and the relative obtrusiveness of the sensors (usually adhesive electrodes attached to the skin with cables running to the ampli‐ fication and recording device), reducing the freedom of movement of the partici‐ pants (Laurans et al., 2009). Another difficulty of psychophysiological measurement lies in its interpretation. Emotion is not the only process to affect visceral activity, and research failed to uncover unambiguous associations between specific emo‐ tions and patterns of bodily activation (Stemmler, 2003). Therefore, it seems ex‐ tremely difficult to use psychophysiological recording on its own to provide an as‐ sessment of users’ emotions while interacting with a product. Another class of tools are the graphical self‐report instruments. Like question‐ naires, they are based on a person’s own ratings of his or her feelings, but pictures (typically smiling or frowning faces) are used instead of words to anchor the scales. While this technique forgoes the need for translation and avoids a strong tie with a particular language, a graphical questionnaire still needs to be tested with different users as the interpretation and relevance of a graphical representation of feelings or dimensions of emotional experience might differ between cultures.
In the area of product experience, the Product Emotion Measurement instrument (PrEmo) was proposed to assess emotional responses to consumer products (Des‐ met, 2003). The unique strength of PrEmo is that it combines two qualities: it measures distinct emotions and it can be used cross‐culturally because it does not ask respondents to verbalize their emotions. In addition, it can be used to measure more than one emotion experienced simultaneously, and the operation requires neither expensive equipment nor technical expertise. The labels associated with each emotion have been checked with participants in the Netherlands, the US, Ja‐ pan and Finland (Desmet, 2002). Considering its flexibility, ease of use and the rich‐ ness of information it provides, we decided to use PrEmo as the most adequate method for measuring emotions at different stages of user‐product interaction.
1.5. THE PRESENT STUDY
In the current research, we investigate which sensory modalities are important for the experience of a dehydrated food product at different stages of product usage: choosing a product on a supermarket shelf, opening a package, cooking and eating the food. We are interested in three components of product experience: sensory perception, naturalness, and emotional responses. We developed a questionnaire that is used repeatedly throughout the 5 stages of the experiment. The data were
56 SENSORY DOMINANCE IN PRODUCT EXPERIENCE
analyzed both qualitatively and quantitatively to determine the changes in product experience at different stages of product usage.
2. METHODS
2.1. PARTICIPANTS
The participants were recruited from the consumer panel of the TU Delft that con‐ sists of a representative sample of 2000 people (1300 households) from Delft and nearby areas. All participants were occasional consumers of dehydrated food and did not suffer from any food allergies. 47 people participated (20 men and 27 women). Ages ranged from 22 to 61 years, mean age was 39 years. Each consumer evaluated only 1 product. All participants were Dutch‐speaking, and all instructions and questionnaires were presented in Dutch. Respondents were rewarded with a financial compensation.
2.2. MATERIALS
Two equivalent commercial brands of dehydrated, vegetable‐based products were used. These two products were used in all 5 stages of the experiment. Also present on the shelves were 12 equivalent products, based on the same type of vegetable. 8 prod‐ ucts came from the 1st brand, 3 from the 2nd brand, and 1 product from a competing brand. There were also 12 products present on the shelves that were based on differ‐ ent types of vegetables. All texts on the packages were in German, and the participants were informed that the products they were going to test were not present yet on the Dutch market.
2.3. PROCEDURE
The experiment consisted of 5 stages: (1) choosing the product in the supermarket; (2) opening the package; (3) preparing the food; (4) eating the food; (5) re‐ purchasing. At each of the 5 stages we asked the participants to evaluate their ex‐ perience with the product in three ways:
57 CHAPTER 3
1. Sensory questionnaire. For each of the five sensory modalities, indicate how important it is in this stage (5‐point scale, from “not important at all” to “very important”). Why are some senses more important than others? 2. Naturalness questionnaire. Indicate to what extent you experience the product as natural (5 ‐point scale, from “not natural at all” to “very natu‐ ral”). What aspects of the product make it more natural? What aspects of the product make it less natural? 3. Emotion questionnaire. For each emotion indicate if you do not feel it, if you feel it to some degree, or if you feel it strongly (3‐point scale). Which of the emotions do you feel strongest? Why? We used 12 emotions: con‐ tempt, admiration, dissatisfaction, satisfaction, unpleasant surprise, pleas‐ ant surprise, aversion, attraction, boredom, fascination, sadness, joy. These emotions are also used in the PrEmo instrument, originally designed to measure emotional responses to visual appearances (Desmet, 2003). These emotions have generally also been shown to be relevant for de‐ scribing emotional responses to (eating) food (Desmet and Schifferstein, 2008). The emotions were presented both verbally and non‐verbally (as cartoon characters) on paper.
At the first stage participants were standing in front of a set of shelves built at TU Delft, mimicking supermarket shelves, showing the target product and several competing products that simulated the store environment. For each package 5 samples were present. The experimenter invited participants to the “store” and explained the task: “Please, imagine that you are in a supermarket, standing in front of the shelves. You would like to buy this dehydrated product containing the target vegetable. Please select the one you prefer”.
The participant examined products and chose one product. Then, the experimenter asked 3 open questions:
1. What did you look for when you tried to find your product? (brand, color, flavor, shape...) 2. What draws your attention when you stand in front of these shelves? 3. Why did you choose this product?
Then the experimenter asked the participant to take the test product, being one of the two commercial packages. The participant examined the product and filled in the first questionnaire.
58 SENSORY DOMINANCE IN PRODUCT EXPERIENCE
At the second stage the experimenter invited the participant to a kitchen corner and explained the task: “Imagine that you have already bought the product. You are at home, you feel hungry and you want to eat some food. Please, open the package and put the contents in the pan now. Before you start cooking, please, answers our ques‐ tions”. The participant opened the package and filled in the questionnaire. At the third stage the experimenter showed participants the cooking equipment and explained how to use it. The translation of the German cooking instructions from the packages were given to participants. The participant cooked the product. After the food was ready, the participant filled in the questionnaire. At the fourth stage, the participants were seated in a dining area and ate the food. After they were finished, they filled in the questionnaire. At the fifth stage (directly after the fourth stage), the experimenter invited partici‐ pants back to “the store” and asked them to select a product again from the shelves. Then three questions were asked: 1. Why did you choose this product? 2. Why did you choose another product this time? (in case of a different choice) 3. Why did you not choose the test product? (in case of a different choice)
The experimenter filled in the answers and asked participants to fill in the Naturalness and the Emotion questionnaire about the target product for the last time.
For each participant the experiment took approximately 50 minutes.
2.4. DATA ANALYSIS
Qualitative data were first categorized into groups on the basis of their semantic similarity. Three experts agreed on the categories. Then the categories were trans‐ lated into English, and the frequencies of each category were computed.
Repeated measures ANOVAs were performed on the quantitative data to look for the changes in importance ratings of sensory modalities, ratings of naturalness and emotion ratings for the two target products during five experimental stages. Post‐ hoc analyses with Bonferroni adjustment were performed to test the significance of the differences between means.
59 CHAPTER 3
3. RESULTS
3.1. PURCHASE AND RE‐PURCHASE DECISIONS
At the buying stage, the two target products were selected most often among the 10 variants of products. Each of the two products was selected approximately by 20 % of participants, while each of the other products was selected by less than 10% of par‐ ticipants. The analysis of the reasons participants gave for their first choice indicates that there were two different buying strategies. Most people were looking for famil‐ iar brands, familiar taste or specific ingredients that they like (61%), while approxi‐ mately 15% were looking for something new and unusual. At the repurchase stage 34% of participants chose the same product they had chosen the first time. A quarter of participants did not like the target product, so they decided to try something dif‐ ferent the second time. But even if participants were satisfied with the target prod‐ uct, some of them still wanted to try a new product out of curiosity. At the purchase and re‐purchase stages the participants were asked several ques‐ tions to clarify their decision‐making process. The stimuli that attracted automatic attention when people were standing in front of the shelves were the pictures of the products, the color of the vegetables, and the specific color scheme of the brands. Some participants (13%) mentioned that products on the eye level at‐ tracted most of their attention. Others mentioned specific ingredients (rice, vege‐ tables), variety of colors and shiny packages. When respondents were deliberately trying to choose the product, they paid attention to ingredients (“extra ,ingredients something unusual”, “no meat, I am vegetarian") and were trying to guess how the product would taste. One third of respondents mentioned package attributes (“how the product is presented, if the package is attractive”). Colors and brand preferences were mentioned by 12% of participants.
3.2. SENSORY MODALITIES
Repeated measures ANOVAs were performed on the importance ratings of the sen‐ sory modalities with Stage and Modality as within‐subject factors. The effects of Stage [F (3, 138) = 28.5, p < 0.001], Modality [F (4, 184) = 109.2, p < 0.001] and Stage x Modality interaction [F (12, 552) = 18.1, p < 0.001] were all significant (see Figure 1).
60 SENSORY DOMINANCE IN PRODUCT EXPERIENCE
FIGURE 3.1. SENSORY IMPORTANCE AT DIFFERENT STAGES OF PRODUCT USAGE
At the buying stage, vision was the most important modality (87% of the partici‐ pants rated it as dominant). Participants commented that they looked at the pack‐ age very carefully to gather information on ingredients (see Table 3.1). They used this visual information to guess about the taste of the products. More than one third of the respondents mentioned taste as the most important modality at the buying stage. They imagined how the product would taste, based on the informa‐ tion provided on the package. Touch was less important, although 15% of the re‐ spondents mentioned that they noticed how the package felt and were able to feel ingredients inside. The anticipation of the smell was also important for 15% of the respondents. The sound was not important, although some people mentioned the sound of the brand name or of the ingredients.
At the opening stage smell becomes equally important as vision. Participants com‐ mented that smell gives the first impression of the taste and the quality of the product. Some participants also mentioned that while opening the package it is important to look at the contents (the powder, its color) in order to check what you are going to eat. The importance of touch increases slightly at this stage, because people have to open the package and make sure that there is no powder between tear‐strips.
At the cooking stage smell dominates the product experience, because people find it important that the product smells good (appetizing). They also use olfaction to make sure the dish does not burn. Vision is also important at this stage, because
61 CHAPTER 3
the food should look appetizing. Some respondents commented that they notice the thickness of the food. People also use visual and auditory cues to know when the food begins to boil.
TABLE 3.1. THE MAIN EXPLANATIONS FOR THE MODALITY IMPORTANCE GIVEN BY PARTICIPANTS (%*)
Buying Opening Cooking Eating
See 87.2 61.7 70.2 46.8 Looking at the Looking at the If the food looks appe‐ The food should package to know powder (colour) tizing; thickness of the look appetizing; what to expect to check what you food; to see when it taste and colour (ingredients, taste, eat; look how to boils on package match etc.) open the package
Taste 34.0 19.2 17.0 89.4 Imagining the taste The expectation Imagining the taste (by The taste is what of the taste the smell) it is really all about
Smell 14.9 74.5 78.7 65.9 Smell of store or Smell gives first If the food smells Good smell im‐ imagination of impression of good/appetizing and proves the taste smell of the food taste and quality does not burn
Touch 14.9 27.6 25.5 36.2 Feel of the package (How to) open the Feel the structure Thickness food and the ingredients package, and con‐ /thickness of the food (while stirring) inside firm no powder and how it feels in between tear‐ your mouth strip
Hear 6.4 6.4 6.4 29.8 The sound of the If you hear air Hearing if the food/ Nothing to hear name, or of the escaping the water is boiling ingredients package you know it is fresh
* The percentage of participants who provided an explanation of why a certain modality is important at a certain stage. The sum of the answers is more than 100%, because partici‐ pants were allowed to give several answers.
62 SENSORY DOMINANCE IN PRODUCT EXPERIENCE
At the eating stage taste is dominant, because, as participants commented, “The taste is what it's really all about!” Olfactory and visual properties remain important at this stage. Participants commented that the food should look ap‐ petizing, and good smell improves the taste. Some respondents also noted that the color of the food on the package should match its actual color. Although touch was not dominant in any stage, at the time of eating its importance in‐ creases, because respondents notice the thickness of food while stirring it and feeling it in the mouth.
3.3. NATURALNESS
Repeated measures ANOVAs were performed on naturalness ratings with Stage as within‐subject factor and Brand as between‐subject factor. The effect of the Stage [F (4, 184) = 8.3, p < 0.001] was significant, but the effect of the Brand [F (1, 46) = 1.2, p > 0.2] was not significant (see Figure 3.2). Post hoc analysis with Bonferroni adjustment showed that the rating of naturalness at the cooking stage is signifi‐ cantly higher than at other stages (all p<0.05).
At the buying stage, the factors that were mentioned to increase the experience of naturalness were the pictures of fresh vegetables and fresh spices, the color of the food in the picture and the information about ingredients (the absence of unfamiliar ingredients and artificial taste enhancers) (see Table 3.2). The most important factor that decreased the experience of naturalness at this stage was the product type itself: 40% of respondents mentioned that they did not associ‐ ate dehydrated food powder with naturalness (see Table 3.3). Among other fac‐ tors which decrease the impression of naturalness was the artificial appearance of the package (too many colors, too much unstructured information, the picture of the food). Some participants also mentioned unfamiliar ingredients as a factor that decreased naturalness.
At the opening stage, the smell was the most important factor that increased the impression of naturalness. The second important factor was the presence of spices or green ingredients in the food powder. The most important factor that decreased the experience of naturalness was similar to the first stage: participants did not
63 CHAPTER 3
associate dried food powder with naturalness. The second important negative fac‐ tor was the color of the powder. At the cooking stage, the majority of participants indicated the color of the food as the main positive driver of naturalness. The second important natural‐ ness driver was smell. At this stage half of the respondents appeared to change their firm beliefs about the absolute incompatibility between dehydrated food and the concept of naturalness, but for 21% the product remained unnatural by definition. Other factors that decreased naturalness were the color of the food and its smell (too strong).
FIGURE 3.2. CHANGES IN NATURALNESS AT DIFFERENT STAGES OF PRODUCT EXPERIENCE
At the eating stage, the main positive drivers of naturalness were the color and the taste of the food, the second important factor was the presence of spices (green pieces) in the food. The negative drivers of naturalness at this stage were the color of the food, the absence of vegetable pieces, and the taste (too salty).
64 SENSORY DOMINANCE IN PRODUCT EXPERIENCE
TABLE 3.2. FACTORS THAT INCREASE THE NATURALNESS OF THE FOOD AT DIFFERENT STAGES (% OF ANSWERS)
What aspects of the product purchase opening cooking eating repurchase make it more natural?
Picture of fresh vegetables 44.7
Picture of fresh spices 34.0
The appearance/color of the food 19.2 8.5 68.1 31.9
Appearance of the packaging 12.8 6.4 61.7
Not too many unfamiliar ingredi‐ 10.6 10.6 ents
Nothing 8.5 17.0 6.4 17.0 17.0
No artificial taste enhancers 6.4
The spices/green ingredients 27.7 17.0 25.5
The smell 36.2 34.0 10.6
The presence of big chunks in the 12.8 6.4 food
The taste 27.7
At the fifth stage (re‐purchase), the general appearance of the package was men‐ tioned by the majority of respondents as the main positive driver of naturalness. It is important that after participants tasted the food, the number of participants who believed that dehydrated food could not be natural by definition dropped from 40% to 28%. Still, almost one third of our respondents did not associate the whole product category with naturalness. Artificial appearance of the package and the picture of the food were two other negative drivers of naturalness. Some partici‐ pants also mentioned the negative experience with the previous tproduc as the factor that reduced naturalness.
65 CHAPTER 3
TABLE 3.3. FACTORS THAT DECREASE THE NATURALNESS OF THE FOOD AT DIFFERENT STAGES (% OF ANSWERS)
What aspects of the product purchase opening cooking eating repurchase make it less natural?
The fact that the food is 40.4 44.7 21.3 8.5 27.7 dried/powder
Artificial look of the packaging: 25.5 27.7 too much colors, too much infor‐ mation, unstructured
Nothing 17.0 21.3 27.7 12.8
The picture of the food 10.6 21.3
Unfamiliar ingredients 6.4 6.4
The brand color 6.4 6.4
The appearance/color of the food 27.7 10.6 36.2
The smell is too strong 12.8 10.6
No vegetable pieces 12.8 12.8
The way the food is prepared 8.5
The foam during preparation 6.7
Too salty 10.6
Too much spices 10.6
Doesn’t taste like vegetable 12.8
The negative experience with the 19.2 food
3.4. EMOTIONS
Repeated measures ANOVAs were performed on emotion ratings with Stage and Emotion as within‐subject factors and Brand as between‐subject factor. The effects of both Emotion [F (11, 473) = 11.9, p < 0.001] and Stage x Emotion interaction [F (44, 1892) = 3.1, p < 0.001] were significant (see Figure 4). The effect of the brand
66 SENSORY DOMINANCE IN PRODUCT EXPERIENCE
on the data variance was not significant [F (1, 46) = 0.22, p > 0.20], and the effects of Brand x Emotion [F (11, 473) = 0.72, p > 0.20], and Brand x Stage interactions [F (4, 172) = 1.5, p > 0.20] were also not significant.
Post‐hoc analyses with Bonferroni adjustment were performed on each emotion separately to test the differences between the 5 stages. Five out of the 12 emo‐ tions showed significant changes over time: satisfaction, pleasant surprise, at‐ traction, dissatisfaction, and boredom. These emotions were analyzed further (Figure 3.3). The overall means for the other emotions are: contempt (1.4); un‐ pleasant surprise (1.2); aversion (1.2); sad (1.1); admiration (1.3); fascination (1.4); joy (1.5).
FIGURE 3. EMOTION DYNAMICS AT DIFFERENT STAGES OF PRODUCT EXPERIENCE
At the buying stage the rating of attraction was significantly higher than the rating of dissatisfaction and of pleasant surprise (p < 0.05). Participants indicated that they were curious about the new product and about the taste of ‘instant’ product; they liked how the food looked and felt like eating it (see participants’ comments in Table 3.4). The feeling of satisfaction at this stage was associated with the expecta‐ tion of good food that would taste similar to participants’ taste. The rating of bore‐ dom at this stage was not significantly different from other emotions (all p > 0.20).
67 CHAPTER 3
Participants indicated that there was nothing special in the product, it was not sur‐ prising, and the food looked boring.
At the opening stage the rating of satisfaction was significantly higher than the ratings of dissatisfaction and boredom (p<0.05). At the cooking stage the ratings of three positive emotions (satisfaction, attraction, and pleasant surprise) were significantly higher than the ratings of the two negative emotions (dissatisfaction and boredom) (all p<0.05). Respondents indicated that the product met their expectations, it looked and smelled good, they were curious about taste and felt like eating the food.
The analysis of the emotional dynamics shows that the rating of pleasant surprise increased significantly between the buying and the cooking stage (p<0.05), and the rating of attraction increased significantly between the opening and the cooking stage (p<0.05). Participants commented that the food looked and smelled better than they had expected.
At the eating stage the feelings of attraction and pleasant surprise significantly decreased, and the feeling of dissatisfaction significantly increased (all p<0.05). The ratings of satisfaction and dissatisfaction were not significantly different at this stage (p>0.20). Some participants indicated that the food tasted too salty or too sour, other commented that the food tasted good, even though it was pow‐ der food.
At the re‐purchase stage, the rating of pleasant surprise dropped significantly (p<0.05), and was significantly lower than the ratings of other emotions. The rat‐ ings of satisfaction, attraction, dissatisfaction and boredom did not differ signifi‐ cantly at the final stage (p>0.20). Some participants liked the taste and smell of the food; they noted that the content matched the information on the package, and that for a powder food it was a good food. Others didn’t like the taste, they did not find anything special about the product, and did not change their dislike for powder foods.
The comments about the strongest emotions felt by participants are summarized in Table 4. The data on the strongest emotions are in agreement with the overall rat‐ ings of the emotions. The strongest positive emotions were attraction, satisfaction, and pleasant surprise. Attraction was experienced mostly at the buying and cooking stages, satisfaction at the cooking and eating stages, and pleasant surprise at the cooking stage. The strongest negative emotions were dissatisfaction (at the eating stage) and boredom (at the buying stage).
68 SENSORY DOMINANCE IN PRODUCT EXPERIENCE
TABLE 3.4. THE STRONGEST EMOTIONS AT DIFFERENT STAGES OF PRODUCT USAGE (FREQUENCIES AND EXPLANATIONS)
The strongest purchase opening cooking eating repurchase emotion contempt 5 5 2 1 4 negative taste bad smell, difficult to bad taste bad taste, anticipation, dislike for mix powder dislike for the dislike for powder, de‐ with water product, de‐ powder food ceptive pack‐ ceptive pack‐ age age dissatisfied 3 2 2 10 6 not much don’t like dry color of pack‐ bad taste, the taste was vegetables, food, didn’t age and food bad smell, too bad, dislike not the best open the don’t match, sour, nothing for powder food in this package no good smell new foods, “not store, don’t properly my thing” like dry food unpleasant 2 0 0 2 2 surprise I wanted doesn’t taste artificial taste, other prod‐ like vegeta‐ you don’t get uct, this one ble, didn’t like the vegeta‐ doesn’t look the structure bles printed special on the pack‐ age aversion 0 0 1 1 5 smells too I don’t taste I didn’t like strong, makes vegetables the food, too me a bit ab‐ thin, too horrent creamy, no chef quality bored 9 4 1 1 4 nothing spe‐ expected 5 minutes of tastes like I didn’t like cial, not sur‐ more attrac‐ stirring is not normal food the taste, prising, food tive food, no the best part nothing spe‐ looks boring special smell, of cooking cial no surprises after opening sad 1 0 0 1 1 think of eat‐ taste is not package ing alone with sufficient, too seemed fine no attention watery / arti‐ but this
69 CHAPTER 3
to food ficial wasn’t true admiration 1 0 1 2 2 curious about content good food, So many dif‐ taste and meets expec‐ pure taste, ferent prod‐ smell tations smell is simi‐ ucts, so ful‐ lar to taste, filled after meets expec‐ just one small tations package, good food satisfied 7 5 11 12 5 expectation product food is ready, food was ok, for powder of good food, meets expec‐ it looks and good for in‐ food it’s taste similar tations, looks smells good between good, food to my taste, good, expect meals, tastes was sufficient not extreme, good food, like vegetable and filling product is look forward clear to cooking and eating pleasant sur‐ 0 6 11 8 1 prise presence of food looks it tastes good, content spices, easy and smells even though matches the to open, good better than it is powder information smell expected food on the pack‐ age attracted 12 7 12 3 7 curious about feel like eat‐ curious, the I liked the I liked the new product, ing food, look and food, it looks taste and food looks curious about smell make good, like smell of the good, feel like taste me feel like crème food food eating food eating the food fascinated 0 3 2 1 2 How do they curious about making such a I hope it will make this? the taste nice food in taste differ‐ easy to open, such a short ent this time, curious about time curious about taste other foods joy 1 2 1 0 0 no comment happy with I don’t cook product in‐ often, I want formation to enjoy the process
70 SENSORY DOMINANCE IN PRODUCT EXPERIENCE
3.5. OVERALL ANALYSIS OF THE DATA
The importance ratings of sensory modalities, ratings of naturalness and emotions may be related. Therefore, we performed a Principal Component analysis (PCA) on all 18 variables (5 sensory modalities, naturalness and 12 emotions) to look at pos‐ sible correlations between the different product experiences.
TABLE 3.5. FACTOR LOADINGS*
Factor 1: Factor 2: Factor 3: Factor 4: Factor 5: positive negative eating seeing/ hearing affect affect boring admire 0.76 satisfied 0.61 ‐0.33 ‐0.30 pleasant 0.66 attracted 0.63 ‐0.31 fascinated 0.69 0.35 joy 0.75 contempt ‐0.34 0.60 0.37 dissatisfied ‐0.32 0.72 unpleasant 0.79 aversion 0.74 sad 0.68 natural 0.38 ‐0.57 smell 0.78 touch 0.66 taste 0.78 bored 0.72 see 0.69 hear 0.81
* Only loadings bigger than 0.30 are shown.
71 CHAPTER 3
The results yielded five clear factors that explain 62% of variance (see Table 3.5). The first factor (explains 18.2 % of variance) includes six positive emotions: admi‐ ration (factor loading 0.76); satisfaction (0.61); pleasant surprise (0.66); joy (0.75); attraction (0.63), and fascination (0.67). The second factor (explains 18.0 % of variance) includes five negative emotions: contempt (0.60); dissatisfaction (0.72); unpleasant surprise (0.79); aversion (0.74), and sadness (0.68). These two factors clearly represent positive and negative affective valence. Naturalness loads on both these factors: positive affect (0.38) and negative affect (‐0.57). The third factor (explains 10.3 % of variance) includes three sensory modalities: smell (0.78), touch (0.66), and taste (0.78). This factor refers to the senses that are im‐ portant at the active stages of user‐product interaction (cooking and eating). The fourth factor (explains 8.3 % of variance) includes two variables: one sensory modality (vision, with factor loading 0.69) and one negative emotion (boredom, with factor loading 0.72). The last factor (explains 6.9 % of variance) includes only one variable, auditory modality (0.81).
Most of emotional variables in our data loaded on positive or negative affective factors. The only exception is boredom, which appeared to be related to visual importance. As expected, naturalness was experienced as a positive food prop‐ erty. It correlated positively with positive affect, and negatively with negative affect. The data on sensory modalities suggest that the correlations between the senses depend on the stage of the product usage. Smell, taste, and touch are important at the eating stage and together they form a separate factor. Vision is important at the buying stage, which participants find the most boring part of the experiment. This may explain why vision demonstrated high correlation with boredom. Hearing was not an important modality at any stage, and it represents a separate factor.
4. DISCUSSION
This research aimed at understanding how the sensory properties of a food product (dehydrated food) influence the experience of naturalness of this product and emotional reactions to it at different stages of user‐product interaction. The results demonstrate that all these properties may vary depending on the different stages of product usage.
72 SENSORY DOMINANCE IN PRODUCT EXPERIENCE
4.1. IMPORTANCE OF SENSORY MODALITIES
At the buying stage, people pay most attention to visual properties of the food package. This result is in line with our previous research (Fenko et al., 2009), where we demonstrated the dominance of vision at the buying stage for a variety of in‐ dustrial products. In the present study, participants mentioned several visual prop‐ erties that attracted their immediate attention while standing in front of the shelves, including the colors of the packages, the images of specific ingredients (e.g. vegetables), and the shiny material of the packages. When participants were deliberately trying to choose a product, they paid more attention to the informa‐ tion about the ingredients and tried to imagine how the food would taste. That is why taste was the second important modality at the buying stage. At the opening stage participants were able to smell the contents of the package, and at this stage olfaction became as important as vision. Smell remained impor‐ tant throughout the cooking and eating stages. At the eating stage, taste became dominant, followed by vision and smell. Tactile properties became somewhat more important at the eating stage, because the thickness of the food constitutes one of the components of the eating experience. Hearing was not important at any stage of product usage.
The most surprising finding in regard to sensory importance dynamics was the rela‐ tively high rating of taste at the buying stage, when participants had no actual gus‐ tatory sensations. This result shows that participants interpreted the questions about their sensory experience more broadly than we expected, and included their memories and expectations to imagine the sensations that were not yet experi‐ enced. This suggests that in sensory dominance research, questionnaire data should be used with caution. The answers may reflect not only actual sensory ex‐ periences, but also people’s ideas of what they might or should experience.
4.2. NATURALNESS
The dynamics of the naturalness experience demonstrates the complex relation‐ ships between sensory experience and symbolic product properties. Symbolic meanings people attach to food products depend not only on its perceived sensory properties, but to a large extent on people’s attitudes, beliefs and values (Wood, 1995, Mennel, et al., 1992).
73 CHAPTER 3
Eating is a social practice. Sharing food is one of the fundamental ways that one can display, establish, and maintain interpersonal intimacy. The dinner table is often described as a symbol of ideal family life (Lupton, 1996). Sociological studies dem‐ onstrate that traditional meals are perceived as an important part of producing a home and family (DeVault, 1994). Cooking proper meals is perceived as something women do to care for their family (Murcott, 1983; Charles and Kerr, 1988). Warn‐ ings about the increase in the use of fast‐food dishes that can be eaten anytime and anywhere is part of the more general Western critical discourse on the disinte‐ gration of family life and the commercialization of food habits (Warde, 1999). For instance, Falk (1994) argues that one characteristic of the modern consumer soci‐ ety is that food habits disintegrate (e.g. a reduction of ritual dinner meals). Mintz (1985) ties these tendencies to the rapid spread of fast food consumption in the western world. To address these public concerns, people develop simplifying heuristics about appropriate and inappropriate foods (Holm, 2003). One of such heuristics in‐ cludes eating “natural” or “pure” foods, i.e., foods that are homemade from raw ingredients and contain few or no additives. For instance, Charles and Kerr (1988) reported that most of their sample of 200 women described a proper meal as consisting of fresh foods, and home‐made food was considered as better than processed food.
In Western societies, naturalness has become one of the cultural values most peo‐ ple wish to achieve in their everyday consumption, especially in food consumption (Rozin, 2005; Verhoog et al., 2003). The eating of “natural” foods is seen as a pro‐ tection against known and unknown dangers perceived to be associated with mod‐ ern foods (Holm and Kildevang, 1996). The whole group of prefabricated food, in‐ cluding dehydrated foods, is conceptualized as “artificial” and is treated with suspi‐ cion. That is why it is so difficult for any member of this product group to stand out as more natural than other foods.
Our data demonstrate that at the buying stage these attitudes are extremely strong. When asked about the aspects of the product that decrease their experi‐ ence of naturalness, 40% of the respondents answered that the very fact that the food consists of dry powder instead of fresh vegetables makes it unnatural. In addi‐ tion, 8.5 % said that nothing can be done to improve the impression of naturalness. Nevertheless, the actual experience of cooking and eating the food managed to change this negative attitude to some extent. The color and smell of the food were the main factors that improved the naturalness rating of the product at the cooking stage. At this stage, the amount of participants who firmly believed that dehy‐
74 SENSORY DOMINANCE IN PRODUCT EXPERIENCE
drated food is artificial by definition, dropped to 21% (see Table 2). At the eating stage it dropped even further, to 8.5%, but at the repurchase stage it increased again to 28%. This dynamics suggest that consumer’s negative attitudes to this product group can be changed by actual positive experience, but it probably needs more than just one positive experience to make this change long‐term.
4.3. EMOTIONS
The dynamics of emotions confirms our suggestion that product experience is in‐ fluenced by both the actual perception of the sensory product properties and pre‐ existing attitudes and beliefs about a product. At the buying stage, the ratings of satisfaction and dissatisfaction were about equal. But when participants started to actively interact with the product (open the package, cook and eat the food), the rating of satisfaction went up, while the rating of dissatisfaction dropped signifi‐ cantly. The most striking dynamics was demonstrated by the emotion of pleasant surprise. Participants commented that they did not expect the food to smell and taste so good. Similar to the dynamics of naturalness, the positive impact of actual experience was not stable; at the repurchase stage the ratings of emotions re‐ turned to the same level as at the first buying stage.
The analysis of product experience dynamics suggests that actual sensory experi‐ ence has a different impact on the product assessment at the different stages of product usage. At the buying stage, when vision is the main and sometimes the only source of information about the product, people rely on their pre‐existing atti‐ tudes and beliefs about the product more than on the actual perception. When people have more opportunities to use their other senses (touch, smell, and taste), their evaluations may change. But these changes may be only temporary, unless the pre‐existing beliefs are challenged.
It may be hard to modify beliefs, based on specific sensory information. The reason for this may be the different relationships of particular sensory modalities with cognitive and affective systems. Experimental data suggest that vision and audition are the two sensory modalities that are most closely connected to rational thinking (Goodale & Humphrey, 1998; Neisser, 1994; Paivio, 2006). Touch, smell, and taste are more strongly associated with emotions (Hinton & Henley, 1993; Sweetser, 1990), but these experiences are difficult to verbalize and to recognize consciously (Köster, 2003). In our study of verbal descriptions of product experience, symbolic properties (such as modern, expensive, and natural) demonstrated strong visual
75 CHAPTER 3
dominance, while affective properties (such as pleasant, exciting, or boring) were equally related to all sensory modalities (Fenko et al., in press). We suggest that mere visual exposure to the product may actualize the user’s cog‐ nitive attitudes and beliefs about the product, while other senses, such as smell and taste, may trigger mainly affective reactions which are difficult to recognize and which often stay at the subliminal level (Berridge & Winkielman, 2003). Even if participants were aware of their emotions and sensory experiences, as they were during our experiment, for some of them sensory and emotional experiences were not enough to change their pre‐existing attitudes about the dehydrated food prod‐ ucts. As soon as they were back to the “supermarket shelf”, their negative cogni‐ tive attitudes towards this product group were actualized again by the visual im‐ ages of products. This may be a reason why it is so difficult to change negative stereotypes about some product groups, even when the actual olfactory and gusta‐ tory experiences are positive.
CONCLUSION
This experimental study was performed to understand the temporal changes of sensory importance during user‐product interaction with dehydrated food. We found that at the buying stage, vision is the most important modality, followed by taste. Taste had a relatively high rating at the buying stage, because participants were trying to imagine how the food would taste. Smell was dominant at the cook‐ ing stage, and taste was the most important sensation while eating the food.
The dynamics of naturalness and emotional experience suggest that different mechanisms are involved in the overall product experience at different stages. At the purchase and re‐purchase stages, where participants were able only to use their vision and previous knowledge, the pre‐existing attitudes and stereotypes about the product group seem to play a major role in participant’s affective reac‐ tions and naturalness judgements. When other modalities (olfaction, taste, and touch) were actively involved, participants’ emotional judgements were more di‐ rectly linked to their sensory experience. These results confirm the suggestion that tactile, olfactory and gustatory modalities are more closely linked to emotions than vision. Vision, on the other hand, is more closely linked to cognitive processes. That is why visual exposure to products may actualize existing cognitive attitudes and stereotypes about the product.
76 SENSORY DOMINANCE IN PRODUCT EXPERIENCE
In future research, it would be interesting to investigate the relationships of various sensory experiences with cognitive and affective processes more closely. This would be important both for theoretical understanding of psychological processes involved in product experience, and for practice of product design, marketing, ad‐ vertising, and retail.
77 CHAPTER 3
Chapter 4 is published as:
Fenko, A., Otten, J.J., Schifferstein, H.N.J. (2010) Describing product experience in different languages: The role of sensory modalities. Journal of Pragmatics, 42, 3314‐3327.
78
CHAPTER 4 DESCRIBING PRODUCT EXPERIENCE IN DIFFERENT LANGUAGES: THE ROLE OF SENSORY MODALITIES
1. INTRODUCTION
When people interact with products, they receive information through all the dif‐ ferent senses. This sensory information is processed in the brain and contributes to the overall product experience that people are aware of and can describe verbally. In describing their experience, people usually use adjectives that reflect sensory properties (e.g., warm, solid, red, loud), adjectives that refer to symbolic properties (e.g., elegant, expensive, modern), and affective evaluations (e.g., good, bad, beau‐ tiful, ugly) of the product (see Hekkert & Schifferstein, 2008).
All descriptions of product experiences ultimately rely on sensory inputs derived from the product. Nonetheless, information from some sensory modalities may be more important for describing certain product experiences than others. We define
79 CHAPTER 4
“sensory importance” as the relative contribution of each sensory modality to the description of a particular product experience. The dominant sensory modality is the modality that has the largest effect on the specific description. In this research we wonder what the role of the senses is in the description of product experiences through different types of adjectives.
1.1. FACTORS AFFECTING SENSORY DOMINANCE
A general and popular belief seems to be that vision is the dominant sensory mo‐ dality in everyday experience. When people are asked which sensory modality they would miss most if they lost it, the majority is likely to indicate vision (Fiore and Kimle, 1997; Schifferstein, 2006). In addition, when people are asked to describe objects, they primarily use adjectives that refer to the visual (60%) or tactual (32%) modalities (Stadtlander and Murdoch, 2000). However, vision is not the dominant modality in the interaction with all products. In a study using consumers’ self‐reported importances, participants reported that they found one of the other sensory modalities more important than vision during product usage for about half of the products (Schifferstein, 2006). For example, for a computer mouse the tactual characteristics were most important, for a vacuum cleaner the sound it made, for a cleaning product its smell, and for a soft drink its taste. The relative importance of a modality may depend on various aspects, such as the availability of sources of sensory stimulation, the degree of variation in sen‐ sory stimulation over various products, the usefulness of the sensory information during functional use, the proportion of time a modality is used actively, and the role of the stimulation in enjoying the product. Hence, the roles of the modalities depend not only on whether a certain type of sensory information is present, but also on whether the information is perceived, how it is processed, and how people react to it emotionally.
Culture may play a role in determining the importance of a sensory modality. Cul‐ ture has been shown to influence a large variety of behaviours across many diverse disciplines, including consumer behaviour (see Hofstede, 2001). Schifferstein (2006) suggested that the visual system is regarded dominant, because it plays a significant role in many daily activities. The importance of vision in Western socie‐ ties may have increased over time due to the products that were created, such as books, television, and computers that require major input from the visual modality. McLuhan (1961) believed that the nature of media by which people communicate
80 SENSORY DOMINANCE IN PRODUCT EXPERIENCE
affects the ratio of their senses. For example, the alphabet stresses the sense of sight, which in turn causes people to think in linear, objective terms. He argued that Europeans and North Americans live in the visual mode, while for native Afri‐ cans and other non‐literate societies the auditory modality is dominant. However, anthropological data suggest that significant diversity exists in sensory dominance among non‐literal peoples. Classen (2005) describes three non‐literal societies that have three different dominant sensory modalities: temperature is the most impor‐ tant sensory property for the Tzotzil of Mexico, smell for the Ongee of the Little Andaman Island, and vision for the Desana of Columbia.
1.2. CAN LANGUAGE INFLUENCE PRODUCT EXPERIENCE?
Language is one of the core components of any culture. It is central to communica‐ tion and closely related to thought. Much of human cultural heritage is encapsu‐ lated in semantic concepts packed into words (Levinson and Jaisson, 2006). Through language individuals have access to the large accumulation of cultural ideas, practices and technology which constitute a distinct cultural tradition (Gum‐ perz and Levinson, 1996). The learning of natural languages is probably the most complex cognitive task that humans routinely undertake and the major pressure for brain evolution in our species (Byrne and Whiten, 1988).
Languages differ fundamentally in their semantic categories—the concepts built into their grammars and lexicons. It is quite difficult to find any exact cross‐ linguistic matches between linguistically‐coded concepts (Levinson and Meira, 2003). To what extent are our ideas and concepts actually embodied in language? A proposal of linguistic relativity emphasizes a distinctive role of language in inter‐ preting experience and influencing thought (Gumperz and Levinson, 1996). The idea that thought is shaped by language is most commonly associated with the writings of Benjamin Lee Whorf. Whorf (1956) impressed by linguistic diversity, proposed that the categories and distinctions of each language determine a way of perceiving, analyzing, and acting in the world. In recent years, some studies have claimed evidence that language indeed has an important influence on thinking (e.g. Boroditsky, 2001; Bowerman, 1996; Davidoff et al., 1999; Gentner and Imai, 1997; Levinson, 1996; Lucy, 1992), while others have reported evidence to the contrary (e.g. Heider, 1972; Malt et al., 1999; Li and Gleitrnan, 2002). Experimental evidence has reopened the debate about the extent to which lan‐ guage influences cognitive processing of sensory information. Extensive research
81 CHAPTER 4
has been done in domains such as the experience of space (Levinson, 1996; Li and Gleitman, 2002; Majid et al., 2004), colour (Gilbert et al., 2006; Kay and Kempton, 1984; Robertson, Davies, and Davidoff, 2000), number (Gordon, 2004; Gelman and Gallistel, 2004; Pica et al., 2004), and time (Boroditsky, 2001; Chen, 2007; January and Kako, 2007; Núñez and Sweetser, 2006). As regards the time domain, speakers of different languages might talk about the future as if it lies ahead of us (in English), behind us (in Aymara), or below us (in Mandarin Chinese). Behavioural studies suggest that speakers of languages that use different spatiotemporal metaphors may think differently about time. Indeed, Mandarin speakers were faster to confirm that March comes earlier than April if they had just seen a vertical array of objects than if they had just seen a horizontal array. The reverse was true for English speakers (Boroditsky, 2001; Núñez and Sweetser, 2006). Dramatic cross‐linguistic differences have also been reported for the domain of space (Levinson, 1996). Whereas most languages (e.g. English, Dutch) rely heavily on relative spatial terms to describe the locations of objects (e.g. left/right, front/back), Tzeltal (a Mayan language) relies primarily on absolute reference (simi‐ lar to the north/south system). In experiments with spatial tasks Dutch and Tzeltal speakers saw an arrow pointing either to the right (north) or to the left (south). They were then rotated 180% and were asked to identify the arrow “like the one they saw before”. Dutch speakers overwhelmingly chose the ‘relative’ solution, while Tzeltal speakers overwhelmingly chose the ‘absolute’ solution. Furthermore, speakers of languages preferring absolute coordinates show more accurate skills when asked to indicate the direction of familiar locations from an unfamiliar site (Levinson 1996), suggesting that the differences may have everyday correlates.
Studies on occupational accidents in Finland give another example of everyday con‐ sequences of language differences. Occupational accident rates are substantially lower in Sweden than in Finland, and also among the Swedish‐speaking minority within Finland, despite working in the same regions with similar laws and regulations (Salminen and Hiltunen, 1995; Johansson and Strømnes, 1995). Researchers ex‐ plained this difference by structural differences between Swedish and Finnish. Swed‐ ish prepositions can be represented in terms of vector geometry in a three‐ dimensional space, whereas Finnish cases can be represented in a two‐dimensional space coupled with a third dimension of time (Strømnes, 1973, 1974). The research‐ ers suggest that the Finns organize the workplace in a way that favours the individual worker over the temporal organization of the overall production process. Lack of at‐
82 SENSORY DOMINANCE IN PRODUCT EXPERIENCE
tention to the overall temporal organization leads to frequent disruptions and acci‐ dents (Johansson and Salminen, 1996; Johansson and Strømnes, 1995). Studies have also shown that language characteristics (such as grammatical gender) can influence product experience (Lucy and Gaskins, 2001; Boroditsky, 2001; Boro‐ ditsky et al., 2003). For example, when German speakers were asked to describe a ‘key’ (a word masculine in German and feminine in Spanish), they were more likely to use words like ‘hard, heavy, jagged, metal, serrated, and useful’, while Spanish speakers were more likely to say ‘golden, intricate, little, lovely, shiny, and tiny’. On the other hand, to describe a ‘bridge’ (a word feminine in German and masculine in Spanish), German speakers referred to it as ‘beautiful, elegant, fragile, peaceful, pretty, and slender’, while Spanish speakers more often said ‘big, dangerous, long, strong, sturdy, and towering’. Schmitt and colleagues (1994) proposed that structural differences between the Chi‐ neseh and Englis language affect mental representations which, in turn, influence consumer memory of verbal information. The authors showed that unaided brand recall was differentially affected in Chinese and English when it was spoken compared to when it was written. Chinese brand attitudes were primarily affected by the match between script associations and brand associations, but brand attitudes of English names were primarily affected by the match between sound associations and brand associations (Pan and Schmitt, 1996). Furthermore, how much consumers like a brand name translation can depend on whether that name depicts phonological or semantic characteristics of the original name (Pan and Schmitt, 1996).
Schmitt and Zhang (1998) and Zhang and Schmitt (1998) found that structural as‐ pects of a language can affect one of the most basic aspects of consumer behav‐ iour: categorization of products. They demonstrated how classifiers, a widespread lexical and syntactical phenomenon in the Chinese, Japanese, and Thai languages, and almost non‐existent in Indo‐European languages such as English, German and Spanish, affect the perceived similarity between objects, attribute accessibility, and concept organization. They also demonstrated the impact of classifier‐based sche‐ mata on inferences about product features and provided evidence of the effect of classifiers on judgment and choice.
1.3. LINGUISTIC DESCRIPTIONS OF SENSORY CHARACTERISTICS
In the present study, we investigate language differences in descriptions of product experience. We assume that language effects may depend on the type of adjectives 83 CHAPTER 4
used to describe product experience. Some aspects of product experience seem to be uniquely unimodal: hue can only be experienced by sight, tickle can only be felt by touch, and pitch can only be differentiated by audition. Nevertheless, our per‐ ceptual experience of the world is richly multimodal (Stein and Meredith, 1993). People are able to extract information derived from one sensory modality and use it in another. People can, for example, know a shape by touch and identify it cor‐ rectly by sight. Furthermore, people are able to integrate the impressions gener‐ ated by different sensory modalities into a unified, rich percept. In addition, sen‐ sory terms that describe physical properties of things (such as ‘warm’ and ‘cold’) also describe some psychological qualities. Different languages such as ancient Greek, Thai, Chinese and Hebrew possess some morphemes that designate physi‐ cal‐psychological pairings identical with those found in English (Asch, 1955).
Human language partly operates through metaphors. Metaphors can structure people’s thoughts, govern their activities, and enable their reasoning from the fa‐ miliar to the unfamiliar (Lakoff and Johnson, 1980, 1999; Rein and Schön, 1977). Metaphors often refer to sensory phenomena. Good ideas are described as ‘bril‐ liant,’ pleasant dreams as ‘sweet,’ important topics as ‘hot,’ and bright colours as ‘loud.’ Gallup and Cameron (1992) argued that English and other European lan‐ guages mainly use visual terms as metaphors to describe or capture mental events (‘as illustrated by,’ ‘reflect on that,’ ‘shed some light,’ ‘a clear explanation’) by re‐ ferring to human evolutionary dheritage an the anatomical structure of the brain. Compared with other sensory input, a disproportionate amount of brain tissue is devoted to the processing of visual information (van Essen et al., 1990).
Because people do not rely on each of the five senses equally and use some sen‐ sory modalities more often than others, it makes sense that certain sensory mo‐ dalities have greater frequency in linguistic representation. Based on data from 53 languages from all parts of the world, Viberg has shown that the large amount of polysemy with respect to the sense modalities for verbs is constrained by a hierar‐ chy which gives the most prominent place to vision and the least prominent to smell and taste (Viberg, 1984). The hierarchy can be presented as follows: sight > hearing > touch > smell, taste. According to this hierarchy, ‘a verb having a basic meaning belonging to a sense modality higher (to the left) in the hierarchy can get an extended meaning that covers some (or all) of the sense modalities lower in the hierarchy’ (p. 136–137). A sense that holds the top position has the highest number of polysemic patterns and also the highest number of lexemes at the level below the basic one. Viberg concludes that the verbs of perception, especially ‘see’, have
84 SENSORY DOMINANCE IN PRODUCT EXPERIENCE
an extensive range of cognitive meanings, and that ‘know’ and ‘see’ are covered by the same word in a number of languages. For example, in English it is acceptable to say any of the following: (1) “I listened to the voice to see if I could recognize it.” (2) “I felt his hand to see how hot it was.” (3) “I tasted the soup to see whether it was ready.” (4) “I smelled the air to see how fresh it was.” Miller and Johnson‐Laird (1976) also acknowledge the startling complexity of the verb ‘see’ and link it to the conceptual complexity of visual processes. However, none of these linguists con‐ siders the extension of the meaning of sensory verbs to be metaphorical.
English verbs of perception and their complex polysemous structure and etymology have also been studied by Sweetser (1990). Unlike Viberg, Sweetser argues that the connection between the domain of external, physical sensation on the one hand and abstract, cognitive states, on the other hand, is metaphorical in nature. Accord‐ ing to the cognitive theory of metaphor, verbal metaphors, including conventional expressions based on metaphor, reflect underlying conceptual metaphors in which people conceptualize vague, abstract domains of knowledge (such as time, causa‐ tion, ideas, and emotions) in terms of more specific, familiar, and concrete knowl‐ edge (Gibbs, 1994). Human thinking is organized from simple to complex, and the basic sensory experience (source domain) is used to understand more abstract phenomena (target domain). Sweetser suggests three reasons for the prominent relationship between vision (as a source domain) and knowledge (as a target do‐ main): (1) The focusing ability of the sense of vision enables people to pick up one stimulus from many, and, together with its intentionality and directionality, differ‐ entiates it from the other senses. (2) Vision is our primary source of objective data about the world. Visual features are the most marked in children’s early categoriza‐ tion, thus form an important source for concept formation. Vision provides data from a distance, which through metaphoric transfer become a characteristic of objectivity in the intellectual domain. (3) Vision is identical for different people who can take the same point of view.
Some authors argue that visual metaphors for mental processes are of relatively recent date. The salient position vision occupies in conceptualization of the intel‐ lect is not shared by all cultures or even present in older stages in the Indo‐ European culture (Ibarretxe Antuñano, 2008). Classen (1993) suggests that sight‐ based words such as bright, brilliant, and lucid have been used to mean intelligent only since the Enlightenment period, “perhaps in consequence of the general rise of visualism at that time” (p. 58). Many more terms of thought are tactile or kinaes‐ thetic, such as apprehend, comprehend, conceive, grasp, ruminate and understand.
85 CHAPTER 4
“Thought is, or was, experienced primarily in terms of touch […]. Knowing was less like seeing than like holding” (Classen, 1993: 58). Auditory verbs rarely serve as metaphors for thought or intelligence in English, perhaps because hearing is conceived of as a passive sense, receiving information but not probing it. The nmai function of hearing is communication, and it is the major path of interpersonal influence. Therefore, hearing is associated with obedi‐ ence and emotional receptivity (‘being deaf to someone’s plea’) rather than with intelligence (Sweetser, 1990). However, languages differ in the metaphorical use of auditory verbs. For example, Evans and Wilkins (2000) showed that Australian lan‐ guages recruit verbs of cognition like ‘think’ and ‘know’ from ‘hear’, not from ‘see’. Suya Indians of Brazil use the same verb for ‘listen’, ‘understand’, and ‘know’ (See‐ ger, 1975), and in Russian the word понимать (‘understand’) has the same root as внимать (‘listen carefully’).
Describing the semantics of three Russian perception verbs, воспринимать (‘per‐ ceive’), ощущать (‘sense’), and чувствовать (‘feel’), Iordanskaja (1979) notes that Russian semantics reflects the 'naive' conception of smelling, feeling, and taste as opposed to sight and hearing. The verb воспринимать (‘perceive’) can stand for any mental ability, including reason, sight, and hearing, while the verbs ощущать (‘sense’) and чувствовать (‘feel’) stand for olfaction, touch, taste, kinesthetic and other internal senses. In addition, чувствовать (‘feel’) can be metaphorically used for intuition, instinct and the unconscious mind. Optical or acoustic perception cannot be called ощущать or чувствовать in Russian, which coincides with psy‐ chological theories that consider sight and hearing to be the most sophisticated forms of perception, in contrast to other three senses.
A lot of perceptual (or sensory) adjectives, such as sharp, dull (touch), sweet, sour (taste), loud, and quiet (sound), often extend their meaning from one basic, or pro‐ totypical, sense modality to one or more secondary modalities. From Ullmann’s (1957) work based on an investigation of 19th century poetry the following two hi‐ erarchies be derived: touch > taste > scent and touch > sound, sight. Out of a total of 2009 transfers, he found 1665 upward transfers (from left to right) and only 344 downward transfers. The largest number of transactions occurred between touch and sound.
Ullmann's study mainly deals with literary metaphor, and many of the examples he provides are certainly not part of established usage. Williams (1976) looked at his‐ torical changes of English adjectives referring to sensory experience in English dic‐ tionaries. He found that such adjectives transferred according to a hierarchy that
86 SENSORY DOMINANCE IN PRODUCT EXPERIENCE
accords well with the one presented by Ullmann. Williams noticed that metaphori‐ cal transfers, with relatively few exceptions, go in one direction. That is, a touch word may transfer to taste or directly to sound (‘hot’ or ‘sharp’) or sight (‘soft’). A taste word may transfer to smell or to sound (‘sour sound’, ‘sweet music’), and sight words may transfer to sound and vice versa (‘loud colour’, ‘clear sound’). Wil‐ liams assumes the hierarchy to be biologically based. The transfers go from the physiologically least differentiating, evolutionary and ontogenetically primitive sen‐ sory modalities to the most differentiating, most advanced.
It is puzzling that the hierarchies of adjectives and verbs differ substantially. While the verb “to see” can have many non‐visual meanings, the touch‐related adjectives can transfer their meanings to other sensory domains. The reason behind this dis‐ crepancy may be that transfer of meaning in verbs and adjectives refer to different areas of human experience. Lehrer (1978) suggests that the transfer of meaning in adjectives is mainly based on the general experiential dimensions of intensity and evaluation. In the early 1950s, Osgood asked participants to evaluate different con‐ cepts and objects on a number of bipolar scales based on semantic opposites, such as good‐bad, soft‐hard, fast‐slow, clean‐dirty, valuable‐worthless, fair‐unfair, and so on (Osgood, 1962; Osgood et al., 1957). Osgood called them “semantic differen‐ tial” scales, because they differentiated personal attitudes based on a subjective understanding of the connotative meanings of words. Factor analysis of the re‐ sponses generally yielded three dimensions: Evaluation or valence (e.g. good‐bad, pleasant‐unpleasant), Activity (e.g. fast‐slow, stimulating‐relaxing, lively‐quiet), and Potency (e.g. weak‐strong, gentle‐tough, persistent‐accommodating). Evaluation (valence) and Activity (arousal) are often seen as the two primary dimensions for emotional experiences (see, e.g., Feldman Barrettd an Russell, 1998). According to Lehrer (1978), they may also be the most important dimensions for the transfer of meaning in sensory adjectives.
The sense of touch has always been related to the field of emotions. Expressions such as “I’m deeply touched” or “touching words” are widely used in English. Al‐ ready in 1921, Hans Kurath classified sense perception with respect to emotions and stated how “the kinaesthetic, the visceral, and the tactual perceptions have a relatively stronger tone than those of hearing and especially of sight, the taste‐ smell perceptions taking a middle ground” (p.39). Kurath explained this transfer of meaning from sense perception to emotion on the basis of the similarity of feelings that both domains share. This connection can also be explained by the etymology. Buck (1949) points out that the general word in West Germanic languages for ‘feel’
87 CHAPTER 4
refers not only to tactile perception but also to emotions, even in the earliest peri‐ ods of the languages. Viberg (1984) argues that, unlike the hierarchy of sensory adjectives, which is probably based on the Evaluation and Activity dimensions, the hierarchy of sensory verbs is based on another experiential dimension, related to the degree of cer‐ tainty. For example, the statement “I saw that the building was huge” implies more certainty than “I heard that the building was huge”, which depends on the reliabil‐ ity of the source of information. The statement “I feel that Mary has doubts about her marriage” is the least certain. The dimension of certainty is most relevant for verbs connected to sight, hearing, and touch. For the verbs connected to taste and smell the evaluative component seems domi‐ nant (‘to taste freedom’, ‘to smell treason’). There are relatively few olfactory terms in English and most of them refer to bad smells. Metaphorical meanings for smell verbs include the detection of bad characteristics, as in “Something about his testimony stinks” (Caplan, 1973; Viberg, 1984; Sweetser, 1990) and to suspect, to guess, to sense something intuitively, as in “She could smell money, power, victory” (Ibarretxe‐Antuñano, 1999). While the connotation of ‘smelly’ is often negative, that of ‘tasty’ is positive, which Classen explains by the fact that people are con‐ fronted with foul smells more often than with foul tastes: “We can choose our food, but we cannot as readily close our noses to bad smells” (p. 53). Taste figura‐ tively means ‘judgment of what is beautiful’ and is, therefore, characterized as a sense of aesthetic discrimination. This relation between taste and preferences is very common cross‐linguistically (Buck, 1949).
1.4. PRESENT RESEARCH
The present research aims to find out which sensory modalities are dominant for different descriptors of product experiences. We assume that for sensory descrip‐ tors of product experience the corresponding sensory modalities will be dominant, such as taste for ‘sweet’, touch for ‘hard’, and audition for ‘loud’ If an adjective has both a literal and a figurative meaning, we expect the link with the modality corre‐ sponding to the literal meaning to be stronger, because this is the original meaning. As an original source is likely to have a stronger effect than a derivative, we expect the original modality to have a stronger connection to the descriptor than any of the modalities that are involved in the figurative meanings. Symbolic and affective descriptors of product experience are likely to be multisensory, but possibly one or
88 SENSORY DOMINANCE IN PRODUCT EXPERIENCE
more sensory modalities play a more dominant role in assessing how interesting, modern, exciting or funny people find a particular product. In Study 1 we try to find experience descriptors that are related to all sensory mo‐ dalities to the same degree and are not biased towards any modality. According to our assumption, we expect to find these among the symbolic and affective descrip‐ tors. In Study 2 we look for adjectives that are mainly related to a single sensory modality. We expect to find these mostly among the sensory descriptors. In Study 2 we also test whether a difference exists between the sensory dependence of the three different types of product experience descriptors (sensory, symbolic and af‐ fective) for participants with different native languages.
2. STUDY 1. SELECTING A SENSORY NEUTRAL EXPERIENCE
The aim of this study was to find product experience descriptions that are not bi‐ ased towards any of the modalities. We assumed that concrete, sensory descrip‐ tors are likely to refer to a single sensory modality. An adjective that can be used in a literal sense for one modality and in a metaphorical sense for other modalities (e.g., rough, heavy) is likely to be dominated by the modality for which the descrip‐ tor has a literal meaning (i.e., touch). Therefore, we were looking for adjectives that were abstract and had a meaning that could be applied to the same degree to all sensory modalities.
To develop a new index for evaluating aesthetic impressions in close relation to hu‐ man modalities, Suzuki and Gyoba (2001) introduced the sensory relevance coeffi‐ cient. This coefficient indicates the extent to which pairs of adjectives are related to sensory modalities. For each adjective pair, the coefficient reflects the proportion of participants that indicated that a particular modality was related most to this adjec‐ tive. Examples of adjective pairs that were judged to be primarily related to visual perception were beautiful‐ugly (0.95), gay‐sober (0.99), and clear‐cloudy (0.86). Pri‐ marily tactual were wet‐dry (0.91), soft‐hard (0.96), cold‐warm (0.91), and smooth‐ rough (0.78). The only adjective pair that was mainly auditory was living‐quiet (0.83). No adjective pairs in their study were primarily olfactory or gustatory.
In a more recent study Gyoba, Suzuki, Kawabata, Yamaguchi, and Komatsu (2005) instructed participants to indicate the degree of sensory relevance of adjective pairs on 6‐point rating scales for 10 sensory modalities, including the perception of pain, warmness, coldness, equilibrium, and kinaesthesia. In general, they obtained
89 CHAPTER 4
high ratings for vision for most pairs of adjectives. They found that adjective pairs that usually span the Evaluation factor in Semantic Differential studies (Osgood, 1962; Osgood et al., 1957), such as pleasant‐unpleasant and good‐bad tended to get high ratings for multiple modalities. Adjective pairs that span the Activity factor, such as quiet‐noisy, static‐dynamic, and calm‐turbulent received primarily high rat‐ ings for the auditory and kinaesthetic modality. Adjective pairs that are related to the Potency factor, such as smooth‐rough, soft‐hard, small‐big, and feminine‐ masculine were rated high for the tactile sense. These outcomes have been partly supported by brain activity measurements while the participants rated stimuli on semantic differential scales (Suzuki et al., 2005). Activation patterns of the tempo‐ ral and parietal regions of the brain were significantly related to the semantic po‐ larities of Activity and Potency, but no changes in brain activity were related to the ratings on the Evaluation scale. To determine the extent to which adjective pairs are related to the different sen‐ sory modalities, we need to assess the extent to which all modalities are related to the adjectives. In line with the studies performed by Gyoba, Suzuki, and colleagues, we asked participants to rate the relevance of four sensory modalities for each se‐ mantic scale on a 5‐point scale. Because the research was performed in the context of the evaluation of durable consumer products (see Schifferstein et al., 2010), the taste modality was not included in this study.
2.1. PARTICIPANTS
A convenience sample consisting of colleagues, friends and acquaintances was used, consisting of 57 participants (42 male and 15 female). All participants were native Dutch speakers. One female participant was removed from the sample, be‐ cause she was unable to smell anything. Ages varied between 20 and 60 years (mean 35.4).
2.2. PROCEDURE
Participants received an email that invited them to go to a specific website. The introduction to the study pointed out that the way in which people experience products depends on the information perceived through the senses. Judging differ‐ ent aspects of the product experience, however, would not necessarily rely on each
90 SENSORY DOMINANCE IN PRODUCT EXPERIENCE
sensory modality to the same degree. Participants then answered the question ‘Suppose that you would have to rate a product on the following semantic scale, to what extent would the sensory modalities play a role?’ on a 5‐point scale, ranging from ‘not at all’ on the left side to ‘very large extent’ on the right side. A set of 39 possible descriptors was derived from previous studies that used the Semantic Dif‐ ferential Method. In addition, 20 scales were derived from a set of unipolar product personality descriptors (Govers, 2004) by creating items that ranged from ‘not at all’ to l‘very’. Al original items and their translations can be found in Table 4.1.
TABLE 4.1. MEAN SENSORY RELEVANCE RATINGS FOR BIPOLAR AND UNIPOLAR DESCRIPTIVE ATTRIBUTES ON A 5‐POINT SCALE
English Dutch Ver‐ Modality sion Vision Audition Touch Smell
Evaluation Beautiful – ugly Mooi – lelijk A 5.0 3.7 2.9 2.2 B 4.7 3.4 2.7 2.6 Pleasant – unpleas‐ Aangenaam ‐ onaan‐ A 4.5 4.3 4.5 4.5 ant genaam Agreeable ‐ disagree‐ Prettig ‐ onprettig B 3.8 3.9 3.9 3.9 able Good – bad Goed ‐ slecht B 3.6 3.4 3.2 2.8 Friendly – unfriendly Vriendelijk ‐ onvriendelijk B 3.9 3.7 2.9 2.1 Attractive – unattrac‐ Aantrekkelijk ‐ onaantrek‐ A 4.7 3.7 3.9 4.0 tive kelijk Seductive ‐ Repulsive Verleidelijk – afstotelijk A 4.7 3.7 3.9 4.4 Sympathetic – un‐ Sympathiek ‐ onsympa‐ B 3.8 3.8 2.5 2.4 sympathetic thiek Inviting – rejecting Uitnodigend – afwijzend A 4.3 3.9 3.2 3.1 Activity
Active – relaxed Actief ‐ ontspannen A 4.3 3.7 3.0 2.1 B 3.9 3.4 3.5 2.3 Stimulating – relaxing Stimulerend ‐ ontspan‐ B 3.4 3.8 3.5 2.9
91 CHAPTER 4
nend Excited – calm Opgewonden ‐ kalm B 4.1 4.3 3.4 2.6 Fast – slow Snel ‐ langzaam B 4.2 3.6 2.8 1.5 Fussy ‐ lethargic Druk ‐ sloom A 4.5 3.8 2.1 1.4 Tense ‐ fusty Gespannen ‐ duf A 4.1 3.1 3.1 2.0 Flashy ‐ discrete Flitsend ‐ discreet A 4.6 3.5 2.3 1.9 Conspicuous ‐ incon‐ Opzichtig ‐ onopvallend B 4.6 3.4 2.0 2.7 spicuous Lively – quiet Levendig ‐ rustig A 4.5 4.5 3.1 2.5 Potency Gentle – tough Schattig ‐ stoer A 4.8 3.7 3.2 2.2 B 4.4 3.4 3.3 2.3 Masculine – feminine Mannelijk ‐ vrouwelijk B 4.5 3.7 3.8 3.5 Strong – weak Sterk ‐ zwak B 3.7 3.0 3.9 2.3 Careful – brave Voorzichtig ‐ dapper A 4.3 3.0 2.6 1.9 Momentous – humble Gewichtig ‐ nederig A 4.3 3.3 2.6 1.7 Impressive ‐ meaning‐ Indrukwekkend ‐ A 4.5 3.9 2.8 2.4 less nietszeggend Persistent ‐ accommo‐ Vasthoudend ‐ A 3.6 3.2 2.9 1.7 dating meegaand Other
Rough – soft Ruw ‐ zacht A 4.2 3.0 5.0 2.0 B 3.8 2.5 4.7 1.6 Fresh – musty Fris ‐ muf A 3.4 1.9 2.6 5.0 B 3.0 2.0 2.6 4.7 Loud – quiet Luid ‐stil A 2.3 4.9 2.2 1.3 B 1.9 4.9 2.2 1.4 Mature – youthful Volwassen ‐ jeugdig B 4.1 3.4 2.5 2.1 Young – old Jong ‐ oud B 4.3 3.1 2.8 3.3 Interesting – boring Interessant‐ saai B 4.3 3.9 3.0 2.5 Funny‐ serious Grappig‐ serieus B 4.0 4.0 2.2 1.6 Safe – dangerous Veilig ‐ gevaarlijk B 4.3 3.9 3.5 3.2
92 SENSORY DOMINANCE IN PRODUCT EXPERIENCE
Severe – mild Streng ‐ mild B 3.4 3.5 2.7 2.0
Expensive – cheap Duur ‐ goedkoop A 4.4 2.7 3.7 2.6 Valuable – worthless Waardevol – A 4.6 3.6 3.8 2.6 waardeloos Comprehensible – in‐ Begrijpelijk ‐ onbegri‐ A 4.2 3.1 2.3 1.3 comprehensible jpelijk Predictable – Voorspelbaar ‐ onvoor‐ A 4.0 3.5 3.0 2.6 unpredictable spelbaar Modern – traditional Modern ‐ traditioneel A 4.7 3.4 2.9 2.8 Personality Dominant Dominant B 4.0 4.1 2.4 2.4 Cute Schattig B 4.3 3.2 3.1 2.1 Provocative Uitdagend B 4.3 2.9 2.7 2.2 Cheerful Vrolijk B 4.3 4.2 2.3 1.7 Pretty Leuk B 4.1 3.7 3.0 2.2 Childish Kinderachtig B 4.0 3.6 2.6 2.0 Interesting Interessant B 4.2 3.9 3.1 2.5 Silly Dom B 3.5 3.7 2.0 1.4 Relaxed Relaxed B 3.4 3.9 3.4 2.2 Idiosyncratic Eigenzinnig B 3.7 3.8 2.6 2.3 Lively Pittig A 2.9 1.8 4.1 2.2 Open Open A 4.4 3.1 2.9 1.6 Aloof Afstandelijk A 4.2 3.1 3.0 2.1 Honest Eerlijk A 3.8 3.6 2.7 2.1 Untidy Slordig A 4.7 2.8 2.8 1.8 Boring Saai A 4.5 3.9 2.7 2.3 Modest Bescheiden A 4.0 4.1 2.5 2.1 Easy‐going Vlot A 4.5 3.8 2.3 2.0 Obtrusive Opdringerig A 4.3 4.3 3.0 3.2 Serious Serieus A 4.2 4.0 2.7 2.0
93 CHAPTER 4
To limit the number of questions the participants had to answer, two separate questionnaires were used, each containing about half of the semantic items. To evaluate between‐sample reliability, six items were identical in the two versions. The order in which the modalities were presented was different for both surveys. For each semantic item, the sensory relevance was rated for olfaction, touch, audi‐ tion, and vision (version A) or audition, olfaction, vision, and touch (version B), con‐ secutively. Thirty‐three (version A) or 32 (version B) items were rated. Twenty‐nine participants filled out version A, 28 filled out version B. The time needed to fill out the questionnaire was approximately 15 min.
2.3. RESULTS
For each item, responses on the 5‐point scales were subjected to repeated meas‐ ures ANOVA with Modality as within‐subjects factor. Most items showed biases towards a sensory modality (see Table 4.1). In contrast to Gyoba et al. (2005), we found that most items that referred to the Activity and Potency dimensions were most strongly related to the visual modality. In accordance with Gyoba et al. (2005), most of the items spanning the Evaluation factor were related to multiple modalities. Only four semantic scales did not show a significant difference between sensory modalities: agreeable‐disagreeable (p=0.83), pleasant‐unpleasant (p=0.55), stimulating‐relaxing (p=0.05), and good‐bad (p=0.05). Therefore, the Pleasantness of the product seems to be a sensory neutral product experience. This experience can be assessed by averaging the responses on three items that appear to be sen‐ sory neutral (agreeable‐disagreeable, pleasant‐unpleasant, and good‐bad).
To test if age or gender differences between respondents influenced our results, we performed repeated measures ANOVA on the A and B data sets, with Modality and Experience as within‐subject factors and Age and Gender as between‐subject factors. All effects that included the two demographic factors were not significant (all p > 0.20).
3. STUDY 2. MODALITY IMPORTANCE FOR SENSORY PRODUCT DESCRIPTIONS
Almost all product experiences have associations with more than one sensory modality. The color of a dress can be ‘loud’; the voice of a singer can be
94 SENSORY DOMINANCE IN PRODUCT EXPERIENCE
‘sweet’, and so on. The primary aim of the second study was to determine which sensory descriptors of product experience rely mainly on a single modal‐ ity and which are primarily multisensory. We included several symbolic and affective experiences in this study as control variables. Based on the results of Study 1, we assumed that symbolic and affective experiences would be mostly multisensory.
Another aim of Study 2 was to look at language differences in modality domi‐ nance for three types of product descriptors: sensory, symbolic, and affective. When the meaning of a product is expressed in words, it may be interpreted dif‐ ferently in different languages. Most adjectives that describe product experi‐ ences have several meanings, and usually not all these meanings can be trans‐ lated adequately to another language. For example, the English word ‘fresh’ has 16 different meanings (Simpson and Weiner, 1989), which can be roughly divided into two groups: 1) new, recent, newly made, recently arrived, retaining its origi‐ nal qualities, not deteriorated or changed by lapse of time; 2) pure, invigorating, refreshing (said especially of air and water), not stale, musty, or vapid. In the Dutch language two different words are used to indicate these two meanings in the case of food products (vers for the first meaning and fris for the second meaning). When a text is translated from English into Dutch, the translation of the word ‘fresh’ is likely to have a more restricted meaning and fewer associa‐ tions in Dutch than in English. We assumed that some descriptors of product ex‐ perience are culturally specific and bear linguistic associations. To test this as‐ sumption, we conducted the study with two groups of respondents: native Dutch speakers and native Russian speakers.
3.1. PARTICIPANTS
The sample consisted of 57 Dutch‐speaking students of TU Delft (30 men and 27 women) and 55 Russian‐speaking students (27 men and 28 women) of the Higher School of Economics (Moscow, Russia). For the Dutch sample, ages ranged from 21 to 34 years, mean age was 23.5 years. For eth Russian sample, ages ranged from 17 to 36, mean age was 20.2 years.
95 CHAPTER 4
3.2. PROCEDURE
Respondents received paper questionnaire forms at a lecture and filled them in during the break. The questionnaire asked respondents to indicate to what extent different sensory modalities contributed to the evaluation of 34 product proper‐ ties. The list included sensory descriptors: tactile (such as warm, sharp, and rough.); auditory (such as ,noisy, quiet and loud); visual (such as colourful, shiny, and clear); olfactory (such as fresh and stale), and gustatory (such as bitter and sweet); affec‐ tive descriptors (such as exciting, funny, and cute); and symbolic descriptors (such as complex, modern, and luxurious). Respondents were asked to think of any prod‐ uct (a coffee maker, shoes, cheese, a tooth brush, shampoo, a camera, a chair, a soft drink, a bag, etc.) and to answer the question: “To what extent do the follow‐ ing senses contribute to your evaluation of a product as…?” They assessed the im‐ portance of 5 sensory modalities on t5‐poin scales from ‘not important’ (1) to ‘very important’ (5). Because the second study was performed in the context of the evaluation of a set of products that included a soft drink (see Fenko et al., 2009), taste was added to the list of modalities in this study.
There were two types of questionnaires which differed with respect to the order of the sensory modalities. The A‐form used the following sequence: audition, olfaction, touch, taste, and vision. The B‐form used the sequence: touch, taste, vision, olfaction, and audition. In the Dutch sample, 26 filled out the A‐form, and 31 filled out the B‐ form. In the Russian sample, 27 respondents filled out the A‐form, and 28 filled out the B‐form. It took participants 10 to 15 minutes to fill out the questionnaire.
3.3. RESULTS
We performed repeated measures ANOVA with Descriptor and Modality as within‐ subjects factors and Language as between‐subjects factor. The main effects for Descriptor, Modality and Language were significant: F (33, 3234) = 39.9; p < 0.001 for Descriptor; F (4, 392) = 332.8; p < 0.001 for Modality; and F ,(1 98) = 4693.5; p < 0.001 for Language. The Modality × Language interaction was not significant: F (4, 392) = 1.5; p > 0.2. The Modality × Descriptor interaction [F (132, 12936) = 133.5; p < 0.001] and the Descriptor × Modality × Language interaction [F (132, 12936) = 13.8, p < 0.001] were both significant.
To test if age or gender differences between respondents influenced results, we also performed repeated measures ANOVA with Descriptor and Modality as within‐ subjects factors and Language, Age and Gender as between‐subject factors. The
96 SENSORY DOMINANCE IN PRODUCT EXPERIENCE
effects of both demographic factors and their interactions with other factors were not significant (all p > 0.20). Overall mean ratings of the 34 experiences showed that vision had the highest rat‐ ing for 14 descriptors, touch for 10, taste for 4, and audition and olfaction for 3 descriptors each. Symbolic descriptors tended to rate high on all modalities, al‐ though all of them demonstrated visual dominance. As predicted, sensory descrip‐ tors demonstrated the highest ratings for the corresponding sensory modalities (e.g., touch for ‘warm’, taste for ‘bitter’, audition for ‘loud’, olfaction for ‘fresh’).
Because the three‐way interaction was highly significant, responses for each adjec‐ tive were subjected to repeated measures ANOVA with Modality as within‐subjects factor and Language as between‐subjects factor. The effect of Modality was signifi‐ cant for all descriptors (p < 0.01). For 24 out of 34 descriptors, the effect of the Modality × Language interaction was significant (see Table 4.2). Some of the cultural differences were big enough to affect the importance hierar‐ chy of modalities for particular descriptors. For example, ‘spicy’ appeared to be mainly a gustatory experience for Dutch respondents (kruidig) and olfactory for the Russian sample (ароматный). The dominant modality for ‘mild’ in the Dutch group (mild) was also taste, but in the Russian group (мягкий) touch was dominant, fol‐ lowed by vision. Olfaction was dominant for ‘stale’ in the Dutch group (muf), but for Russians ‘stale’ (старый) was a visual experience. For Dutch respondents ‘pure’ (puur) was a gustatory experience, while for Russians (строгий) it was visual.
These differences encouraged us to perform further analysis on the items. We looked at the response distribution patterns of all the items to evaluate whether the responses were distributed normally within each language group. In the Dutch sample 13 bi‐modal distributions (7.6 %) were observed by visual inspection: one for olfaction (for colourful), 4 for audition (hard, pure, modern, and cute), 4 for touch (luxurious, pure, modern, and quick), and 4 for taste (sharp, luxurious, clean, and conspicuous). In the Russian sample there were 31 bi‐modal distributions (18.2 %): 3 for vision (sharp, sweet, and sour); 8 for audition (exciting, luxurious, rough, complex, pure, modern, cute, and clear), 9 for touch (exciting, sharp, quiet, com‐ plex, pure, funny, modern, beautiful, and conspicuous), 5 for olfaction (bitter, luxu‐ rious, modern, cute, and beautiful), and 6 for taste (warm, hard, luxurious, rough, complex, and clean). The bi‐modal distributions suggest that there are sub‐groups of participants within each sample that differ in their opinion on modality impor‐ tance for a particular descriptor.
97 CHAPTER 4
TABLE 4.2. MEAN RELEVANCE RATINGS OF MODALITIES FOR 34 DESCRIPTORS OF PRODUCT EXPERIENCES
Language Modality
English Dutch/Russian Vision Audition Touch Olfaction Taste
Visual descriptors
**Colourful fleurig 4.7 1.7 1.9 3.7 2.1
красочный 4.9 1.4 1.6 1.4 1.4
**Clean schoon 4.6 1.4 3.7 4.3 2.7
чистый 4.8 2.0 3.9 3.5 2.6
**Shiny glanzend 4.9 1.5 3.6 1.1 1.1
яркий 5.0 1.6 1.7 1.6 1.8
Clear helder 4.7 3.0 2.1 2.1 2.3
ясный 4.5 2.8 2.2 2.1 1.8
*Conspicuous opvallend 4.7 3.6 3.5 3.4 3.2
заметный 4.7 3.7 2.8 3.0 2.6
Beautiful mooi 4.9 3.2 3.4 2.5 2.1
красивый 4.8 2.9 2.9 2.3 2.0
**Breakable breekbaar 4.4 2.9 4.3 1.1 1.2
хрупкий 4.2 2.1 4.4 1.3 1.5
*Quick snel 4.7 3.9 2.4 1.5 1.3
быстрый 4.8 3.3 2.4 1.6 1.4
Tactile descriptors
**Warm warm 3.3 1.9 4.6 2.1 2.6
теплый 2.3 1.3 4.6 2.0 3.5
**Sharp scherp 4.0 2.3 4.4 2.4 3.2
острый 2.9 1.6 3.4 2.5 4.3
**Hard hard 3.8 3.0 4.7 1.3 1.9
твердый 3.3 1.6 4.8 1.3 2.4
**Rough ruw 4.1 2.2 4.8 1.4 1.8
98 SENSORY DOMINANCE IN PRODUCT EXPERIENCE
грубый 4.1 3.1 4.3 1.9 2.5
*Strong sterk 4.2 2.5 4.4 2.3 2.5
прочный 3.9 2.0 4.5 1.3 2.1
*Heavy zwaar 4.1 2.5 4.6 1.4 1.2
тяжелый 4.0 2.6 4.3 1.4 1.8
Flexible flexibel 4.0 2.2 4.6 1.2 1.2
гибкий 4.1 2.0 4.7 1.3 1.8
Moist vochtig 3.9 1.7 4.7 2.5 2.8
влажный 3.8 1.8 4.7 2.9 3.4
Auditory descriptors
*Loud luid 2.7 4.9 1.6 1.2 1.2
громкий 2.1 4.8 1.6 1.4 1.3
**Quiet stil 2.6 4.9 2.1 1.2 1.2
спокойный 4.1 4.3 3.1 2.4 1.8
Noisy lawaaierig 3.1 4.9 1.8 1.3 1.2
шумный 3.1 4.9 1.6 1.3 1.2
Gustatory descriptors
**Bitter bitter 2.2 1.2 1.5 3.2 4.8
горький 1.8 1.3 1.4 2.4 4.9
*Sweet zoet 3.1 1.4 1.8 4.3 4.9
сладкий 3.2 1.4 2.1 3.7 4.9
Sour zuur 2.4 1.1 1.3 3.8 4.9
кислый 2.8 1.2 1.6 3.5 4.9
**Spicy kruidig 2.6 1.1 1.6 4.2 4.7
ароматный 2.2 1.5 1.6 4.6 3.1
**Mild mild 2.6 1.8 2.4 3.5 4.4
мягкий 3.4 2.1 4.8 1.8 2.6
**Pure puur 3.9 2.4 2.6 3.6 4.2
строгий 3.9 2.8 2.4 1.7 1.8
99 CHAPTER 4
Olfactory descriptors
Fresh fris 3.9 1.8 2.7 4.4 4.1
свежий 4.1 1.9 3.3 4.6 4.5
**Stale muf 3.0 1.6 2.2 4.7 3.4
старый 4.5 2.2 3.7 3.0 2.5
Symbolic descriptors
Luxurious luxueus 4.7 2.8 3.7 3.1 2.9
роскошный 4.9 2.9 3.3 3.0 2.9
Complex complex 4.9 2.9 3.4 1.9 2.1
сложный 4.6 3.1 3.2 2.1 2.6
**Modern modern 4.8 2.6 3.2 2.0 1.8
современный 4.5 3.5 2.6 2.5 2.2
*Interesting interessant 4.7 3.5 3.9 3.1 3.0
интересный 4.6 4.0 3.6 3.2 3.2
Affective descriptors
**Exciting opwindend 4.3 2.9 3.8 3.3 3.2
волнующий 3.8 3.1 3.1 3.4 2.6
Funny grappig 4.6 3.9 3.2 2.2 2.1
забавный 4.4 3.6 2.8 2.1 2.0
**Cute schattig 4.7 3.0 3.6 2.1 1.6
изящный 4.8 2.8 3.5 2.3 2.7
** The effect of Modality X Language interaction is significant at 0.01 level. * The effect of Modality X Language interaction is significant at 0.05 level.
4. DISCUSSION
4.1. SENSORY RELEVANCE OF ADJECTIVES IN TWO LANGUAGES
We set out to determine the importance of various sensory modalities for different types of descriptors of product experience. As predicted, the affective descriptors
100 SENSORY DOMINANCE IN PRODUCT EXPERIENCE
(pleasant‐unpleasant, stimulating‐relaxing, and good‐bad) relied equally on all sen‐ sory modalities. The symbolic descriptors (complex, luxurious, modern, interesting) were also multisensory, but relied mainly on the visual modality. The latter result corresponds to findings of visual dominance both in the field of product experience (Schifferstein, 2006) and in eth area of sensory semantics (Viberg, 1984; Sweetser, 1990). As we predicted, for many sensory descriptors the corresponding sensory mo‐ dality was dominant (e.g., audition for noisy, taste for bitter, touch for hard, vision for shiny). Nevertheless, we also found several sensory descriptors for which more than one modality was important. For example, fresh is mostly an olfactory adjective, but it has also high importance ratings for taste, vision, and touch in both the Dutch and the Russian sample. Most tactile adjectives (rough, heavy, moist, warm, flexible) also have high importance ratings for the visual modality. This agrees to Williams’ (1976) suggestion that touch is the main source domain and vision is the main target domain for the metaphorical transfer of meaning in sensory adjectives. Significant language differences were found for various sensory descriptions (such as colorful, rough, quiet, spicy, and stale). The possible explanation for this result is that semantic connotations for sensory adjectives differ considerably between the languages. For instance, scherp in Dutch and острый in Russian are both equiva‐ lents to the English word ‘sharp’, of which the literal meaning is tactile (having a keen edge or point). In English and Dutch it is also possible to characterize a high‐ pitch sound or pungent food as sharp. In Russian another word is used for charac‐ terizing a sharp sound (резкий), so audition has a low importance rating for the experience of sharp (1.6). On the other hand, gustatory associations with sharpness are even stronger for the Russian samplen tha tactile associations (importance rat‐ ing 4.3 for taste vs. 3.4 for touch). This can be due to the fact that for the Russians associations were stronger with food than with tools like knives or scissors.
Vice versa, for Dutch respondents gustatory associations with ‘pure’ (puur) were as strong as the visual associations (importance rating 4.2 for taste vs. 3.9 for vision). Although the visual rating of ‘pure’ (чистый) was identical for the Russian sample (3.9), taste had little importance for pure (1.8). The same was true for ‘mild’. The Dutch word mild showed the highest importance rating for taste (4.4), but the Rus‐ sian equivalent мягкий was mostly tactile (4.8). Apparantly, mild in Dutch is similar to ‘mild’ in English when applied to food: not sharp, strong, or hot in flavour, not pungent, while мягкий in Russian is more synonymous to ‘soft’ and refers mostly to tactile properties.
When participants assess particular sensory modalities as important for judging a specific product attribute, they probably imagine a product that has this attribute.
101 CHAPTER 4
These products may be considered as ‘prototypical’ in a sense that they first come to mind in association with a certain attribute (Rosch, 1978; Mervis and Rosch, 1981). The fact that the assessment of sensory modalities varies between lan‐ guages may suggest that prototypical products may also vary cross‐linguistically. For example, knives and scissors may be prototypical ‘sharp’ products for the Dutch, while spicy foods may be prototypical for the Russians. Therefore, the lan‐ guage differences found in the present study may be related to the categorization processes which were shown to differ between speakers of different languages (Schmitt and Zhang, 1998; Zhang and Schmitt, 1998). Future research can evaluate whether prototypical products for specific attributes differ between languages. The language differences we found in the present study might have an effect on how people experience products. According to the linguistic relativity proposal (Whorf, 1956), speakers of different languages perceive and conceive the world differently. Language may act as a filter through which people view reality in the process of perception, categorization and the interpretation of information (Hunt and Agnoli, 1991). Differences in the linguistic coding have been shown to correlate with differences in the non‐linguistic conceptual coding (Levinson, 2003; Majid et al., 2004; Levinson and Wilkins, 2006), suggesting that linguistic distinctions affect how we think (see also Lucy, 1992; Boroditsky, 2001). Lexical differences can im‐ pact perception (Kay and Kempton, 1984; Davidoff et al., 1999) and cognition (Gordon, 2004). Further research is needed to evaluate whether differences in product experiences exist between people speaking different languages, and whether any such differences can be traced back to differences in sensory adjec‐ tives and sensory metaphors in different languages.
Some authors argue that each culture has its own mental frames (Hong et al., 2000), which are learned and used in conjunction with that culture’s language (Foucault, 1972). As a result, words in two different languages that may seem to be exact translations of each other are likely to have different sets of culture‐specific connotations (Kroll and De Groot, 1997), reflecting the differences in cultural frame content.
Because the interpretations of words vary among cultures and individuals, it is dif‐ ficult to standardize verbal communication with research participants from differ‐ ent cultures. Incompatibility of testing methods creates methodological problems for interpreting cross‐cultural differences. It is difficult to reach item equivalence, to make sure that the instruments used in the research are similar, even with the most accurate translation and back translation (Brislin, 1980).
102 SENSORY DOMINANCE IN PRODUCT EXPERIENCE
In cross‐cultural studies, it is extremely difficult to separate a cultural effect from a language effect, because people from different cultures tend to speak different languages. This is why people who speak two languages (bilinguals) and people who internalized the values, beliefs, and norms of two cultures (bi‐ culturals) have become the focus of research in psycholinguistics, anthropology and consumer studies. Biculturals often report feeling “like a different person” when they speak a different language (LaFromboise, Coleman, and Gerton, 1993). This suggests that biculturals may possess two different culture‐specific mental frames for a single word in two different languages (translation‐ equivalent words) (e.g., Hong et al., 2000). Using bicultural bilingual partici‐ pants can be a useful option in the future studies of cross‐cultural and language differences in product experience.
4.2. COGNITIVE AND SENSORY MODES OF INFORMATION PROCESSING
In this study we found more language differences for sensory descriptors of product experiences than for symbolic descriptors. This result may be related to the differences between cognitive and sensory modes of information proc‐ essing (Hirschman, 1984; Pearson, 1970). These different modes initiate differ‐ ent mental and physical activities. Cognitive modes of information processing refer to logical, rational, sequential thought processes and verbal modes of information processing in contrast to holistic, gestalt, and visual modes of in‐ formation processing (Childers et al., 1985). Cognitive experiences are related to the need for being adaptively oriented to the environment and for achieving a sense of meaning, while sensory and affective experiences are related to the need to achieve a feeling of satisfaction and to attain emotional goals (McGuire, 1976). We can assume that logical thinking and rationality is univer‐ sal across cultures, while sensory experiences and emotional goals will vary not only between social and cultural groups, but also between individuals. The lat‐ ter suggestion was supported by our finding that modality ratings for some sensory experiences demonstrated bi‐normal distribution patterns, even within a relatively uniform group of students of the same age and education level. Additional research is needed into the associations people have with particular descriptions in various situations, in order to specify the exact meaning of these adjectives for different products and different user groups.
103 CHAPTER 4
5. CONCLUSIONS
This research investigated the importance of sensory modalities for various descrip‐ tors of product experience. The results showed that only for the affective descriptors of product experience (pleasant‐unpleasant, good‐bad) all modalities were about equally important. Symbolic descriptors (such as modern, expensive, or feminine) generally convey the social or personal meaning of products. These descriptors tended to be multisensory, but most of them demonstrated visual dominance. Sen‐ sory descriptors (such as colorful, loud, or soft) reflect the perception of sensory in‐ formation. In addition, sensory meaning may transfer to other domains of experi‐ ence. We found that sensory descriptors of product experience showed significant language differences. The latter result can be explained by the fact that metaphorical meanings of sensory descriptors differ between the languages. Further research with a more broad variety of languages is needed to investigate the differences in sensory metaphors. In cognitive linguistics, sensory metaphors (such as KNOWLEDGE IS VISION or UNDERSTANDING IS GRASPING) are viewed as conceptual metaphors which are fundamental to language, thought, and experi‐ ence (Lakoff & Johnson, 1980, 1999; Sweetser, 1990). Whether such metaphors are universal or vary between languages and cultures is a question of significant impor‐ tance for current cognitive linguistic theory. Most cognitive linguists assume that conceptual metaphors are explicit abstract representations of embodied cognitive structures. According to Lakoff & Johnson (1999), conceptual metaphors (such as POSITIVE IS UP, NEGATIVE IS DOWN) could be established as people implicitly learn associations between physical experiences and emotional states that typically co‐ occur. Kovecses (2005) distinguishes between universal metaphors that are rooted in the universal bodily experience and conventional metaphors that vary across cultural, social, regional, style, developmental and other dimensions. Some scholars suggest that conceptual metaphors are not merely representative of universal body experience, but are tied to specific socio‐cultural cognition (Kimmel, 2006; Zlatev, 2006). Metaphors could be learned from patterns in language and culture (Ibar‐ retxe‐Antuñano, 2008); they are not necessarily “embodied” (Boroditsky, 2000; Gentner et al., 2001). Even if direct bodily experience is necessary on the timescale of biological or cultural/linguistic evolution, it may not be necessary on the time‐ scale of the conceptual development of an individual (Tomasello, 2003; Vygotsky, 1986). Further research into the cultural differences in sensory metaphors might help to resolve this theoretical argument.
104 SENSORY DOMINANCE IN PRODUCT EXPERIENCE
As concerns practical implications, it should be noted that sensory adjectives are frequently used in advertising to describe sensory and symbolic properties of prod‐ ucts (Ruiz, 2006). Since most sensory adjectives have additional metaphorical meanings which can differ between the languages, it is important for advertisers who want to use the same slogans and product descriptions in countries with dif‐ ferent languages, to be aware of the polysemy of sensory adjectives and cross‐ cultural differences in their metaphorical meanings.
105 CHAPTER 4
Chapter 5 is published as:
Fenko, A., Schifferstein, H.N.J., Hekkert, P. (2010) Looking hot or feeling hot: What determines the product experience of warmth? Materials & Design, 31, 1325– 1331.
106
CHAPTER 5 LOOKING HOT OR FEELING HOT: WHAT DETERMINES THE PRODUCT EXPERIENCE OF WARMTH?
1. INTRODUCTION
Our perceptual experience of the world is richly multimodal. People are able to extract information derived from one sensory modality and use it in another. Peo‐ ple can, for example, know a shape by touch and identify it correctly by sight (Cal‐ vert et al., 2004). Furthermore, people are able to integrate the impressions gener‐ ated by different sensory modalities into a unified, rich percept (Stein & Meredith, 1993). When users interact with products, more than one sensory system is usually involved in this interaction. People can see the product, touch it, hear the sound it makes and smell it. All the senses are involved simultaneously, but their contribu‐ tion to the overall experience is not necessarily equivalent. It is interesting to know which sensory modality plays a leading role in a particular experience, so that de‐ signers may concentrate on the creation of the most relevant product properties.
107 CHAPTER 5
1.1. EXPERIENCING WARMTH
The aim of our research is to investigate sensory dominance in the product experi‐ ence of warmth. In a literal sense, terms such as “warm” and “cold” describe ther‐ mal properties of products and thus refer to tactual perception. However, warmth is a multisensory product experience that may also include visual, olfactory and, in some cases, also gustatory and auditory components. The factors that contribute to the subjective experience of warmth will be discussed below. Objects made of different materials feel thermally different. For instance, wood generally feels warmer than metal, even though both materials are at room tem‐ perature. This effect is caused by differences in the thermal properties of these materials. An object feels cold if it extracts warmth from the skin. To produce this sensation, the object does not only need to have a temperature below body tem‐ perature, it also has to extract warmth at a fast rate: the material needs to have low temperature resistance. Examples of such materials are glass and metal (Ashby & Johnson, 2002). Materials with high temperature resistance, such as wood or plastics, generally feel ‘warm’ even if their temperature is below body tempera‐ ture. When the material is hotter than the observer’s hand,e th subjective coldness is reversed. For example, a copper sample that felt colder than a wood sample at room temperature, will feel warmer than the same wood sample when both are felt at a high temperature.
The perceived warmth depends on the thermal conductivity and heat capacity of the material dan on the object’s geometry. High thermal conductivity allows heat extracted from the finger to spread quickly to other parts of the object, thus ena‐ bling the object to extract heat from the finger faster. A high heat capacity means that the object does not warm up very much from outside heat, which enables it to continue extracting heat from the finger. The geometry of the object also plays an important role: a thick bar can conduct heat away from the finger more easily than a thin foil (Bergmann Tiest & Kappers, 2008).
But the product experience of warmth goes beyond the perception of thermal properties and is, therefore, not necessarily restricted to material properties. For instance, certain colors are experienced as warm and others as cool (Arnheim, 1959; Itten, 1961; Ross, 1938). Although there are some inconsistencies and ambi‐ guities, most psychological research has supported the conclusion that red and yellow are perceived as warmer than green and blue. For example, Lewinski (1938) and Ross (1938) found that projected red colors were rated warmer than blue ones, and Tinker (1938) and Newhall (1941) found that surface reds were consis‐
108 SENSORY DOMINANCE IN PRODUCT EXPERIENCE
tently described as warmer than surface blues. Wright (1962) and Wright and Rainwater (1962) demonstrated that there is a well‐defined effect of hue on judg‐ ments of the apparent warmth of colored squares, independent of brightness and saturation. They also demonstrated that darker and more saturated colors tended to be viewed as warmer.
It is still not clear if these associations are innate or if they are acquired through experience. Morgan et al. (1975) explored age differences in the associations of temperatures with specific colors. Their results demonstrated the relatively late development (between the ages of 6 and 12) and the fragile nature of the conven‐ tional associations between temperature and color. The authors argue that these associations are based on cultural norms, which are learned only gradually during later childhood and adolescence and are far from universal, even in college‐age subjects. But more research is needed to test this hypothesis.
Another interesting question is whether temperature associations with color exist only for abstract color samples (paper chips) or can also be found in real products. In a color‐meaning study that used 5 objects painted in 6 different colors (Osgood et al., 1957), consistent color effects were found for warmth, e.g. all objects ap‐ pearing in red were consistently rated as warmer than those in other colors. Taft (1997) compared semantic ratings of color chips with those of the same colors ap‐ plied to a variety of familiar objects. He reported that colors were rated nearly the same on the warm‐cold scale despite context differences, although the color chips were rated as slightly warmer than the objects of the same color.
There is also evidence that color can induce thermal sensations. Michael and Rol‐ hion (2008) asked subjects to sniff a bottle containing distilled water mixed with odorless yellow, green or red coloring and one colorless solution. Participants re‐ ported feeling a cool sensation in their nasal cavity when they sniffed the green solution and a warm sensation when they sniffed the red solution.
According to people’s self‐reports, they find touch more important than vision for judging warmth. In a questionnaire study (Fenko, 2008) respondents assessed the relative importance of five sensory modalities for 34 product experiences. The do‐ minant modality for the warm experience was touch (mean rating 4.6 out of 5), followed by vision (3.3) and taste (2.6).
In reporting their sensory experience people can use the terms “warm” and “cold” either in a literal or in a figurative sense. Only the tactile component of warmth refers to its literal meaning. The experience of warm colors may be induced by as‐ sociations with hot and cool elements (such as fire and water). Warmth in a figura‐
109 CHAPTER 5
tive sense may also be associated with affection and tenderness, comfort and cozi‐ ness, sexuality, anger, and so on. Sensory terms that describe physical properties of things also describe psychological qualities in different languages (Asch, 1955). For example, the morpheme for ‘hot’ stands for rage or wrath (Hebrew), enthusiasm (Chinese, Malayalam), sexual arousal (Thai), worry (Thai), energy (Hausa, a member of the Sudanese family), or nervousness (Shilha, a Berber language). In spite of the differences between languages, all psychological meanings of “hot” refer to height‐ ened activity, increased energy and emotional arousal. In contrast, the morpheme for ‘cold’ stands for self‐possession (Hebrew), indifference or hostility (Chinese), loneliness (Thai), laziness or apathy (Hausa) (Asch, 1955, p.33). Asch (1958) believed that when we describe psychological events in the same way as the physical aspects of things, we are referring to functional properties they share. Contemporary cognitive linguists also believe that people conceptualize their psychological experiences by analogy to the physical world (Johnson, 1987). According to the theory of embodied cognition (Lakoff & Johnson, 1999), mental metaphors, such as positive is up, negative is down, could be established as people implicitly learn associations between physical experiences and emotional states that typically co‐occur (people spontaneously assume upright body postures when they are feeling good). Embodiment theorists point out that objects and events that produce the same quality of affective response are categorized together in memory (Niedenthal et al., 1999). Therefore, the feelings of warmth when one drinks a hot coffee or takes a warm bath might activate memories of other feelings associated with warmth (trust and comfort).
1.2. SENSORY DOMINANCE
Previous studies have shown that people tend to consider vision as more important for product experience than other sensory modalities. For example, Schifferstein and Cleiren (2005) demonstrated that consumers acquired most of the information on products by vision and touch: this information was most detailed and the sub‐ jects were surest of their judgments. The experiment also showed that products were harder to identify by sound or smell than by vision or touch. A questionnaire study in which participants reported the importance of the sensory modalities dur‐ ing the usage of 45 different products (Schifferstein, 2006) demonstrated that on average the relative importance sequence of sensory modalities is vision, followed by touch, smell, audition and taste. In addition, when people were asked to rate
110 SENSORY DOMINANCE IN PRODUCT EXPERIENCE
how important they found the different modalities in their lives in general, most of them selected vision as the most important modality. However, the importance ratings for the sensory modalities differed greatly be‐ tween products. For about half of the 45 products, the importance of vision was lower than for other modalities. For example, audition is the most important mo‐ dality for a washing machine and a coffee maker, which can be explained by the role of the sound in signalling the different stages of the process of washing or making coffee. Touch is most important for a computer mouse and a pen, and probably for any other hand tools as well. Smell plays a dominant role for a de‐ odorant and (together with taste) for food products. Furthermore, it has been demonstrated that the dominant modality depends on the period of product us‐ age. At the moment of buying, vision is the most important modality, but at later stages other modalities become more important (Fenko et al., 2010).
Several hypotheses have been proposed to explain why specific sensory modalities dominate in different situations. The modality appropriateness hypothesis (Welch & Warren, 1986) claims that dominance of a particular modality depends on its appropriateness for a particular task. For example, vision is more appropriate for spatial perception, audition is more appropriate for the detection of temporal events (Welch, 1999), while touch is best suited for tasks that relate to the material properties of objects (Lederman et al., 1986).
Another explanation for modality dominance points to mechanisms of selective attention. This hypothesis suggests that the modality that receives the observers’ directed attention becomes dominant (Posner et al., 1976). Researchers have shown that people can consciously direct their selective attention to a particular sense (Spence et al., 2001). Attending to one sensory modality can facilitate the perception of stimuli in that modality relative to when attention is diverted to an‐ other sensory modality. Spence, Nicholls and Driver (2001) found that the costs associated with shifting attention toward touch from either vision or audition were larger than the costs associated with shifting attention in the opposite direction. These results suggest that touch is, in a sense, ‘sticky’: once our attention has been directed to what we are feeling, we find it harder to shift our attention toward what we are seeing or hearing instead. Spence et al. (2001) argued that this may occur because it takes people longer to shift attention between internal (touch) and external (vision, audition) perspectives.
111 CHAPTER 5
1.3. PRESENT STUDY
People’s perception of the attributes of a product in a given sensory modality is frequently affected by the sensations that are simultaneously being perceived by another modality. Consumers are typically completely unaware of the occurrence (or nature) of these crossmodal effects (Schifferstein & Spence, 2008). Thus, intro‐ spective consumer reports often fail to provide accurate insight into the relative importance of sensory modalities. Therefore, experimental research on individual cases of multisensory perception is necessary in order to determine the sensory dominance in product usage situations. In the present study we used an experimental approach to determine the degree of sensory dominance in product experience. We manipulated product’s sensory properties of two modalities (vision and touch) to determine what was more im‐ portant for the experience of a product as warm: its tactual properties (such as material, fabric and texture) or its visual properties (such as color). In the pre‐study we created a basis for multisensory comparison by asking respondents to assess the warmth of various sensory stimuli on a 10‐point scale. We assumed that a spe‐ cific ‘warmth’ rating of a visual stimulus is equivalent to the same tactual ‘warmth’ rating of a material measured with the same scale.
In the main study we created products using warm and cold stimuli of both modali‐ ties in four different combinations: 1) cold color + cold material, 2) cold color + warm material, 3) warm color + cold material and 4) warm color + warm material. Participants assessed the overall ‘warmth’ and ‘pleasantness’ of these products on a 10‐point scale. We expected the products with the combination of warm material and warm color to have the highest warmth ratings, and the products with the combination of cold material and cold color to have the lowest warmth ratings. We expected the inconsistent combinations to have ratings in between these two ex‐ tremes. The dominance of touch or vision was determined by investigating the dif‐ ferences between these ratings.
In the main study were did not specify which meaning of warmth we wanted par‐ ticipants to evaluate: the literal one or the figurative one. The participants were free to make their own decision about the importance of each aspect of warmth for the experimental products. To determine to what extent literal and figurative meaning contributes to the overall experience of warmth we performed the follow‐ up interview study. We asked participants about the products, activities and envi‐ ronments they associated with the experience of warmth.
112 SENSORY DOMINANCE IN PRODUCT EXPERIENCE
2. PRE‐STUDY
2.1. PARTICIPANTS
The participants were recruited from students and staff of TU Delft. Twenty one participants took part in the experiment, 30% of them were women. Ages ranged from 18 to 32, the mean age was 24.
2.2. MATERIALS
Two different products were chosen for which ‘warmth’ is an important charac‐ teristic: a scarf and a breakfast tray. The function of a scarf is to keep the body warm, and thus it refers to the literal meaning of warmth. The breakfast tray, as a part of the home interior and as a breakfast accessory, refers more to the figurative meaning of warmth. It contributes to the cosy and intimate atmos‐ phere of a private home environment. Both products can be easily manipulated experimentally.
For each product two sets of stimuli were prepared. Ten different materials were collected for a scarf: silk, viscose, nylon, denim, yarn, rumpled cotton, thin cotton, wool, thick wool, and fleece. Also, ten different materials were collected for the breakfast tray: aluminum, marble, tile, wood, pressed wood, ripple wood, plastic, polystyrene, and rubber. The material samples were about the same size, 300*300 mm, big enough to touch with a whole hand. We used the same 10 visual stimuli for both products: purple, red, magenta, orange, yellow, light green, dark green, green blue, cyan, and dark blue. Each color was presented to the participants as a 90*90 mm paper card.
2.3. PROCEDURE
The experiment took place at the Faculty of Industrial Design of TU Delft under natural lighting conditions. Tactile stimuli were presented to the respondents one by one in a closed box, so that they could explore them by touch without seeing them. Visual stimuli were presented one by one on a ylight gre table. Half of the respondents assessed visual stimuli for both products first, and the other half as‐ sessed tactile stimuli for both products first. The sequence of the stimuli varied for each respondent. Participants were asked the question: “How warm do you find 113 CHAPTER 5
this material (color) for a scarf (a tray)”? They indicated their answers on a scale from 1 (‘very cold’) to 10 (‘very warm’). Spontaneous comments made by partici‐ pants during the experiment were recorded.
2.3. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS
For each product, repeated measures ANOVAs on warmth ratings were per‐ formed with material or color as within‐subjects factor. Post‐hoc analyses with Bonferroni adjustment were performed to test the significance of the differences between means.
2.4. RESULTS
The analysis showed significant main effects of both material (F (9, 171) = 16.8, p<0.001) and color (F (9, 171) = 12.8, p<0.001) on the warmth ratings for the scarves and significant main effects of material (F (9, 171) = 18.9, p<0.001) and col‐ or (F (9, 171) =6.9, p<0.001) for the trays.
Fleece and wool were found to be the warmest and viscose and silk the coldest fabrics for a scarf (see Table 5.1). The thick woolen scarf with a lot of holes in it had a second warmth rating, while the three coldest fabrics had a dense structure. All samples of wood and plastic, both rough and smooth, were found warmer than the plates of metal for a tray. At the same time, the smooth plate of steel was found colder than the rough plate of aluminum.
The perception of warm colors in scarves was dominated by two factors: hue dan brightness. The warmest colors for a scarf were both reddish and dark. The colors that were perceived as warm for a breakfast table tended to be reddish and yellow. Blue colors were experienced as the least warm for a breakfast table and green colors as medium warm.
114 SENSORY DOMINANCE IN PRODUCT EXPERIENCE
TABLE 5.1. MEAN WARMTH RATINGS (+SE) OF MATERIALS AND COLORS FOR TWO PRODUCTS
Material Mean (+SE) Color Mean (+SE)
Scarf
Silk 1.80 (.35) Cyan* 2.65 (.47)
Viscose* 2.00 (.51) Yellow 2.75 (.50)
Nylon 3.30 (.50) Light green 4.10 (.55)
Denim 4.20 (.55) Dark blue 4.50 (.53)
Yarn 4.50 (.34) Green blue 5.90 (.40)
Rumpled cotton 4.70 (.30) Dark green 6.35 (.48)
Thin cotton 5.55 (.29) Magenta 6.40 (.58)
Wool* 6.75 (.44) Orange 6.65 (.48)
Thick wool 6.80 (.46) Red* 7.30 (.57)
Fleece 7.90 (.46) Purple 8.40 (.53)
Tray
Steel 1.90 (.34) Dark blue 3.40 (.67)
Aluminium* 3.80 (.56) Cyan* 3.90 (.60)
Marble 4.60 (.47) Green blue 4.45 (.48)
Tile 4.70 (.41) Dark green 4.60 (.60)
Wood 4.85 (.49) Light green 4.80 (.58)
Plastic 5.05 (.67) Magenta 5.50 (.64)
Pressed wood 5.50 (.43) Yellow 6.25 (.46)
Ripple wood* 7.55 (.50) Purple 6.65 (.53)
Polystyrene 7.90 (.34) Red* 7.50 (.55)
Rubber 9.15 (.33) Orange 7.95 (.53)
* Stimuli chosen for the main experiment.
115 CHAPTER 5
Participants’ comments given in the pre‐study suggested that the product ex‐ perience of warmth for a scarf had strong affective components related to the perceived pleasantness and comfort. For example, denim was often assessed as the least warm because of its stiffness, and fleece was judged as warmer than wool because it was very soft and did not irritate the skin. The comments sug‐ gested that the comfort of wearing a scarf affected participants’ judgments of perceived warmth. Respondents noted that they did not like rubber as a sur‐ face for a breakfast tray, because it felt sticky and unpleasant to touch. They also commented that they did not like a polystyrene surface for a tray because it felt dusty and unclean. But in case of the tray, pleasantness did not affect the warmth ratings of materials.
3. THE MAIN STUDY
3.1. PARTICIPANTS
The participants of the main study were 14 male and 8 female students of TU Delft. Ages ranged from 19 to 27, mean age was 22.
3.2. MATERIALS
Based on the assessments of stimuli made in the pre‐study, we created 4 vari‐ ants of scarves and 4 variants of trays, combining two warm and two cold stim‐ uli of the visual and tactile modalities, according to a full factorial (2x2) design. We have chosen cyan and red as dcold an warm colors, respectively, for both products. The materials were chosen to match the warmth ratings of colors for the product in question as closely as possible: viscose and wool for a scarf, alu‐ minum and wood for a tray. The mean ratings of the stimuli for the main study are shown in Table 1. All differences between cold and warm stimuli were sig‐ nificant at the 0.01 level.
For scarves we used two white 100% viscose scarves (H&M department store) measuring 0.7*1.7 m and two white 80% woolen scarves (V&D department store) measuring 0.3*1.9 m. We dyed them in dre and blue colors using ‘scar‐ let’ and ‘kingfisher’ colors of the Dylon brand. Because of the differences in the
116 SENSORY DOMINANCE IN PRODUCT EXPERIENCE
fabric’s structure and material the resulting colors were slightly different for viscose and wool: the color of the red viscose scarf was similar to Munsell code 5R 5/12, the red woolen scarf 5R 4/12; the blue viscose scarf 5B 7/6, and the blue woolen scarf 7.5B 5/10.
The trays were constructed using textured wood and aluminum sheets. They were identical in size (500*310*10 mm) and painted in ‘red’ and ‘fresh blue’ colors of the Gamma aerosol paint. The resulting colors were identical for wooden and alumi‐ num trays: red trays had Munsell code 7.5 R4/12, blue trays 7.5B 4/8. The resulting products are shown in Figure 1.
A B
FIGURE 5.1. EXPERIMENTAL PRODUCTS: A) TRAYS; B) SCARVES
3.3. PROCEDURE
The experiment took place at the Faculty of Industrial Design of TU Delft, in a room with natural lighting. Participants were given products one by one in a random or‐ der (scarves and trays separately) and were asked to explore them. For each prod‐ uct participants filled in a separate questionnaire assessing how warm and pleasant they found the product on a 10‐point scale (from “not at all” to “very”). Additional questions were asked about the comfort of wearing scarves and about the weight of trays to conceal the real aim of the experiment. Participants were instructed to take their time to observe the products before filling in the questionnaire. All par‐ ticipants wanted to put on the scarves and did not only hold them in their hands. It
117 CHAPTER 5
took about ten to fifteen minutes for each participant to do the test. Participants’ spontaneous comments during the experiment were recorded.
3.4. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS
Repeated measures ANOVA was performed on warmth and pleasantness ratings with Color and Material as within‐subjects factors, for scarves and trays separately.
3. 5. RESULTS
Repeated measures ANOVA showed significant main effects of both Color (F (1, 20) = 22.6, p<0.001) and Material (F (1, 20) = 16.3, p<0.001) on the warmth ratings for a scarf. The Color*Material interaction was not significant (F (1, 20) = 0.93, p>0.20). The results for a tray also showed significant main effects of Color (F (1, 20) = 27.6, p<0.001) and Material (F (1, 20) = 19.2, p<0.001), but no significant effect of the Color*Material interaction (F = (1, 20) = 0.93, p>0.20) on the warmth ratings. As predicted, woolen scarves were evaluated as warmer than viscose scarves, wooden trays were warmer than aluminum trays, and red products were warmer than blue products (Figure 2). The mean differences between the two inconsistent products (red viscose/aluminum and blue wool/wood) were not significant for both scarves and trays (p>0.20 in a separate T‐test). This result suggests that touch and vision are equally important for the experience of warmth in these two products. We also analyzed the pleasantness ratings of both products to see if the interaction pattern of pleasantness matched the pattern of warmth (Figure 3). The main effect of Material on the pleasantness ratings for a scarf was significant (F (1, 20) = 67.4, p<0.001), but the effect of Color (F (1, 20) = 1.42, p>0.20) and the Color*Material Interaction were not significant (F (1, 20) = 0.006, p>0.20). This suggests that the pleasantness of scarves was mainly affected by the material: woolen scarves of both colors were significantly less pleasant than viscose scarves. There were no significant effects of either Color (F (1, 20) = 3.8, p>0.05), Material (F (1, 20) = 0.09, p>0.2) or Color*Material interaction ((F (1, 20) = 0.9, p>0.05) on the pleasantness ratings for a tray.
118 SENSORY DOMINANCE IN PRODUCT EXPERIENCE
Scarf
10 9 8 7 6 blue 5 red Warmth 4 3 2 1 viscose wool
Tray
10 9 8 7 6 blue 5 red Warmth 4 3 2 1 aluminium wood
FIGURE 2. WARMTH RATINGS FOR SCARVES AND TRAYS
119 CHAPTER 5
Scarf
10 9 8 7 6 blue 5 red 4 Pleasantness 3 2 1 viscose wool
Tray
10 9 8 7 6 blue 5 red 4 Pleasantness 3 2 1 aluminium wood
FIGURE 3. PLEASANTNESS RATINGS FOR SCARVES AND TRAYS
120 SENSORY DOMINANCE IN PRODUCT EXPERIENCE
4. INTERVIEW STUDY
The experimental procedure we used in the main study revealed the composite assessment of warmth. But in their evaluation of product warmth participants re‐ lied both on the literal and on the figurative meaning of warmth. To determine to what extent literal and metaphorical meanings contributed to the product experi‐ ence of warmth, we did an additional qualitative study. We interviewed partici‐ pants about the products, activities and environments they associated with the experience of warmth.
4.1. PARTICIPANTS
The participants were 20 native Dutch speakers. Ages ranged from 19 to 62, mean age was 37.
4.2. PROCEDURE
The interviews were performed at participants’ homes, as one‐to‐one conversa‐ tions. The interviewer explained that designers were interested in studying the experience of warmth in products and asked participants to name three products for which warm was important.
Then the interviewers asked what sensory properties (color, shape, material, smell, sound, etc.) of the products mentioned were relevant for the experience of warmth. Next, the interviewer asked about the environments and activities that participants associated with the experience of warmth, and what feelings they had in such environments and during such activities. Each interview took approximately 20 minutes.
4.3. ANALYSIS
Free categorization was used to categorize the data. The process of categorization followed the procedure of inductive category development, which aims to reduce the contextual diversity of the material [32]. Products, situations, activities, and emotional associations mentioned by participants were categorized in groups on the basis of their similarity. Rare answers that did not fit in any category (such as ‘a stone’ for a product) were excluded from further analysis.
121 CHAPTER 5
4.4. RESULTS
Two product groups were mentioned most frequently as categories for which per‐ ceived warmth is an important product characteristic: 1) clothes and textile (23%) and 2) home interior products (21%). Other product groups that were also men‐ tioned frequently were 3) food (16%), 4) heat radiating products (16%), and 5) holi‐ day related items (9%). These results demonstrate that our choice of experimental products was adequate: a scarf and a breakfast tray are members of the two most frequently mentioned product groups.
As regards the environments associated with warm experiences, home was men‐ tioned most frequently as a warm place (36% eof th answers). Holidays on a beach were also mentioned frequently as a warm environment (23%). Activities which were most frequently associated with a warm experience included: 1) spending time with friends and family (having a family dinner, drinking coffee with friends, celebrating a birthday, walking a dog; 35% of the answers), and 2) physical relaxation (sleeping, taking a warm bath, having a massage, enjoying a work break; 30 %).
The emotional experiences most often associated with “warm” can be divided in three groups (Figure 4). The first group had to do with physical comfort and in‐ cluded associations with “comfortable” (13%), “relaxed” (7%), “cosy” (7%), and “familiar” (3%). The second group was associated with intimacy and included “loving” (10%), “being together” (11%), “atmosphere” (10%), and “memories” (4%). The third group was associated with energy and included “active” (10%), “energized” (8%), “excited” (8%), “creative” (3%), “proud” (3%), and “healthy” (3%).
Only 30% of all respondents associated warmth with physical warmth and com‐ fort. The rest associated warmth either with activity (35% of respondents) or with intimacy, i.e. loving atmosphere and being together (35%). These results may help to understand why we found color to be equally important as the product’s material for the experience of warmth in the main study: warm materials refer to the literal meaning of warmth (physical comfort), while warm colors are associ‐ ated with the metaphorical meaning of warmth (activity, energy and excitement). Apparently, both literal and figurative meanings of warmth contribute to its ex‐ perience.
122 SENSORY DOMINANCE IN PRODUCT EXPERIENCE
5. DISCUSSION
5.1. PRE‐STUDY
The type of product was an important factor that influenced the experience of warmth. There were inconsistencies in the warm color ratings for the two products. According to color theory (Arnheim, 1959; Itten, 1961; Ross, 1938), dark green is not a warm color. Nevertheless, for a scarf it was considered as equally warm as magenta, probably because of its darkness. On the other hand, yellow is generally considered a warm color, but respondents found it too bright for a warm scarf. Cyan was the least warm color for a scarf, probably because it is both cold and light. The colors that were perceived as warm for a breakfast table tended to be reddish and yellow. In contrast to the results for a scarf, they were more bright and “sunny”. The inconsistencies between color ratings suggest that the warmth of a color depends on the product context. Similar product dependencies were re‐ ported rfo color pleasantness judgments by Holmes and Buchanan (1984), who showed that although people’s favorite color was blue, this was not the case for a sofa, walls, a carpet, or a chair.
5.2. MAIN STUDY
The results of the main study demonstrate that color (vision) and material (touch) make an equal contribution to the experience of warmth in scarves and breakfast trays. These results deviate from people’s self‐reports, in which touch was judged to be the dominant sensory modality for warmth (Fenko, 2008). This may tsugges that people tend to overestimate the impact of the literal meaning of warmth (touch) and underestimate the impact of its figurative meaning (vision) on their product experience. Alternatively, the discrepancy between the results of ques‐ tionnaire and experimental studies may be explained by the fact that in the ques‐ tionnaire study no specific products were mentioned. Participants were asked to think of any relevant product, and possibly they thought of products for which tac‐ tile characteristics were more important than for a scarf and a tray.
We did not find correspondences between warm and pleasant ratings for the final products, although for the materials of scarves such connection was revealed in participants’ comments during the pre‐study. However, in the main study the pleasantness of the scarves depended mainly on the material properties (viscose
123 CHAPTER 5
scarves were significantly more pleasant than woolen scarves), and not on the color. These results indicate that the pleasantness of complex products cannot be predicted from the pleasantness of their separate sensory properties. Instead, it may depend on other variables. For instance, spontaneous comments suggest that participants in the present study assessed dark scarves as warmer, because they considered dark colors more suitable for a winter outfit than light colors. Surpris‐ ingly, wool had a lower warmth rating than fleece; in this case respondents com‐ mented that they did not like wool because it irritated their skin.
5.3. INTERVIEW STUDY
The semantic analysis of the associations with warmth demonstrated that the figu‐ rative meaning of warmth (social activity, love and intimacy) was mentioned twice more often than its literal meaning (physical warmth and comfort). The importance of the social aspect of warmth is not surprising. In social psychol‐ ogy, the warm‐cold dimension is considered the basic criterion for social percep‐ tion. The first research on this topic was published in 1946 by Solomon Asch. In his famous study undergraduates formed impressions of another person based on lists of trait adjectives (e.g. determined, practical, industrious, intelligent, skilful), which also included either ‘warm’ or ‘cold’ depending on the experimental condition. Warm and cold were ‘central traits’ that dramatically altered impressions of people (in a positive way for warm, and in a negative for cold). In the past few years, research has clearly established that perceived warmth is one of the two universal dimensions of human social cognition (the second is competence). The basic dimensions of warmth and competence account for 82% of the variance in perceptions of everyday social behaviors (Wojciszke et al., 1998). The warmth dimen‐ sion captures traits that are related to perceived intent, including friendliness, helpful‐ ness, sincerity, trustworthiness and morality (Fiske et al., 2006). Warmth is judged be‐ fore competence, and warmth judgments carry more weight in affective and behavioral reactions. When judging faces after an exposure time of 100 ms, social perceivers judge trustworthiness most reliably, followed by competence (Willis & Todorov, 2006). The importance of these fast visual impressions of social warmth may explain why vision is also important for the judgment of warmth in products. Recently, Williams and Bargh (2008) showed that people who had just briefly held a hot cup of coffee, perceived a target person as being significantly warmer than those who had briefly held pa cu of iced coffee. In addition, participants primed 124 SENSORY DOMINANCE IN PRODUCT EXPERIENCE
with physical coldness were more likely to choose a gift for themselves rather than a gift for a friend as a reward for participating in the study, whereas those primed with physical warmth were more likely to choose a gift for a friend. The authors argue that because of frequent early life experiences with the loving family mem‐ bers (Harlow, 1958; Bowlby, 1969) a close mental association may develop be‐ tween the concepts of physical warmth and psychological warmth. The results of Williams and Bargh’s (2008) experiment can be useful for product designers. Designers often try to create a warm atmosphere in home interiors or spaces used for relaxation and informal meetings (bars, hotel lobbies, cafeteria, etc.). Williams and Bargh (2008) demonstrate that such warm environments can facilitate pro‐social behavior. Our data are helpful in creating warm surroundings because they suggest that material and color play an equally important role in cre‐ ating such warm experience.
CONCLUSION
Our research aimed to determine to what extent the product experience of warmth depended on tactile and visual stimuli. The results demonstrated that both color and material contribute equally to the judgments of warmth in two products, scarves and breakfast tables. However, the pleasantness of a product could not be predictede on th basis of the pleasantness attributed to its color and material. In a qualitative study we asked about the meaning people attribute to warmth in their product experience. The results revealed that the experience of warmth is a com‐ bination of literal and figurative meaning. The literal meaning is related to physical warmth and comfort, while the figurative meaning is associated with social activity, intimacy and friendly atmosphere. The figurative meaning was mentioned more often in association with products than the literal meaning.
125 CHAPTER 5
Chapter 6 was published as:
Fenko, A., Schifferstein, Huang, T.‐C., & Hekkert, P. (2009) What makes products fresh: The smell or the colour? Food Quality and Preference, 20, 372–379.
126
CHAPTER 6 WHAT MAKES PRODUCTS FRESH: THE SMELL OR THE COLOR?
1. INTRODUCTION
When people interact with products, more than one sensory system is usually in‐ volved in this interaction. People can see the product, touch it, hear the sound it makes and often smell it. All the senses are involved simultaneously, but their con‐ tribution to the overall product experience is not necessarily equivalent. Since product experience is multisensory, it is interesting to know which sensory modal‐ ity plays a leading role in a particular experience, so that designers can concentrate their efforts on the creation of the most relevant product properties.
1.1. SENSORY DOMINANCE
Most designers believe that vision is the most important modality in product ex‐ perience. For instance, Crilly and colleagues (2004) argue that “judgments of prod‐ ucts are based largely on visual information” (p. 547). In addition, Bloch (1995) 127
CHAPTER 6
claims that “the visual appearance of products is a critical determinant of consumer response and product success” (p.16). The importance of vision has been empha‐ sized for such product properties as elegance (Coates, 2003), functionality (Monö, 1997), and social significance (Dittmar, 1992). Although visual information fre‐ quently dominates our culture and environment (Postrel, 2003; Schroeder, 2002), the full range of human senses influence responses to design (Macdonald, 2000). It is important that a product’s appearance is congruent with other sensory aspects of design (Smets & Overbeeke, 1995), because the visible product form creates an expectation of what will be perceived by the other senses (Monö, 1997). In cognitive psychology the topic of sensory dominance has been addressed ex‐ perimentally. For example, in their classic study Rock and Victor (1964) presented participants with an object of which the visual shape, because of optical distortion, differed considerably from its actual shape perceived by touch. The conflict be‐ tween visual and tactual size was resolved completely in favor of vision, and most participants were unaware of any conflict. Strong visual dominance over touch has been demonstrated in a variety of perceptual tasks, involving the determination of size (Miller, 1972), length (Teghtsoonian & Teghtsoonian, 1970), curvature (Easton & Moran, 1978), depth (Singer & Day, 1969), and spatial location (Hay et al., 1965). Studies also demonstrated visual dominance over auditory signals, such as in the well known “ventriloquism effect” (Bertelson, 1999).
Empirical studies on product experience have shown that consumers also tend to consider vision as more important than other sensory modalities. For example, Schifferstein and Cleiren (2005) demonstrated that consumers acquired most of the information on products by vision and touch: this information was most de‐ tailed and the subjects were surest of their judgments. The experiment also showed that products were harder to identify by sound or smell than by vision or touch. Blocking vision increases task difficulty and task duration, up to the point where simple tasks can no longer be completed without help from others (Schiffer‐ stein and Desmet, 2007). A questionnaire study in which participants reported the importance of the sensory modalities for the usage of 45 different products (Schif‐ ferstein, 2006) demonstrated that on average the relative importance sequence of sensory modalities was vision, followed by touch, smell, audition and taste. In addi‐ tion, when people were asked to rate how important they found the different mo‐ dalities for their lives in general, most of them selected vision as the most impor‐ tant modality.
128
SENSORY DOMINANCE IN PRODUCT EXPERIENCE
However, the importance ratings for the sensory modalities differed greatly be‐ tween products. For about half of the 45 products, the importance of vision was lower than for one of the other modalities. For example, audition is the most im‐ portant modality for a vacuum cleaner and a coffee maker, and for many other products with electric motors. Touch is most important for a computer mouse and a pen, and probably for many other hand tools as well. Smell plays a dominant role for a deodorant and (together with taste) for food products (Schifferstein, 2006). Evaluations are likely to reflect the importance of sensory modalities among the existing products in the described category. New product introductions can in‐ crease or decrease the relative importances. For instance, the introduction of cell phones that are carried all day long has probably made haptic properties more im‐ portant for telephones.
Furthermore, it has been demonstrated ttha the dominant modality depends on the period of product usage. At the moment of buying vision is the most important modality, but at later stages the other modalities become more important (Fenko et al., 2008). Modality importance in product usage also depends on the product characteristic a person is judging. When respondents rated the importance of the various sensory modalities for the evaluation of three product aspects (safety, ease of use, and enjoyment), the impact of sensory information was highest for enjoy‐ ment, lower for ease of use, and lowest for safety (Schifferstein, 2006).
We suspect that the importance of various sensory modalities for the judgment of different product experiences (such as freshness, warmth, and pleasantness) can also vary. Therefore, in the present study we will focus on the roles of the senses for a specific experience (freshness) in a number of products.
1.2. EXPERIENCING FRESHNESS
For many personal care products, cleaning products, beverages and food products it is important to evoke freshness. Freshness plays an important role in many eve‐ ryday experiences, such as shaving, brushing teeth, taking a shower, and drinking soda. It is also possible to talk about “the fresh look” of a new fashion collection or “the fresh color” of a product.
Freshness is a multisensory product experience that includes visual, olfactory, tac‐ tile, and, in some cases, also gustatory and auditory components. The Oxford Eng‐ lish Dictionary (1989) gives 16 different meanings of “fresh”, several of which can 129
CHAPTER 6
be applied to products. These meanings can be roughly divided into two groups: 1) new, recent, newly made, recently arrived, retaining its original qualities, not dete‐ riorated or changed by lapse of time; 2) pure, invigorating, refreshing (said espe‐ cially of air and water), not stale, musty, or vapid.
In this paper we will focus on the second definition of freshness. As the study was conducted in the Netherlands, these two meanings can be separated empirically, because in the case of food products different words are used to indicate these two meanings (“vers” for the first meaning and “fris” for the second meaning). For the other two product categories we used (dishwashing liquid and scented candles) only the second meaning is applicable. Therefore, our results on perceived “fresh‐ ness” are equivalent to and can be directly compared to results obtained in other studies on the perception of “refreshing”. Previously, Labbe et al. (2009, p. 100) have used similar arguments to relate the perception of “refreshing” in food prod‐ ucts to Westerink and Kozlov’s (2004) study on “freshness” in oral care. In studies on beverages, one of the characteristics of “refreshing” is the ability to quench thirst (see Labbe et al., submitted). Following the line of reasoning set out by Zell‐ ner and Durlach (2003, p. 635), we consider “thirst‐quenching” as an aspect of “refreshing” relevant to food and beverages.
According to several studies, the most important characteristics of refreshing foods or beverages are temperature‐related tactile attributes (cool, cold). Zellner and Durlach (2002) found that “cold”, “cool” and “icy” were the sensory characteristics that were most commonly expected by participants for refreshing food and bever‐ ages. In the area of oral care, coldness was also mentioned as a tactile characteris‐ tic related to oral freshness (Westerink & Kozlov, 2004).
The second important attribute of refreshing in food and beverage products is fla‐ vor. According to Zellner and Durlach (2002), orange and strawberry flavors were judged as the most refreshing for food and beverages. Labbe et al. (2009) demon‐ strated that mint odorants were scored as the most refreshing. The flavor most commonly listed as not refreshing is chocolate (Zellner & Durlach, 2002). The gusta‐ tory sensation most often associated with a refreshing experience is high acidity (Labbe et al., 2009). According to McEwan and Colwill (1996), a carbonated lemon drink was more thirst‐quenching for consumers than orange juice and some other drinks (orange squash, cola, isotonic, sparkling water, diet cola and strawberry milk), mainly due to its high acidity.
130
SENSORY DOMINANCE IN PRODUCT EXPERIENCE
Color also affects the perceived freshness of beverages. Experimental data suggest that judgements on color freshness depend on the associations with particular products. For example, Clydesdale et al. (1992) found that consumers expect clear and brown non‐alcoholic beverages to satisfy their thirst more than other colors, because of their association with water and colas, respectively. Of the other colors, red and orange beverages were perceived as more thirst‐quenching than green or purple ones. Zellner and Durlach (2002) found that the color most frequently asso‐ ciated with refreshing foods/beverages was clear, followed by red. In contrast to Clydesdale et al. (1992), these authors found that the least likely color for a refresh‐ ing food/beverage was black, followed by brown. Studies also suggest that auditory cues can modulate the perception and evalua‐ tion of food freshness, despite the fact that consumers are often unaware of the influence of such auditory cues. For example, potato chips were perceived as being both crisper and fresher when the sound of biting was amplified, or when the high frequency sounds were selectively amplified (Zampini & Spence, 2004). However, the freshness of potato chips is probably quite different from the freshness of a soft drink. The former is probably closer to the first meaning given by the Oxford Dictionary (newly made, retaining its original qualities, not deteriorated). A similar meaning of freshness has been investigated in several food studies. For example, in the study of freshness of apples (Peneau et al., 2006) the perception of freshness was best described by taste, crispness and juiciness. In the study of fresh bread positive drivers of freshness were appearance (“porous”), odor (“floury”, “malty”, and “toasted”) and flavor (“sweet”, “buttery” and “oily”) (Heenan et al., 2008).
1.3. PRESENT STUDY
In the present study we investigate what is more important for the experience of product freshness: the smell or the color. According to the results of a question‐ naire study in which respondents assessed the relative importance of different sen‐ sory modalities for various product experiences (Fenko, 2008), the dominant mo‐ dality for the experience of freshness was olfaction (mean rating 3.4 out of 4), fol‐ lowed by taste (3.1) and vision (2.9). The difference between the ratings of olfac‐ tion and vision was significant (paired samples two‐tailed T‐test, p<0.05). Because we included non‐food products in our study, we will not discuss taste further.
131
CHAPTER 6
The importance ratings of the modalities reported in Schifferstein (2006) and Fenko (2008) were obtained through self‐report. However, the questionnaire methodol‐ ogy is often criticized for the lack of ecological validity, especially in the area of product experience, because people are often unaware of why they make certain judgments (e.g., Slovic & Lichtenstein, 1971). People’s evaluation of a product may not be based on rational decision making, but rather on emotional and sensory processes they are not aware of. This is especially true for the olfactory properties of the products (Köster, 2003). People seem to have difficulties communicating about smell experiences through words (Engen, 1982), which limits the usefulness of verbal communication in research on olfaction.
Therefore, in the present study we used an experimental approach to determine the degree of sensory dominance in product experience. In the pre‐study we asked respondents to assess the freshness and pleasantness of sensory stimuli (colors and smells) on a 9‐point scale. Several studies have demonstrated that pleasantness was highly correlated with oral freshness (Westerink & Kozlov, 2004), refreshing sensation (Lee & O’Mahony, 2005; Labbe et al., 2009), or thirst‐quenching qualities of drinks (Clydesdale et al., 1992; McEwan & Colwill, 1996). To rcontrol fo the effect of pleasantness on freshness, we tried to select stimuli with equal levels of pleas‐ antness. In the main study we created products using fresh and non‐fresh stimuli of
both modalities in four different combinations: 1) fresh color + fresh smell (CFSF), 2)
fresh color + non‐fresh smell (CFSNF), 3) non‐fresh color + fresh smell (CNFSF) and 4)
non‐fresh color + non‐fresh smell (CNFSNF). We asked respondents to assess the freshness and pleasantness of each product on a 9‐point scale.
We expect the products with the combination of fresh smell and fresh color (CFSF) to have the highest freshness ratings, and the products with the combination of
non‐fresh smell and non‐fresh color (CFSNF) to have the lowest freshness ratings.
We expect the inconsistent combinations (CNFSF and CFSNF) to have ratings in be‐ tween these two extremes. If both olfaction and vision contribute equally to the overall experience of freshness, the ratings of the inconsistent combinations should
be equal. If vision is more important than olfaction, then the ratings of the CFSNF
products will be higher than the ratings of the CNFSF products. If olfaction domi‐
nates the freshness experience, then we expect CNFSF products to score higher than
CFSNF products.
132
SENSORY DOMINANCE IN PRODUCT EXPERIENCE
2. PRE‐STUDY
2.1. PARTICIPANTS
The participants were 40 students and staff members of the Faculty of Industrial Design Engineering, Delft University of Technology. Their ages ranged from 18 to 52 years; mean age was 26.0 years.
2.2. MATERIALS AND METHODS
Two products were selected for which ‘freshness’ is likely to be an important char‐ acteristic: a soft drink and a dishwashing liquid. The importance of freshness for a soft drink is associated with its refreshing and thirst‐quenching qualities, while the concept of freshness for a dishwashing liquid refers to itsg cleanin power. We used a scented candle as the control product for which freshness is an optional, but not a necessary characteristic. A scented candle is mainly used to create an interior atmosphere, which is not necessarily fresh, but can also be relaxing, warm, or cozy.
Because sensory stimuli are experienced differently when presented separately or in real product form (Holmes & Buchanan, 1984; Clydesdale, 1993), we created realisti‐ cally looking product samples. For each product 10 olfactory and 11 visual stimuli were prepared (odors and colors). As olfactory stimuli for soft drinks and dishwashing liquids, we used water‐based perfume and beverage odors produced by Givaudan Nederland B.V. (patchouli, almond, rose, cinnamon, pineapple, apple, cherry, grape‐ fruit, bergamot lemon, and peppermint). As olfactory stimuli for candles, we used oil‐ based odorants provided by Senta Multisensory Concepting (vanilla, sandalwood, pine, lavender, peony, lilac, freesia, jasmine, water lily, and bergamot). Fragrance bottles were stored at about 4 to 80C to prevent chemical degradation. Fragrances were dissolved in Neutral unscented soap basis (Sara Lee) for dishwashing liquid, were dissolved in pure water for soft drink, or were applied to tea lights for candles. All olfactory stimuli were presented to the participants in closable, transparent PVC containers (50 mm high and 70 mm in diameter). The dishwashing liquid and soft drink samples contained 20 ml of scented fluid. The candle samples contained a sin‐ gle tea light. Equal amounts of fragrances (2 drops) were used for each sample in
133
CHAPTER 6
order to keep the intensity of the odors equal. Olfactory stimuli were prepared every day at least one hour before the experimental session.
To manipulate colors for dishwashing liquid, we dissolved Brouwland food pigments in Neutral soap basis (Sara Lee). The solutions were presented to the participants in half‐full 500 ml fully transparent dishwashing containers. For soft drink colors, the same food pigments were dissolved in carbonated water (C1000 food retailer private brand). The soft drinks were presented to the participants in 500 ml completely filled clear plastic bottles of non‐distinctive shape. The color set for soft drinks and dish‐ washing liquid consisted of dark brown (Munsell code 5YR 2.5/1), purple (7.5RP 4/6), red (5R 5/14), orange (5YR 7/12), clear (N 9.5), green (5G 5/8), pink (10RP 6/10), blue (2.5PB 4/10), yellow (7.5Y 9/6), light blue (5B 7/8) and light green (5GY 7/8).
To manipulate colors in candles we used colored candles (from ‘Xenos’ store chain) of equal size and shape: 70 mm high and 68 mm in diameter. The colors of the candles included brown (Munsell code 10YR 5/4), marble green (2.5GY 5/2), white (2.5Y 8.5/2), cyan (5B 5/8), light green (7.5GY 8/8), orange (2.5YR 6/14), red (5R 5/14), yel‐ low (2.5Y 8.5/10), magenta (10RP 5/12), light purple (5P 7/8), and pink (7.5RP 8/6).
All stimuli were presented to the participants under natural lighting conditions. Munsell coding occurred under similar conditions.
2.3. PROCEDURE
The smells and the colors for each product were evaluated in separate parts of the session. For the evaluation of the visual stimuli, participants looked at the stimuli presented on a white background. For the olfactory stimuli, participants opened con‐ tainers one by one, and first smelled them from a distance. If they didn’t smell any‐ thing, they were instructed to bring the container closer to their nose. There was a 15 sec break between odor trials. Participants were instructed to clean their noses by sniffing their lower arm between the trials. All stimuli were identified by a three‐digit code and were randomized between respondents. Participants filled out one ques‐ tionnaire on a separate sheet for each stimulus. Each sample was assessed on a 9‐ point scale for fresh (fris), colorful (fleurig), natural (natuurlijk) and pleasant (aan‐ genaam) from “not at all” to “very”. Each sample was evaluated by 20 participants.
134
SENSORY DOMINANCE IN PRODUCT EXPERIENCE
2.4. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS
For each product, repeated measures ANOVAs on freshness and pleasantness rat‐ ings were performed with smell or color as within‐subjects factor. Post‐hoc analy‐ ses with Bonferroni adjustment were performed to test the significance of the dif‐ ferences between means.
2.5. RESULTS
Repeated measures ANOVA showed significant main effects of both smell and color on the freshness ratings for all three products (all p<0.01). The main effects of color and smell on the pleasantness ratings were also significant for soft drinks and dis‐ hwashing liquids (p<0.02), but not for candles (p>0.10). The detailed statistics for each product and each factor are shown in Table 1.
The smells associated with fresh soft drinks were peppermint (mean rating 7.40), followed by bergamot lemon (7.05). The least fresh smell was patchouli (2.00), fol‐ lowed by almond (3.9) and rose (4.05). Bergamot lemon (6.40) and peppermint (6.25) were also considered as the freshest smells for a dishwashing liquid. Again, patchouli (2.10) was judged as the least fresh smell, followed by almond (3.35). Bergamot pure reggio (6.40), water lily (5.80), jasmine (5.70), and freesia (5.10) were perceived as fresh smells for a candle, and vanilla (3.65), a very sweet smell, was evaluated as the least fresh smell.
The color most frequently associated with fresh soft drinks was ‘clear' (6.90), fol‐ lowed by light green (6.75). The most unlikely color for a fresh soft drink was dark brown (2.60), followed by dark green (3.60). For the dishwashing liquid, light green was perceived as the freshest color (6.95). Light blue (6.90), yellow (6.80), and blue (6.40) were also highly associated with freshness. Purple (2.95) and dark brown (1.1) were considered as non‐fresh for a dishwashing liquid. Pink (7.25), magenta (6.90) and yellow (6.75) were highly associated with a fresh color for a candle. Brown (2.35) and marble green (3.40) were rated as the least fresh colors.
The purpose of the pre‐study was to select fresh and non‐fresh stimuli for the main study. We selected stimuli with mean ratings from 2.90 to 4.05 as non‐fresh, and from 6.40 to 7.40 as fresh (Table 2). All differences in freshness between fresh and non‐fresh stimuli for a product were significant at 0.01 levels.
135
CHAPTER 6
TABLE 6.1. F VALUES AND SIGNIFICANCE LEVELS FROM ANOVA FOR THE FRESHNESS AND PLEASANTNESS RATINGS FOR SMELL AND COLOR STIMULI
Product Factor F df p
Soft drink Fresh smell 20.6 9 <0.001
Fresh color 11.6 10 <0.001
Pleasant smell 13.5 9 <0.001
Pleasant color 7.1 10 <0.001
Dishwashing liquid Fresh smell 9.4 9 <0.001
Fresh color 29.0 10 <0.001
Pleasant smell 4.8 9 <0.001
Pleasant color 16.1 10 <0.001
Candle Fresh smell 3.8 9 <0.001
Fresh color 15.7 10 <0.001
Pleasant smell 1.5 9 0.139
Pleasant color 1.0 10 0.423
It was not possible to choose stimuli with the same pleasantness ratings, be‐ cause pleasantness was highly correlated with freshness. The Pearson correla‐ tions between freshness and pleasantness of colors were 0.78 for a dishwash‐ ing liquid, 0.61 for a soft drink, and 0.42 for a candle. The correlations between freshness and pleasantness of smells were 0.72 for a dishwashing liquid, 0.75 for a soft drink, and 0.59 for a candle. All correlations were significant at the 0.01 level (two‐tailed). For the colors the sizes of the three correlation coeffi‐ cients differed significantly (p<0.001), as shown in paired comparisons of the corresponding regression coefficients (see Snedecor & Cochran, 1980). For the smells the correlation for the candles was significantly lower than the correla‐ tions for dishwashing liquid and soft drink (p<0.05), while the difference be‐ tween the latter two did not reach significance (p>0.20).
136
SENSORY DOMINANCE IN PRODUCT EXPERIENCE
TABLE 6.2. FRESH AND NON‐FRESH STIMULI FOR THE MAIN EXPERIMENT
Product Smell Mean Mean Color Mun‐ Mean Mean fresh pleas‐ sell fresh pleas‐ (SE) ant (SE) code (SE) ant (SE)
Soft drink Non‐ rose 4.05 2.90 dark 5G 5/8 3.60 3.45 fresh (.48) (.43) green (.37) (.49)
Fresh pepper‐ 7.40 4.50 light 5GY 6.75 5.20 mint (.44) (.43) green 7/8 (.40) (.50)
Dishwash‐ Non‐ almond 3.35 3.30 purple 10RP 2.95 3.75 ing liquid fresh (.50) (.44) 4/6 (.32) (.49)
Fresh bergamot 6.40 5.90 blue 2.5PB 6.40 5.90 lemon (.54) (.54) 4/10 (.29) (.46)
Candle Non‐ vanilla 3.65 5.20 brown 10YR 2.90 5.05 fresh (.41) (.59) 5/4 (.34) (.44)
Fresh bergamot 6.40 5.20 pink 7.5RP 7.00 5.40 (.56) (.52) 8/6 (.37) (.50)
3. MAIN STUDY
3.1. PARTICIPANTS
Participants were recruited among students and staff of the Faculty of Industrial Design Engineering, Delft University of Technology. Two groups of 20 respondents participated in the main study. In the first group ages ranged from 18 to 28 years, mean age was 22, and 62% were women. In the second group sthe age ranged from 18 to 32 years, mean age was 23, and 60% were women. All participants were naive with regard to the purpose of the study and none of the participants was color blind, as indicated by self‐report.
137
CHAPTER 6
3.2. MATERIALS
For each product (soft drink, dishwashing liquid, and candle) 4 variants were cre‐ ated: 1) fresh smell + fresh color; 2) fresh smell + non‐fresh color, 3) non‐fresh smell + fresh color; 4) non‐fresh smell + non‐fresh color. In total 12 products were created for the main experiment. We used the combinations of the color pigments from Brouwland and fragrances from Givaudan Nederland B.V. dissolved in carbon‐ ated water (C1000) or unscented soap (Neutral from Sara Lee) to create soft drinks and dishwashing liquids, respectively. Soft drinks were presented to the partici‐ pants in 500 ml clear plastic bottles of non‐distinctive shape. The dishwashing liq‐ uids were presented in the half‐full 500 ml clear dishwashing containers. The col‐ ored candles were bought at Xenos and impregnated with selected odorants from Senta Multisensory Concepting (one drop of odorant was applied to the top of the candle and then dried with a hair drier). The smells and colors of all the products were identical to the selected stimuli used in the pre‐study (Table 2).
3.3. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN
To prevent participants from guessing the purpose of the experiment, the main experiment was performed in two separate groups with different stimuli. The first group evaluated 6 consistent products. By consistent products we mean that their properties in both modalities conveyed the same degree of freshness: fresh color +
fresh smell (CFSF) and non‐fresh color + non‐fresh smell (CNFSNF) combinations. The second group evaluated 6 inconsistent products, implying that their sensory prop‐ erties contained both fresh and non‐fresh stimuli in different modalities: non‐fresh
color + fresh smell and fresh color + non‐fresh smell (CNFSF and CFSNF) combinations. The sequences in which products were presented were randomized between par‐ ticipants in such a way that one set of soft drink, dishwashing liquid, and candle was followed by another set with the same sequence, so that products from the same category never followed each other.
138
SENSORY DOMINANCE IN PRODUCT EXPERIENCE
3.4. PROCEDURE
At each session participants evaluated 6 products (2 soft drinks, 2 dishwashing liquids, and 2 candles) with respect to their freshness, pleasantness, colorfulness, and naturalness on 9‐point scales (from “not at all” to “very”). The samples were presented one by one on an A4 white paper. Participants were told to take their time to explore the product. They were instructed to pick up the product and open the bottles of the soft drinks and the dishwashing liquids to smell them. Participants were not allowed to taste the soft drinks. The candles were stored in closed plastic containers to avoid release ofs it smell. Before each trial, the ex‐ perimenter opened the container, took out the candle, and presented it to the participant. Participants had to fill in a separate questionnaire for each product. There was a small break for 10 to 15 s between the trials. Participants were asked to smell their lower arm after each trial to get rid of the previous smell. Each ses‐ sion lasted about 5 minutes.
3.5. DATA ANALYSIS
Of the four variants of each product, two were evaluated by one group of partici‐ pants, while the other two were evaluated by another group. As a consequence, some of these effects could be tested using within‐participants comparison, while the others should be tested using between‐participants comparisons. Due to the particular design of the study, ANOVA F‐tests were hard to interpret. Therefore, we decided to use T‐tests only. For each product we started out by performing two‐ tailed T‐tests for paired samples on the pairs of consistent and inconsistent prod‐ ucts separately. The data were analyzed further to check for the differences be‐ tween the products with fixed visual or olfactory stimuli using two‐tailed t‐tests for independent samples.
3.6. RESULTS
Within‐participants comparisons showed that the mean freshness ratings for the 4 soft drinks and the 4 dishwashing liquids were significantly different be‐ tween the two consistent products (CFSF versus CNFSNF) and between the two 139
CHAPTER 6
inconsistent products (CNFSF versus CFSNF) (p<0.01). As predicted, CFSF prod‐ ucts rated higher than CNFSNF products for both soft drinks and dishwashing liquids. Furthermore, the ratings of CNFSF soft drinks and dishwashing liquids were significantly higher than the ratings of CFSNF products. This indicates that olfaction is more important for the experience of freshness than vision for these two products.
Between‐participants comparisons indicated that freshness ratings for CFSF
samples were significantly higher than for CFSNF samples (p<0.001) in both soft
drink and dishwashing liquid. Similarly, CNFSF rated significantly higher than
CNFSNF samples (p<0.001). The other differences were not significant (p>0.20). These differences indicate that smell was important for the overall experience of freshness in both soft drinks and dishwashing liquids and that color did not seem to contribute to freshness for these two products (Figure 1).
Mean freshness ratings for the 4 candles showed a different pattern. The
difference between the two consistent products (CFSF and CNFSNF) was signifi‐ cant (p<0.01), but there was no difference between the two inconsistent
products, CNFSF and CFSNF (p>0.20). This indicates that both vision and olfac‐ tion contribute equally to the experience of freshness for this product. The between‐participants comparisons only showed a significant difference be‐
tween CNFSNF on the one hand, and the two inconsistent stimuli on the other hand (p<0.05).
We analyzed the pleasantness ratings of all three products to see if the inter‐ action pattern of pleasantness matched the pattern of freshness. However, in
the within‐participants comparisons CFSF and CNFSNF did not differ in pleas‐ antness for all 3 products (p>0.10). These results do not allow us to deter‐ mine the degree of sensory dominance for the pleasantness ratings. In fact, for candles no significant differences in pleasantness ratings were found at all (all p>0.05). For both soft drinks and dishwashing liquids, the combination of fresh color and non‐fresh smell was considered as the least pleasant by our respondents (Figure 6.1).
140
SENSORY DOMINANCE IN PRODUCT EXPERIENCE
Soft drink Soft drink ** ** 9 9 ** 8 8 ** 7 7 *
6 6
5 5
4 4 Freshness
3 Pleasantness 3
2 2
1 1 CFSF CNFSFl CFSNF CNFSNF CFSF CNFSF CFSNF CNFSNF
Dishwashing liquid Dishwashing liquid
** 9 ** 9 ** * 8 ** 8 7 ** 7 6 6 5 5 4 4 3 Freshness
2 Pleasantness 3 1 2 0 1 CFSF CNFSFl CFSNF CNFSNF CFSF CNFSF CFSNF CNFSNF
Candle Candle
* 9 9 * 8 8 * 7 7
6 6
5 5
4 4 Freshness
3 Pleasantness 3
2 2
1 1 CFSF CNFSFl CFSNF CNFSNF CFSF CNFSF CFSNF CNFSNF
** Differences between means are significant at .01 level, * at .05 level (2‐tailed T‐test).
FIGURE 6.1. MEAN FRESHNESS AND PLEASANTNESS RATINGS FOR THREE PRODUCTS (WITH SE)
141
CHAPTER 6
4. DISCUSSION
4.1. FRESHNESS
Our results indicate that when smell was fixed, the degree of freshness for soft drinks and dishwashing liquids was not changed by different colors. On the other hand, when the color was fixed, people perceived significantly different degrees of freshness because of the change in smell. Therefore, olfaction is the dominant mo‐ dality when assessing freshness for a soft drink and a dishwashing liquid. This find‐ ing was supported by participants’ spontaneous remarks and confirms the out‐ comes of our previous questionnaire study (Fenko, 2008). A different result, how‐ ever, was found for candles. Here, smell and color both influenced the degree of freshness to approximately the same degree. These results could imply that the dominance of smell for the experience of freshness depends on the role of fresh‐ ness in the product experience. In candles, for which freshness is not a necessary property, vision and smell both contribute to the degree of freshness. On the other hand, for products such as soft drinks and dishwashing liquids, where freshness is related to their main function, the experience of freshness mainly depends on the olfactory properties of the product.
Most of the results of our pre‐study were in agreement with previous studies. For instance, peppermint scored as a fresh smell both for a soft drink and for a dish‐ washing liquid in our study. This is in line with findings from Westerink and Kozlov (2004), who found that mint was strongly associated with oral freshness, and Labbe et al. (2009), who found that mint was one of the drivers of the refreshing sensa‐ tion. Furthermore, smells associated with sour taste, such as lemon and grapefruit, scored higher on freshness for both a dishwashing liquid and a soft drink. This is in line with McEwan and Colwill (1996)’s suggestion that the thirst‐quenching proper‐ ties of a drink may increase with an increase in perceived acidity (p. 108). Our par‐ ticipants, like those of Clydesdale et al. (1992) and Zellner and Durlach (2003), found clear to be the most refreshing/thirst‐quenching color for a soft drink. How‐ ever, Clydesdale and colleagues found brown to be a thirst‐quenching color, whereas we found it to be non‐fresh. This difference may be caused by cultural differences: Clydesdale et al. (1992) did the experiment in the USA and suggested that brown was experienced as a thirst‐quenching color because of the associations with colas. In our study, dark brown was seen as non‐fresh, even though some re‐ spondents identified it with the color of cola during the experiment, as could be derived from their spontaneous comments. Zellner and Durlach (2003) suggested 142
SENSORY DOMINANCE IN PRODUCT EXPERIENCE
that brown colas and vanilla drinks can be refreshing because people consider brown the appropriate color for these drinks, whereas brown lemon and mint drinks are inappropriate and therefore not refreshing. In our study “freshness” has the similar meaning to “freshness” in the study of Westerink and Kozlov (2004) and “refreshing” in the studies of Zellner & Durlach (2002; 2003) and Labbe and colleagues (2009). Furthermore, “freshness” may have another meaning: “new, retaining its original qualities; not deteriorated or changed” (Zampini & Spence, 2005; Peneau et al., 2006; Heenan et al., 2008). In addition, a person can feel “refreshed” after a good night sleep or after taking a holiday. Refreshing in this sense means energizing or invigorating. The fresh quali‐ ties of products can be associated with particular environments (such as a forest) or activities (such as sailing). Therefore, additional research in different situations may reveal other associations people have with “freshness” that may help to spec‐ ify the meaning of freshness for other product groups. The current results add to the body of knowledge on different types of color‐odor interactions. For instance, Zellner and Kautz (1990) reported that the perceived intensity of food odors was increased when the odors were presented in colored as compared to colorless liquids, but the appropriateness of the color for the smell had little or no effect on the perceived intensity of the odor: having any color at all seemed to be the most important characteristic for increasing the subjective inten‐ sity of smell. On the other hand, several studies claimed that appropriate colors significantly facilitate odor identification and increase odor liking (Davis, 1981; Bone & Jantrania, 1992). Zellner and Durlach (2003) demonstrated that the effect of color on perceived refreshment might be flavor‐specific. The present study ex‐ pands this type of research by demonstrating that the way in which color and smell contribute to freshness is product‐dependent. Nevertheless, more research is needed to be able to generalize not only beyond the products used in the present study, but also beyond the sensory stimuli (smells and colors) that we used.
The present study has demonstrated that evaluations of freshness can be predicted as an additive combination of the evaluations of two component stimuli (a smell and a color in this case). This opens up the possibility to further test additive mod‐ els of information integration (e.g. Anderson, 1981) to determine how various sen‐ sory inputs contribute to the experience of freshness. In the present study, we did not investigate the influence of touch, taste and audition on the experience of freshness. Other studies indicate that tactile sensations (especially the feeling of temperature) can play an important part in creating a refreshing sensation (Zellner 143
CHAPTER 6
& Durlach, 2002; Westerink & Kozlov, 2004; Labbe et al., 2009). For food products, gustatory properties are also important determinants of refreshing/thirst‐ quenching (McEwan and Colwill, 1996; Labbe et al., 2009). Further experiments are needed to investigate how these sensory modalities contribute to the experience of freshness for different product groups. ,In addition the current approach can be used to study how olfaction contributes to other aspects of human experience, such as the perceived healthiness, naturalness, or cleanness of products.
4.2. PLEASANTNESS
Previous research has found that pleasantness is strongly related to the refreshing sensation (Lee & O’ Mahony, 2005; Labbe et al., 2009) and thirst‐quenching quali‐ ties of drinks (Clydesdale et al., 1992; McEwan & Colwill, 1996). Analogously, our pre‐study found that pleasantness ratings correlated significantly with freshness ratings of single modality stimuli. These correlations were higher for dishwashing liquid and soft drink than for candles, suggesting that freshness and pleasantness are more closely connected for products for which freshness is a necessary, func‐ tional property. Despite these correlations found for single, component stimuli, a comparison of the product means shows that there was no correlation between freshness and pleasantness for the final products. When specific smells were com‐ bined with specific colors, the freshness of the combinations could be predicted on the basis of the freshness of the separate stimuli (Figure 1), but the pleasantness of the combinations could not (Figure 2). The most pleasant dishwashing liquid had both a non‐fresh smell and a non‐fresh color. For candles, in the main study all the final products were considered equally pleasant. These outcomes are in line with those obtained by Schifferstein and colleagues (submitted), who also failed to demonstrate the link between the pleasantness ratings of single stimuli and the overall pleasantness of the products. In their study, the pleasantness of visual, tac‐ tual, auditory, and olfactory unisensory stimuli was determined for two test prod‐ ucts (a portable air purifier and a table lamp).
Pleasantness has been suggested as an odor's most salient attribute (Engen, 1982) and a lot of data indicate the strong link between the sense of smell and affective reactions (Herz, 1998a; 1998b; Herz and Schooler, 2002). Based on the extensive literature on the affective character of olfactory perception, we would expect smell to have more influence on the pleasantness rating than color, but our results only 144
SENSORY DOMINANCE IN PRODUCT EXPERIENCE
partly confirm this assumption. The most unpleasant samples of both soft drink and dishwashing liquid were those with fresh color and non‐fresh smell. These out‐ comes indicate that negative affective reactions might be due to the inconsistent combinations of olfactory and visual stimuli rather than by the unpleasant smell as such. Probably, evaluations of pleasantness are more dependent on the combina‐ tions of stimuli used and their degree of (in)congruence than evaluations of fresh‐ ness (e.g., Schifferstein & Verlegh, 1996).
5. CONCLUSIONS
Olfaction was found to be more important than vision in determining the degree of freshness for those products for which freshness is relevant for the product’s main function (such as a soft drink and dishwashing liquid). On the other hand, both ol‐ faction and vision seem to contribute equally to the experience of freshness for those products for which freshness is optional, but not a necessary characteristic (such as a scented candle). These results can help to understand the experience of freshness in different product contexts and can be used in product development.
145
CHAPTER 7 NOISY PRODUCTS: DOES APPEARANCE MATTER?
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1. MULTISENSORY INTEGRATION IN PRODUCT EXPERIENCE
Many everyday products make noise while operating. For some products noise is a consequence of their functioning, like the rotating noise of a washing machine, the mechanical noise of a hammer, or the blowing noise of a hair dryer. Other prod‐ ucts, such as kitchen timers or fire sirens, are designed to make noise in order to attract people’s attention. Özcan and Van Egmond (2008) refer to these two types of sounds as consequential and intentional, respectively. Although there is an in‐ creasing interest in the sound design of domestic appliances, most sound designers are concentrating on the reduction of industrial and traffic noise and diminishing the loudness of domestic appliances (Lyon, 2000).
147
CHAPTER 7
Sound is not the only sensory product property that can be associated with noisi‐ ness. Our perceptual experience of the world is richly multimodal (Stein and Mere‐ dith, 1993). Different sensory modalities make different contribution to the overall product experience. For instance, color and material have been found to contribute about equally to the experience of ‘warmth’ in scarves and trays (Fenko et al., 2010), while the experience of ‘freshness’ in soft drinks and dishwashing liquids depends more on smell than on color (Fenko et al., 2009). Ludden and Schifferstein (2007) have also found that the expression of a product’s sound influenced the overall expression of dust busters and juicers. In this study we wonder to what extent vision influences the product experience of noisiness. According to people’s self‐reports they find audition more important than vision for judging noisiness. In a questionnaire study, in which respondents assessed the relative importance of five sensory modalities for 34 product experiences (Fenko et al., submitted), the dominant sensory modality for ‘noisiness’ was audition (mean rating 4.9 out of 5), while the second most important modality was vision (3.1).
The results of questionnaire studies on sensory integration should be interpreted with caution, because people are usually unaware of perceptual mechanisms un‐ derlying their experience. A good example is the McGurk effect (McGurk and Mac‐ Donald, 1976) that demonstrates an interaction between audition and vision in speech perception. When a recording of the sound ‘ba’ is combined with a video of lip movements saying ‘ga’, most people think they are hearing ‘da’. When people close their eyes, they hear ‘ba’ correctly. The brain combines the two types of in‐ formation automatically; knowledge about the effect has little effect on one's perception of it. Another example of audio‐visual interaction is the ventriloquism effect (e.g., Bertelson, 1999). A ventriloquist synchronizes the movements of a puppet's mouth with his own speech while avoiding movements of his own head or lips. As a result, the audience perceives a speaking puppet. This effect is regularly experienced when watching television and movies, where voices seem to emanate from the actors' lips rather than from the loudspeakers. The ventriloquism effect does not depend on the direction of deliberate or automatic visual attention (Bertelson et al., 2000; Vroomen et al., 2001). Both these examples demonstrate visual dominance over audition in multisensory speech perception. Most people are unaware of these phenomena and believe that speech is perceived only by hearing. People can be equally mistaken in their as‐ sessment of the relative contribution of different senses to a product experience, such as noisiness. That is why experimental manipulation is necessary to establish which sensory modality is more important for a specific product experience. 148
SENSORY DOMINANCE IN PRODUCT EXPERIENCE
1.2. EXPERIENCING NOISINESS
1.2.1. AUDITORY NOISINESS
From the physical point of view, any complex sound may be described as a combi‐ nation of pure tones of various amplitudes, frequencies and phases. Musical tones typically contain only a few components, for which the frequencies and phases have simple relationships. More complex sounds contain many components, which may not be systematically related in frequency and phase. The ultimate complexity is “white noise” that contains all frequencies. The sound from a water‐spray or a jet of air is an approximation of white noise (Northwood, 1963). The subjective rating of “noisiness” increases as 1) the pitch of a sound is raised (Hellman, 1984); 2) the complexity of the spectrum is increased (Hellman, 1985); and 3) the duration is increased beyond 200 milliseconds (Kryter, 1966). The loudness of a sound does not usually contribute to its subjective noisiness. Annoyance from a noise increases with the increase of the duration of the event: longer exposures to low sound lev‐ els are equally annoying as shorter exposures to higher sound levels (Hiramatsu et al., 1983; Fujii et al., 2001).
Although in the psychoacoustic literature the terms “noisy” and “annoying” are often used as synonyms (Hellman, 1982; Takeshima et al., 1991; Bowsher & Robin‐ son, 1962; Schultz, 1978; Berlung et al., 1976), in this study we treat noisiness and annoyance as separate experiences. Noisiness refers to particular characteristics of the sound that may or may not cause annoyance. On the other hand, not all annoy‐ ing sounds are necessarily noise: loud music or conversation can also be experi‐ enced as annoying under certain circumstances, although these sounds do not have a noisy character (Northwood, 1963). Any sound may become annoying if it is able to distract listeners from their activities. Speech sounds are particularly trouble‐ some if they are intelligible or nearly so. Sudden impacts, startling or alarming sounds, and sounds with marked pitch or rhythm (for example, a dripping faucet) are particularly distracting and therefore annoying (Job, 1988). Similarly, a single identifiable source of noise is more troublesome than the same loudness level pro‐ duced by a random assortment of many noises from many sources (Northwood, 1963). Random and meaningless sounds sometimes mask other sounds that would be distracting. Paradoxically, the white noise from ventilators and air‐conditioners can successfully mask a particular intruding sound. The widespread use of back‐ ground music in restaurants is another example of the use of sound to protect people from the noise made by their neighbors. Unfortunately, it can also be very annoying. 149
CHAPTER 7
Annoyance from noise is usually described as the unpleasantness of noise. The ca‐ pacity of noise to induce annoyance depends on many acoustical and non‐ acoustical factors. Few sounds are intrinsically unpleasant. The most common ex‐ amples include the sound of a metal saucepan being scraped with a knife, a pneu‐ matic drill at close range, and a powerful motor cycle accelerating (Bowsher and Robinson, 1962). Loudness was found to account for a relatively small percentage of the variability in self‐reported unpleasantness, usually 10% to 25% (Griffiths & Langdon, 1968; McKennel, 1963).
1.2.2. VISUAL NOISINESS
The English word ‘noisy’ can be used without implication of audible sound. In the latter sense it means “showy, ostentatious; conspicuous; overwhelming; gaudy, loud, or bright in color” (Simpson and Weiner, 1989). This meaning of noisiness refers to the use of brighter colours and to visual complexity.
The perceived visual complexity nca increase with the quantity and range of objects and the variety of colors, materials and surface styles, while the number of objects and surfaces remain constant (Heaps and Handel, 1999). The perceived complexity of an image also depends on the degree of perceptual grouping, a characteristic independent of the quantity of parts. Regularities, such as symmetry, repetition, and similarity, simplify a visual pattern, making it less noisy (Feldman, 1997; Palmer, 1999; van der Helm, 2000). Similarly, textures with repetitive and uniformly oriented patterns are judged as less complex than disorganized and cluttered pat‐ terns (Heaps & Handel, 1999; Oliva & Torralba, 2001).
Visual complexity has been reported to influence aesthetic judgment (e.g., Berlyne, 1963; Eisenman, 1967; Eysenck & Hawker, 1994). Berlyne (1971) believed that the pleasure or hedonic value of an object depends on its capacity for arousal. He sug‐ gested that the same characteristics determine pleasure and arousal: intensity, color, pitch, novelty, and complexity. As the arousal potential of an object increases, one's pleasure at first rises but eventually peaks and then falls down again. Thus, pleasure is a function of an arousal change. Represented graphically, the curve is bell‐shaped. The bell‐shaped curve goes back to Wundt's theory of sensory affect, depicting pleas‐ antness as a function of stimulus intensity (Wundt, 1904).
In a number of experiments Berlyne and his co‐workers have shown that medium levels of complexity for visual or auditory stimuli are liked most, while low and high
150
SENSORY DOMINANCE IN PRODUCT EXPERIENCE
levels are liked the least (Berlyne, 1971). Possibly, low levels of visual noisiness may be experienced as boring and thus not particularly pleasant, while high levels of visual noisiness may cause high levels of arousal and thus be experienced as an‐ noying and unpleasant. We expect the medium level of visual noisiness to be ex‐ perienced as the most pleasant. This was tested in the pre‐study.
1.3. PRESENT STUDY
In the present study we manipulated the auditory and visual properties of two products in order to find out to what extent the overall experience of product noisiness depended on the specific sounds these products made and their visual appearance. In the pre‐study we asked respondents to assess the noisiness, pleas‐ antness and annoyance of various product sounds or product images on a 10‐point scale. In the main study we created products combining noisy and quiet stimuli of both sensory modalities in four different combinations: 1) noisy sound + noisy vis‐ ual pattern, 2) noisy sound + quiet visual pattern, 3) quiet sound + noisy visual pat‐ tern and 4) quiet sound + quiet visual pattern. Participants indicated how noisy, pleasant and annoying they found these products on a 10‐point scale.
2. PRE‐STUDY
2.1. METHOD
2.1.1. PARTICIPANTS
Two groups of Dutch‐speaking participants took part in the pre‐study. The first group (10 men and 12 women, age ranged from 17 to 54, mean age 29) assessed the sounds of alarm clocks and kettles, and the second group (14 men and 12 women, age ranged from 22 to ,45 mean age 32) assessed pictures of the two products with various types of decorative patterns.
2.1.2. MATERIALS
Two products were used in the experiment: a kettle with removable whistle (HEMA) and an electronic radio alarm clock (AKAI). We selected these products,
151
CHAPTER 7
because for both of them noisiness is a functional property: the sounds of the products are designed intentionally to attract people’s attention.
Ten alarm sounds were created using digital sound samples and recordings. Ten different whistling sounds were created by manipulating the whistles of the kettles (e.g., enlarging holes, drilling additional holes, and filling whistles with various ma‐ terials). All sounds were recorded with a semi‐professional digital recorder with a range of 20.000 Hz at 1.5 m distance from the object. Each sound lasted for 10 s. Decorative visual patterns were created in which the amount of elements and col‐ ours, the size of the elements, and regularity and symmetry of the pattern were manipulated. These patterns were applied to the photographs of the kettle and alarm clock using Adobe Photoshop. The resulting images (12 for each product) are shown in Figures 6.1 and 6.2.
3.30 3.50 3.55
4.25 4.25 5.20
5.65 5.75 5.85
5.90 6.45 6.80
FIGURE 7.1. IMAGES OF ALARM‐CLOCKS USED IN THE PRE‐STUDY (WITH MEAN NOISINESS RATINGS)
152
SENSORY DOMINANCE IN PRODUCT EXPERIENCE
3.05 3.11 3.58
4.11 4.37 4.42
4.58 5.53 5.74
5.89 6.89 7.17
FIGURE 7.2. IMAGES OF WHISTLE KETTLES USED IN THE PRE‐STUDY (WITH MEAN NOISINESS RATINGS)
2.1.3. PROCEDURE
Since the study was performed in the Netherlands with Dutch‐speaking partici‐ pants, all the questionnaires and instructions were provided in Dutch. When prod‐ uct experience is expressed in words, it may be interpreted differently in different languages. Most adjectives that describe product experiences have several mean‐ ings, and usually not all these meanings can be translated adequately into another language (Brislin, 1980).
153
CHAPTER 7
In English, the word “noisy” carries both auditory and visual meanings. The Ox‐ ford English Dictionary defines noisy as 1) full of or characterized by noise; 2) showy, ostentatious; conspicuous; overwhelming; gaudy, loud, or bright in col‐ our (Simpson & Weiner, 1989). In the Dutch language several adjectives are used to capture auditory and visual aspects of noisiness (Van Dale, 2008): 1) lawaaierig – noisy, full of or characterized by loud and nonmusical sounds; 2) luidruchtig – loud, with high volume; noisy, full of or characterized by loud and nonmusical sounds; 3) druk – restless, overwhelming (of artwork etc.); with too many flowers, lines, figures; loud (of colors). That is why in the pre‐study we used several Dutch adjectives to assess auditory and visual noisiness. We ana‐ lysed the correlations between various noisiness ratings to establish their sen‐ sory connotations, and finally selected the word lawaaierig as the most appro‐ priate multisensory measure of product noisiness.
The sounds of kettles and alarm clocks were presented to the participants in two sets. Half of the group evaluated kettle sounds first, and half evaluated alarm sounds first. Within each set all the sounds were randomized between participants. Participants filled out the questionnaire evaluating how loud (hard), pleasant (pret‐ tig), noisy (lawaaierig and luidruchtig) and annoying (irritant) they found each sound on a 10‐point scale (from “not at all” to “extremely”).
The images of products were presented to the participants in two series. Half of the group evaluated 12 whistle kettles first, and half evaluated 12 alarm clocks first. The images of the products were presented in random order on a 17" laptop screen. Participants filled out the questionnaire evaluating how pleasant (prettig), noisy (lawaaierig), loud (druk), colorful (kleurrijk) and annoying (irritant) they found each image on a 10‐point scale (from “not at all” to “extremely”).
2.1.4. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS
For each product, repeated measures ANOVAs on the ratings were performed with sound or visual pattern as within‐subjects factor. Post‐hoc analyses with Bonferroni adjustment were performed to test the significance of the differences between means. Pearson correlations between all evaluative ratings were computed.
154
SENSORY DOMINANCE IN PRODUCT EXPERIENCE
2.2. RESULTS
The statistical analysis showed significant main effects of sound on the noisiness (lawaaierigheid) for both alarm clocks (F (9, 180) = 11.0, p < 0.001) and kettles (F (9, 180) = 36.6, p < 0.001). The main effect of visual pattern on the noisiness (la‐ waaierig) was also significant both forh bot alarm clocks (F (11, 209) = 13.7, p < 0.001) and kettles (F (11, 198) = 11.9, p < 0.001). The main effects of sound and visual pattern on the ratings of pleasantness (prettig) and annoyance (irritant) were also significant for both products (all p < 0.001).
Mean noisiness (lawaaierig) ratings for sounds varied between 1.76 and 9.48 for whistle kettles and between 4.76 and 8.24 for alarm clocks. The acoustical analysis of sounds, performed with Adobe Audition 3.0, showed that high fre‐ quency sounds were assessed as noisier than low frequency sounds. Sounds with multiple and fluctuating frequencies were assessed as noisier than sounds with relatively constant frequency.
Noisiness (lawaaierig) was positively correlated with annoyance (irritant; 0.62 for alarm clocks and 0.77 for kettles) and negatively correlated with pleasant‐ ness (prettig; ‐ 0.40 and ‐ 0.61 for both products, respectively). All correlations were significant at the 0.01 level (2‐tailed). Noisiness was also positively corre‐ lated with loudness (hard; 0.76 and 0.90) and with the other noisiness measure (luidruchtig; 0.85 and 0.90).
Mean noisiness (lawaaierig) ratings for the visual patterns varied between 3.05 and 7.17 for kettles and between 3.30 and 6.80 for alarm clocks (see Figures 7.1 and 7.2). In both products the ratings of noisiness increased as the amount of elements and colors increased. Regular patterns (checked, striped) were perceived as less noisy than irregular patterns. For flowery patterns, the degree of clutter was the most important factor that increased noisiness.
The correlations between noisiness (lawaaierig) and annoyance (irritant) were posi‐ tive for both alarm clocks (0.74) and kettles (0.74). Pleasantness (prettig) was nega‐ tively correlated with noisiness (lawaaierig) both for kettles (‐0.43) and alarm clocks (‐ 0.16). All correlations were significant at the 0.05 level (2‐tailed). In addition, noisiness ratings were positively correlated with colorfulness (kleurrijk; 0.37 and 0.24) and the other noisiness measure (druk, 0.64 and 0.69).
155
CHAPTER 7
3. MAIN STUDY
3.1. METHOD
3.1.1. PARTICIPANTS
The participants were 40 Dutch‐speaking students and staff of TU Delft (17 women and 23 men). Ages ranged from 18 to 51 years, mean age was 24.
3.1.2. MATERIALS
The stimuli for the main study were selected in such a way that differences be‐ tween auditory and visual stimuli were similar for each product. For the kettles we selected sounds with mean ratings 5.57 and 3.57 (difference 2.0) and visual stimuli with mean ratings 5.89 and 3.58 (difference 2.31). Fore th alarm clocks we selected sounds with mean ratings 8.05 and 4.86 (difference 3.19) and images with mean ratings 6.80 and 3.30 (difference 3.50). All differences between noisy and quiet stimuli for each product were significant at the 0.01 level, but mean differences for alarm clocks were bigger than for kettles. This was the result of technical difficulties in creating different kettle sounds. For each product, we made a computer video clip in Adobe Flash CS4. In the clips, the products were presented in a naturalistic environment: alarm clocks in the bed‐ room, kettles in the kitchen (see Figure 7.3). Toe increase th degree of realism, the steam of boiling kettles was added to the latter clips. For each product, a visual image was combined with a sound according to a full factorial (2x2) design: 1) sound noisy + image noisy (SNIN), 2) sound noisy + image quiet (SNIQ), 3) sound quiet + image noisy (SQIN) and 4) sound quiet + image quiet (SQIQ).
3.1.3. PROCEDURE
To prevent participants from guessing the purpose of the study, the experiment was performed with two groups of participants. One group assessed products that com‐ bined noisy sound with noisy image (SNIN) and quiet sound with quiet image (SQIQ). Another group assessed products that combined noisy and quiet stimuli (SNIQ and SQIN). Each group evaluated 4 products (two kettles and two alarm clocks). The se‐
156
SENSORY DOMINANCE IN PRODUCT EXPERIENCE
quences in which products were presented were randomized between participants in such a way that products from the same category never followed each other.
FIGURE 7.3. IMAGES OF PRODUCTS USED IN THE MAIN STUDY
The experiment took place in a quiet room with natural lightning. One laptop com‐ puter with fixed visual and sound settings was used throughout the experiment. The experimenter first explained to the participants that they were about to see four different products and asked them to answer 5 evaluative questions for each product. After participants filled in their personal information, they clicked the “start” button, and the first product appeared on a 17" diagonal computer screen. Participants saw each product and heard the product sound for 10 seconds. After a couple of seconds the first question appeared below the image. The next question appeared automatically after the previous question was answered. For each prod‐ uct, participants assessed how noisy (lawaaierig, druk, and schreeuwerig), annoying (irritant) and pleasant (prettig) they found the product on a 10‐point scale (from “not at all” to “extremely”). In addition, spontaneous comments given by ipartic ‐ pants during the experiment were recorded.
157
CHAPTER 7
3.1.4. DATA ANALYSIS Of the four variants of each product, two were evaluated by one group of participants, while the other two were evaluated by another group. As a consequence, some of these effects could be tested using within‐participants comparisons, while the others should be tested using between‐participants comparisons. Due to the particular design of the study, ANOVA F‐tests were hard to interpret. Therefore, we used T‐tests only.
3.2. RESULTS On the noisiness rating (lawaaierig), the two alarm clocks with noisy sound were assessed as noisier than the two alarm clocks with quiet sound (T (SNIQ – SQIQ) = 7.0, p = 0.001; T (SNIN – SQIN) = 4.2; p = 0.002). For kettles, only the noisiness of the product with noisy sound and quiet image was significantly higher than the noisiness of the product with quiet sound and noisy image (T (SNIQ – SQIN) = 2.3; p = 0.03). For kettles, the differences between the two products with the same image and different sounds were not significant. Overall, these results suggest that the overall noisiness of both products (lawaaierigheid) depends on sound; it is not in‐ fluenced by the visual noisiness.
The pattern of annoyance ratings roughly matched the noisiness ratings for both products (see Figure 7.4). The pleasantness ratings for alarm clocks showed the reversed pattern, although somewhat less pronounced: otw alarm clocks with quiet sound were assessed as more pleasant than two alarm clocks with noisy sounds. However, for kettles the only significant difference in pleasantness ratings was found between the unpleasant combination of noisy stimuli (SNIN) and the combi‐ nation of noisy sound and quiet image (SNIQ).
The ratings of product noisiness (lawaaierig) were positively correlated with the ratings of annoyance (irritant; 0.77 for alarm clocks and 0.69 for kettles) and nega‐ tively correlated with the ratings of pleasantness (prettig; ‐ 0.56 and ‐ 0.27 for both products, respectively). All correlations were significant at the 0.05 level (two‐ tailed). Noisiness (lawaaierig) was positively correlated with one of the two addi‐ tional noisiness measures (schreeuwerig; 0.37 and 0.35). The correlation between lawaaierig and the second noisiness measure (druk) was positive only for alarm clocks (0.40), but was not significant for kettles.
158
SENSORY DOMINANCE IN PRODUCT EXPERIENCE
Alarm clock Kettle **
10 ** 10 * 9 ** 9 8 ** 8 7 7
6 6
5 5
4 4
3 3
2 2 Noisy (Lawaaierig) Noisy (Lawaaierig) 1 1
0 0 Sound Noisy Sound Noisy Sound Calm Sound Calm Sound Noisy Sound Noisy Sound Calm Sound Calm Image Noisy Image Calm Image Noisy Image Calm Image Noisy Image Calm Image Noisy Image Calm
Alarm clock Kettle ** **
10 ** 10
9 ** 9 **
8 8
7 7
6 6
5 5
4 4
3 3
2 2 Annoying (irritant) 1 Annoying (Irritant) 1
0 0 Sound Noisy Sound Noisy Sound Calm Sound Calm Sound Noisy Sound Noisy Sound Calm Sound Calm Image Noisy Image Calm Image Noisy Image Calm Image Noisy Image Calm Image Noisy Image Calm
Alarm clock Kettle
** 10 10 ** 9 9 ** 8 8 ** 7 7
6 6
5 5
4 4
3 3
2 2 pleasant (prettig)
Pleasant (prettig) 1 1
0 0 Sound Noisy Sound Noisy Sound Calm Sound Calm Sound Noisy Sound Noisy Sound Calm Sound Calm Image Noisy Image Calm Image Noisy Image Calm Image Noisy Image Calm Image Noisy Image Calm
** Differences between means are significant at .01 level, * at .05 level (2‐tailed T‐test).
FIGURE 7.4. MEAN NOISINESS, PLEASANTNESS AND ANNOYANCE RATINGS FOR KETTLES AND ALARM CLOCKS (WITH SE).
159
CHAPTER 7
4. DISCUSSION
4.1. PRE‐STUDY
In agreement with previous studies, our sound pre‐study found a high correlation between noisiness and annoyance (Bowsher and Robinson, 1962; Griffiths and Langdon, 1968; Berglund et al., 1976). In addition, our pre‐study demonstrated that noisiness of a product sound depends on the sound frequency (high‐pitch sounds were experienced as noisier than low‐pitch sounds) and the complexity of the fre‐ quency spectrum (sounds with multiple frequencies were assessed as noisier than sounds with one dominant frequency). These results are in line with psycho‐ acoustical data (Kryter, 1966; Hellman, 1982; Takeshima et al., 1991). In our pre‐ study, rhythmical sounds were assessed as noisier than constant sounds. This cor‐ responds with other findings that sounds with marked rhythm are perceived as more annoying than random sounds (Northwood, 1963). We also found some differences in sound experience between products. For whis‐ tle kettles the mean noisiness ratings varied between 1.76 and 9.48, while for alarm clocks they varied between 4.76 and 8.24. In other words, even the most quiet alarm clock sound was assessed as quite noisy. It is possible to explain this result by a difference in meanings and associations attached to these two products. The sound of a whistling kettle may be associated with the pleasant experience of making tea, while the sound of an alarm clock is typically associated with the un‐ pleasant experience of waking up early in the morning. These associations may influence the experience of noisiness and annoyance of product sounds. The results of the visual pre‐study demonstrate that noisiness of an image depends on the amount of elements and colors, regularity, symmetry and clutter in the vis‐ ual pattern. These findings correspond to the existing data on perceived visual complexity (Feldman, 1997; Palmer, 1999; van der Helm, 2000; Heaps and Handel, 1999; Oliva & Torrabla, 2001). For both products we found strong positive correlations between noisiness and annoyance. The correlation between noisiness and pleasantness was negative. Studies in experimental aesthetics generally tend to show that medium levels of visual complexity are perceived as pleasant, while low and high levels are perceived as unpleasant (Berlyne, 1971). In our pre‐study the mean noisiness for visual pat‐ terns varied from 3.05 to 7.17 for kettles and from 3.30 to 6.80 for alarm clocks.
160
SENSORY DOMINANCE IN PRODUCT EXPERIENCE
The negative correlation between noisiness and pleasantness may suggest that our visual stimuli varied in the range of medium to high complexity. In our pre‐study the link between visual noisiness and visual complexity was as‐ sumed, but not tested experimentally. Further research is needed to systematically investigate this relationship. For this research we suggest to select a broader range of stimuli, so that the ratings are not limited to the noisy/complex pole of the scale. This will give researchers the possibility to find out whether the relation between noisiness and pleasantness follows the bell‐shaped curve pattern similar to the re‐ lation between complexity and pleasantness (Berlyne, 1971; Messinger, 1998).
4.2. MAIN STUDY
The results of the main study demonstrated that the overall experience of noisiness (lawaaierig) was influenced mainly by the sound for both alarm clocks and kettles. The annoyance rating for both products was also dominated by sound, while the contribution of the visual pattern was not significant. The ratings of pleasantness for the alarm clock were also dominated by sound. For the kettle, however, there were not enough significant differences in mean pleasantness ratings. The differences between the two products in our study can be explained by the choice of stimuli for the main experiment. The differences between the noisy and quiet stimuli chosen for kettles (2.0 for sounds and 2.31 for images) were less prominent than the noisiness differences between the alarm clock stimuli (3.19 for sounds and 3.50 for images). This can explain why in the main study the effect of sound was more pronounced for alarm clocks than for kettles. Spontaneous comments made by participants during the experiment indicated that both alarm clock sounds were quite irritating. Several participants asked to stop the sound; others commented that they always found alarm clocks annoying. On the other hand, the cheerful visual patterns that had been chosen for kettles were perceived as pleasant by most participants. Several participants commented: “What a nice kettle!”
4.3. GENERAL DISCUSSION
Product experience can be defined as “the awareness of the psychological effects elicited by the interaction with a product, including the degree to which all our
161
CHAPTER 7
senses are stimulated, the meanings and values we attach to the product, and the feelings and emotions that are elicited” (Hekkert & Schifferstein, 2008, p.2). In this study, noisiness was analyzed as the multisensory product experience that inte‐ grated auditory and visual sensory perceptions and evoked affective reactions (an‐ noyance and unpleasantness). Many perceptual (or sensory) adjectives, such as sharp, dull (touch), sweet, sour (taste), loud, and quiet (sound), extend their meaning from one basic or prototypi‐ cal sense modality to one or more secondary modalities (Ullmann, 1957; Williams, 1976). For instance, Sweetser (1990) argues that the connection between different meanings of sensory words is metaphorical in nature. When we analyze multisensory experiences such as “noisy”, it is difficult to deter‐ mine which meaning of the word is literal and which is metaphorical, because both meanings may refer to basic perceptual processes. For example, Rakova (2003) argues that synaesthetic and double‐function adjectives (such as ‘bright’ and ‘sharp’) are literal rather than metaphorical because all meanings of such adjectives refer to the same psychologically primitive concept. For example, both tactile and gustatory meanings of the term ‘hot’ are literal. It does not seem right to say that thermal heat is more primary thand foo spiciness, because virtually the same neu‐ ral mechanisms underlie the perception of thermal heat and spicy heat. Other au‐ thors (e.g. Nogales, 2007) argue that a sharp sound is metaphorically related to a sharp knife because of a particular shared property. Specifically, the sharp sound plays the same role with silence and human ears as the sharp knife plays with bread and cheese.
In the case of “noisy”, complexity can be a property that is shared by auditory and visual noisiness. Complexity in the auditory modality refers to the presence of dif‐ ferent frequencies and to phases that are not systematically related to each other. The ultimate auditory complexity is “white noise” that contains all frequencies. Complexity in the visual modality refers to the large amount of different elements, colors, and textures that are put together without any regularity and symmetry. Complexity may not be the only property common to visual and auditory noisiness. A high frequency sound and a pure bright color are not complex, but they can be perceived as quite noisy. And vice versa, a painting or a piece of music can be per‐ ceived as complex but not noisy.
Lehrer (1978) suggests that the transfer of meaning in adjectives is mainly based on the general experiential dimensions of intensity and evaluation. It is possible that
162
SENSORY DOMINANCE IN PRODUCT EXPERIENCE
noisiness refers to certain sensory properties (such as pitch, hue, intensity, loud‐ ness, brightness, etc.) that are perceived as unpleasant, because they attract automatic attention and distract people from their normal activity. It is also possi‐ ble that they are experienced as unpleasant because they evoke arousal that ex‐ ceeds the optimum arousal level (Berlin, 1971). The correlation between auditory noisiness and annoyance is widely documented (Bowsher and Robinson, 1962; Griffiths and Langdon, 1968; Berglund et al., 1976; Schultz, 1978) and was supported by our findings. We also found correlation be‐ tween visual noisiness and annoyance. Nevertheless, noisiness is not necessarily a negative experience. If we look at the language differences, we can find some posi‐ tive connotations with noise. In English there is no special verb to indicate an activ‐ ity of making noise, but such verbs exist in German (rauschen), French (bruire), and Russian (шуметь). They are used mostly to indicate the sounds of nature (e.g., trees, water), of happy crowds of people (e.g., an outdoor festival, a ball, a party), of playing children, etc. All these situations refer to the positive meaning of noise‐ making. This suggests that the correlations between noisiness, annoyance and un‐ pleasantness mayt no be universal.
Since sensory connotations of English and Dutch terms for noisiness are different, product experiences of noisiness might also differ between participants who speak different languages. In recent years, many studies have claimed experimental evi‐ dence that language has an important influence on cognitive processing of sensory information (Levinson, 2003; Li and Gleitman, 2002; Robertson et al., 2000; Gordon, 2004; Núñez and Sweetser, 2006). Although in our study we found high positive correlations between Dutch synonyms of noisiness (such as lawaaierig, druk, schreeuwerig, and luidruchtig), our results might have been different if we had used any of these synonyms, because their exact meanings differ. Further cross‐cultural and cross‐language research is needed into the relationships be‐ tween the various noisiness synonyms, between noisiness and complexity, and into the relationships between noisiness, annoyance and unpleasantness in different product‐usage situations. Such research can clarify the experiential basis and metaphorical meaning of noisiness and help designers to create products with more pleasurable sensory properties.
163
CHAPTER 8 DISCUSSION
The studies reported in this thesis aimed at understanding perceptual mechanisms of sensory integration in product experience. In the following chapter we will dis‐ cuss our general findings, theoretical problems of the research, perspectives for future research, and the implications of our findings for industrial design and prod‐ uct development.
1. GENERAL FINDINGS
In the previous chapters we described several studies that addressed the problem of sensory dominance from various angles. We have demonstrated that the impor‐ tance of particular sensory product experiences depend on the type of product and experience, the stage of user‐product interaction, and the language that is used to conceptualize and communicate the experience. These findings demonstrate that the concept of sensory dominance is multilayered and can be addressed at differ‐ ent levels.
165
DISCUSSION
1.1. SENSORY DOMINANCE
In the Introduction we mentioned that sensory dominance can manifest itself in two variants. When a perceptual conflict takes place between two or more sensory modalities, different outcomes can follow: (1) a person may ignore the information of one modality and rely entirely on the others, in which case one modality really dominates the other ones; (2) the data from different modalities can be taken into account to some extent, resulting in some kind of intermediate percept. The ex‐ perimental studies described in Chapters 5, 6, and 7 illustrate both variants. For the experiences of freshness and noisiness, the data demonstrate the total dominance of one modality (olfaction in case of freshness, audition in case of noisiness), while visual information did not influence the experience ratings. In the experiment on warmth the two modalities (vision and touch) contributed about equally to the experience ratings. Various psychological mechanisms may determine which modality dominates and to what extent. Our findings suggest that for products for which a certain experi‐ ence is not important (e.g., freshness for candles), the effect of modality domi‐ nance is not as pronounced as for products for which the same experience is very important (e.g., freshness for soft drinks and dishwashing liquids). These results may be explained by mechanisms of selective attention, which allow people to concentrate on particular events of interest and importance in their environment. Research has shown that people can direct their selective attention to a particular sense (e.g., Spence et al, 2001), which can facilitate the perception of stimuli in that modality if it is important for a particular product property. When a certain sensory property is not important (e.g., smell for candles), attention may be diverted to another sensory modality or divided simultaneously between several senses. This may explain the differences in sensory integration effects between products.
Furthermore, modality importance reported in questionnaire studies may deviate from modality importance found in experimental research, in which participants are unaware of experimental manipulations. For instance, in case of warmth, ques‐ tionnaire data indicated the dominance of touch, while experimental data demon‐ strated equal impact of vision and touch on the experience of warmth. This sug‐ gests that people may be unaware of the relative influence of various sensory stimuli on their overall product experience.
166
SENSORY DOMINANCE IN PRODUCT EXPERIENCE
1.2. DYNAMICS OF SENSORY DOMINANCE
In the studies described in Chapters 2 and 3 we investigated the temporal changes in sensory modality importance in product experience. The first study used ques‐ tionnaire methodology and a wide range of products. The results of this study indi‐ cate that vision is dominant at the buying stage, while other modalities become important at later stages. Which modality will dominate at later stages of product usage probably depends on the main product functions, characteristics of user‐ product interactions, and the frequency with which a certain sensory modality is involved in product use. The second study, which employed an experimental methodology, confirmed the leading role of vision at the buying stage. However, when people were asked about the importance of various modalities in the buying situation, they also mentioned the importance of sensations which they could not actually experience at that moment (e.g., taste). This suggests that certain sensory properties (such as the taste of food) may be taken into account on the basis of memory and imagination; people do not necessarily need to experience these sensations in order to be able to judge their importance. On the other hand, this research also suggests that actual sensory ex‐ periences with the product (e.g., the liking for a flavor of food) do not automatically change negative attitudes toward certain product groups (such as dehydrated food).
This research indicates that relationships between sensory experiences, affective reactions and cognitive attitudes toward products may differ between sensory mo‐ dalities. We suggest that visual and auditory experiences may be more closely con‐ nected to cognitive processes, while touch, olfaction and taste may be more strongly associated with affective processes. These differences may have an impact on the overall product experience. For instance, vision may be dominant in situa‐ tions that involve cognitive tasks and rational decisions, while touch and olfaction may be dominant in situations that involve affective judgments.
1.3. THE ROLE OF LANGUAGE
In the study described in Chapter 4 we investigated the importance of sensory mo‐ dalities for various descriptors of product experience. The results showed that for the affective descriptors of product experience (pleasant‐unpleasant, good‐bad) all modalities were equally important. Symbolic descriptors (such as modern, expen‐ sive, or feminine) tended to be multisensory, but most of them demonstrated vis‐ 167
DISCUSSION
ual dominance. Sensory descriptors (such as colorful, loud, or soft) typically showed dominance for the corresponding primary modality. In addition, they showed sig‐ nificant language differences. The possible reason for these differences is that sen‐ sory adjectives usually have several meanings. They can transfer their meaning to other sensory modalities (e.g., ‘sweet sound’, ‘warm color’) and to other psycho‐ logical domains (e.g., ‘hard decision’, ‘clear explanation’). Language differences between sensory descriptions can be explained by the fact that metaphorical meanings of sensory descriptors differ between the languages. These findings make us wonder to what extent our experience is actually embodied in language. Can the words we use to describe our experience actually influence what we feel or think, or what we see or smell? The phenomenological tradition emphasizes the exceptionally important role of language in human experience. Dilthey (1985) argues that language can be seen as a linguistic map that names the possibilities of human experiences. In phenomenological philosophy, human ex‐ perience is seen as essentially linguistic, and language is understood not as a thing people create and possess but as the ongoing origination of meaning (Gadamer, 1975). Merleau‐Ponty (1973) argues that speech is not the clothing of thought, rather it is; its body speech does not simply transmit thought, rather it accom‐ plishes, or completes, it. "Understood in this way, human being would be bespoken by language" (Heidegger, 1971, p. 192). The socio‐cultural theory of thought (Vy‐ gotsky, 1986) shares the view of language as the central mechanism of thinking. In the Vygotskyan theory, the first speech of the child is a form of social interaction, which later acquires a second function; social speech turns into inner speech, which becomes a means for cognitive self‐regulation, a vehicle for thinking. A proposal of linguistic relativity emphasizes a distinctive role of language in inter‐ preting experience and influencing thought (Gumperz and Levinson, 1996). Whorf (1956) proposed that the categories of each language determine a way of perceiv‐ ing, analyzing, and acting in the world. In recent years, extensive research has demonstrated language influence on the experience of space (Levinson, 1996), color (Kay and Kempton, 1984; Robertson et al., 2000), number (Gordon, 2004), and time (Boroditsky, 2001; Núñez and Sweetser, 2006).
However, the emphasis on language limits the area of experience to phenomena that can be consciously processed and verbally reported. However, experience is not easily captured in language; it is always more immediate, more enigmatic, more complex, more ambiguous than any description can do justice to. Some com‐ ponents of experience may be more difficult to verbalize than others. For instance, Izard (2009) argues that feeling an emotion does not guarantee that it will be la‐ 168
SENSORY DOMINANCE IN PRODUCT EXPERIENCE
beled, articulated, or sensed in reflective consciousness or at a high level of aware‐ ness. The level of awareness of an emotion depends in part on its intensity and expression, and in part on labeling, articulating, and acknowledging the emotional experience. Infants experience and express basic emotions long before they ac‐ quire language (Izard et al., 1995). Moreover, acquiring language does not guaran‐ tee that affective experiences can always be identified and communicated verbally. Even adults have great difficulty articulating a precise description of their feelings (cf. Langer, 1967/1982).
Olfactory sensations represent another example of experience that is difficult to verbalize. Humans are very good at detecting an odorant but are poor at naming it (Yeshurun and Sobel, 2010). For instance, the odorant ethylmercaptan, which is often added to propane as a warning agent, can be detected at concentrations be‐ low 1 part per billion (ppb), which is equivalent to approximately three drops of odorant within an Olympic‐size swimming pool (Whisman et al., 1978). At the same time, people are unable to name by smell at least 50% of the odorous household items they use daily (Cain, 1979; de Wijk et al., 1995; Lawless & Engen, 1977). In our interview research, visual and tactile properties of products were reported more often than auditory and olfactory/gustatory properties. In Schifferstein’s (2006) questionnaire study of sensory modalities importance, effects of smell and audition on product experience were also rated low. These results may reflect the differences in availability of specific vocabulary for various sensory modalities. To understand product experience, we need to use language. Although verbal self‐ reports are the main source of data in research on experience (Barrett et al., 2007; Russell, 2003), the relevance of these data may be different for different compo‐ nents of experience. For instance, affective components of experience, as well as some of sensory components (such as olfaction) are especially difficult to put into words. To investigate these experiences, we need to supplement verbal self‐ reports with non‐verbal measurements.
2. THEORETICAL PROBLEMS
As a starting point of our research we used the definition of product experience as “the awareness of the psychological effects elicited by the interaction with a prod‐ uct, including the degree to which all our senses are stimulated, the meanings and values we attach to the product, and the feelings and emotions that are elicited” (Hekkert & Schifferstein, 2008, p.2). This definition emphasizes the intrinsically 169
DISCUSSION
conscious character of experience and distinguishes between three main compo‐ nents: sensory, symbolic and affective experiences. Throughout our research, we repeatedly encountered phenomena that were diffi‐ cult to describe using this theoretical model. Below we will discuss how the results of our studies illustrate two main theoretical problems of product experience:) (1 the degree of awareness in product experience, and (2) the relationships between sensory, symbolic, and affective components of product experience.
2.1. THE PROBLEM OF AWARENESS IN PRODUCT EXPERIENCE
Experiential phenomena are conscious by definition, but experiences of different sensory modalities may have different degrees of awareness. The degree of aware‐ ness of a specific sensory property may depend on selective attention that is paid to this property, which in turn may depend on the importance of this property for a particular product. For example, people may pay more attention to olfactory prop‐ erties of food and cleaning products than to the smell of home decoration products (such as candles), because they find freshness more important for food and clean‐ ing products than for other product groups.
The awareness of product experience may be represented as the flow of con‐ sciousness as it was first described by the pioneers of scientific psychology, Wilhelm Wundt and William James. According to Wundt, consciousness is a func‐ tion of the scope of attention, which may either actively focus on a perceived rep‐ resentation or passively find certain representations suddenly thrusting themselves into the center of attention (Wundt, 1874, p. 267; 562). Attention may be under‐ stood in terms of the differing degrees to which representations are present in consciousness. Wundt appeals to an analogy with the field of vision:
If we say that the representations present at a particular moment are in con‐ sciousness's field of vision, then that part of the field upon which our attention is turned may be called the inner focal point of vision. The entry of a represen‐ tation into the field of inner vision we call “perception,” and its entry into the focal point of vision we call “apperception” (Wundt, 1874, p. 267).
For James, our capacity for attention to one thing rather than another is the sign of an “active element in consciousness” (James, 1890, p. 285). Modern psycholo‐ gists often link selective attention to the affective processes, which are necessary
170
SENSORY DOMINANCE IN PRODUCT EXPERIENCE
for the simplest forms of exploration and learning as well as for higher‐order cognition and organized behavior (i.e., Izard, 2009). Affective mechanisms play a crucial role in selecting relevant sensory information from the outside world and combining it into meaningful experience (Frijda, 2006; Russell, 2003). They can enhance sensory processing, so that a person can efficiently assess the relevance or value of the stimulus, thereby influencing which contents are experienced in the moment and which are more likely to be stored in long‐term memory (Edel‐ man & Tononi, 2000). Another explanation for different degrees of awareness is the availability of verbal descriptions. For example, most respondents found it difficult to describe their ol‐ factory experiences. The fact that linguistic categories of visual experiences are much richer and more elaborated in Western languages could explain why descrip‐ tions of other sensory experiences are less common (Hinton and Henley, 1993). Nonetheless, Izard argues that the lack of linguistic accessibility does not automati‐ cally make an experience unconscious. He gives an example of “a feeling that you know you are experiencing but cannot specifically identify or describe” (Izard, 2009, p.16). Inability to put the feeling into words bars it from linguistic accessibil‐ ity, butt no from phenomenal consciousness and various levels of awareness. A feeling in phenomenal and other nonlinguistic levels of consciousness retains its properties, including its power to motivate and regulate cognition and action. Such nonlinguistic levels of consciousness may explain well‐known examples of influence of smell on product liking and yqualit judgments, of which people seem to be un‐ aware (Larid, 1932; Demattè et al., 2006).
A vast amount of the processes in the brain and the rest of the body (blood circula‐ tion, digestion) usually do occur without any awareness. Self‐reports are often not useful to explain why people experience what they do, because people are not aware of the causal processes that influence their experience (Nisbett & Wilson, 1977; Wilson & Dunn, 2004). For instance, people are usually unaware of percep‐ tual mechanisms underlying their multisensory experience. Illusions that demon‐ strate visual dominance over audition in multisensory speech perception, such as the McGurk effect (McGurk and MacDonald, 1976) and the ventriloquism effect (e.g., Bertelson, 1999), are experienced automatically and depend neither on the direction of selective attention nor on the knowledge of the illusion (Vroomen et al., 2001). People can be mistaken in their assessment of the relative contribution of different senses to a product experience, as illustrated by our experiment on the multisen‐ 171
DISCUSSION
sory integration in the experience of warmth: participants believed that their judgments of warmth were dominated by tactile properties, while experimental findings suggest that vision plays an equally important role in the experience of warmth in products. Although there is considerable agreement on the psychological processes that are accessible to consciousness, there is no consensus on the contents and processes of the unconscious (Bargh & Morsella, 2008). Izard (2009) argues that dividing all mental processes into two domains —conscious and unconscious — might be the greatest oversimplification in current psychological science. In the context of product experience, it might be useful to differentiate between three types of unconscious phenomena: (1) pre‐conscious experiences that are not deliberately attended to and therefore represent a periphery of consciousness, but can be accessed in principle; (2) experiences that are difficult to report, because of the lack of accessible verbal descriptions; and (3) automatic mental processes (such as mechanisms of multisensory integration) that are not, under any circumstances, accessible to introspection. Clearly, these three types of unconscious phenomena require different methods of investigation. In the first case, attention variables can be manipulated experimentally (i.e., Spence & Dryver, 2004). In the second case, it is possible to nuse no ‐verbal measurements of experience, such as facial expres‐ sions (Ekman & Friesen, 1978) or physiological activation (Cacioppo et al., 1993). In the third case, traditional experimental methods can be supplemented by new neurobiological methods (Damasio, 1999; leDoux, 2000), including neuroimaging (fMRI and PET) research (Murphy et al., 2003; Phan et al., 2002).
2.2. INTERACTIONS BETWEEN DIFFERENT COMPONENTS OF PRODUCT EXPERIENCE
This thesis is focused on sensory properties of products, which represent the most ‘objective’ component of product experience. Indeed, whether we like it or not, we smell the food while cooking it, hear the sound of a vacuum cleaner while cleaning a room, and feel the bumps of the road while driving. Sensory experiences tie us to the material world and to the objects that make up our environment. Nevertheless, our findings suggest that sensory experiences are not immune to the subjectivity of our emotions and beliefs.
172
SENSORY DOMINANCE IN PRODUCT EXPERIENCE
2.2.1. INTERACTIONS BETWEEN SENSORY AND AFFECTIVE EXPERIENCES
The results of our experimental research on warmth, freshness, and noisiness sug‐ gest that sensory product experiences have affective components. We found strong correlations between freshness and pleasantness of visual and olfactory stimuli and between noisiness and annoyance of auditory and visual stimuli. The suitability of a certain sensory aspect for a product may influence this relationship. For example, fruity smells were chosen more often as ‘fresh’ for a softdrink, and the floral smell was judged as the most ‘fresh’ for a dishwashing liquid. Respon‐ dents commented that fruit smells seemed more ‘nice’ and suitable for a softdrink, while the floral smell was ‘strong’ and ‘pleasant’ and suitable for a dishwashing liquid. In some cases, respondents may have confused sensory and affective ex‐ periences. For instance, fleece scored higher than wool on the scale of ‘warmth’ for a scarf, because ‘it does not irritate your skin’. Affective properties of sensations were already noticed by early experimental psy‐ chologists. According to Wundt, elementary (or pure) sensations display three com‐ ponents: quality, intensity, and affective tone (Wundt, 1874, p. 282‐283). Modern psychologists also suggest that an affective tone can be experienced as a property of the external world rather than as the person’s reaction to it (Barrett et al., 2007). Indeed, we experience some people as nice and others as mean, some foods as deli‐ cious and others as distasteful, some pictures as beautiful and others as ugly.
The impact of sensory stimuli on affective experience was also reported in empiri‐ cal studies on consumer behavior. The classic research in this domain is Zajonc and colleagues’ investigation of mere exposure, where simply being exposed to a stimu‐ lus leads to more positive affective reactions (Kunst‐Wilson & Zajonc, 1980; Zajonc, 1968) due to familiarity (Whittlesea, 1993). Consumer studies also find a positive relationship between typicality of an object (or similarity to other members of a category) and affective evaluation of this object. In general, more typical objects are liked better (Carpenter & Nakamoto, 1996; Simonin & Ruth, 1998; Veryzer & Hutchinson, 1998; Zhang & Sood; 2002).
Berlyne (1970) considered whether stimulus complexity mediates favorable judg‐ ments of novel or familiar objects. Other structural sensory variables that were reported to influence affective judgments include symmetry (Frith & Nias, 1974) and other principles of good gestalts (Arnheim, 1954).
In our studies on multisensory integration, positive correlations between sensory (warm, noisy) and affective (pleasant, annoying) ratings were found mainly for sin‐ 173
DISCUSSION
gle modality stimuli (colors, smells, sounds, etc.). When these stimuli were com‐ bined in real products, correlations with affective judgments were found only for noisiness, but not for warmth and freshness. These findings suggest that simple one‐to‐one correspondences between sensory and affective experiences may exist only for stimuli created in a laboratory. When sensory stimuli are experienced as properties of real, complex products, situational variables and symbolic meaning of products may influence affective reactions. For instance, in Chapter 6 the least fresh combination of color (purple) and smell (vanilla) was assessed as the most pleasant for the dishwashing liquid, probably because the dishwashing liquid is a boring product, and users appreciate some newness and surprise in it.
2.2.2. INTERACTIONS BETWEEN SENSORY AND SYMBOLIC EXPERIENCES
Our findings demonstrate that sensory product experiences can be influenced by the symbolic meanings people apply to products. For instance, red and yellow are usually perceived as warm colors, while blue and green are perceived as cold colors (Wright, 1962). However, in our study green scarves were rated higher on warmth than yellow scarves. Participants commented that yellow is ‘too bright and more suitable for a spring scarf’, while green is ‘darker and more suitable for a warm winter scarf’.
Furthermore, in the study on noisiness of alarm clocks and whistle kettles, we found differences in sound experience between products. While mean noisiness ratings for whistle kettles varied depending on sound frequency and complexity, all alarm clock sounds were assessed as quite noisy. This result may be explained by a difference in meanings and associations attached to these two products. The sound of a whistling kettle may be associated with the pleasant experience of making tea, while the sound of an alarm clock is typically associated with the unpleasant ex‐ perience of waking up early in the morning. These memories might influence the experience of noisiness of product sounds.
The results of our study on naturalness dynamics in a dehydrated food product suggest that mere visual exposure to the product may activate users’ cognitive atti‐ tudes and beliefs about the product, while other senses, such as smell and taste, may trigger mainly affective reactions. In spite of the positive sensory experiences and emotions during cooking and eating the product, most participants did not change their pre‐existing attitudes about the dehydrated food. In a re‐purchase situation their negative cognitive attitudes towards this product group were acti‐
174
SENSORY DOMINANCE IN PRODUCT EXPERIENCE
vated again by the visual images of products, while previous positive sensory ex‐ periences were ignored. Consumer studies also demonstrate that cognitive processes (concepts, attitudes, ideas) can influence affective and sensory product experiences. In one of the classic studies (Allison & Uhl, 1964), consumers who drank beer with visible brands judged those beers as highly variable in taste, whereas consumers who drank unbranded beers tended to rate them all as tasting similar. In addition, consumers tended to prefer the beer with their favorite label. In a recent investigation, Lee et al. (2006) asked participants to drink a glass of a commercially available beer and a glass of ‘MIT brew,’ which consisted of the same beer with the addition of one ingredient — balsamic vinegar. Before people learned that the MIT brew had vinegar, they liked the beer just fine. But when they knew about the vinegar, the beer was per‐ ceived as repulsive.
The impact of cognitive beliefs and expectations on preferences is powerful enough to be observed in brain imaging studies. McClure et al. (2004), for example, asked participants who preferred Coke to Pepsi to drink Coke and Pepsi; participants pre‐ ferred Coke, but only when they knew it was Coke. The analysis of fMRI images revealed that these preferences were reflected by recruitment of brain areas in‐ volved in the processing of reward. In a similar investigation, Plassmann et al. (2008) asked participants to taste one wine several times but told them that the wine was either cheap or expensive. Consumption of ‘higher‐priced’ wines was related to greater recruitment of reward circuitry in the brain. In a field study, Shiv et al. (2005) showed that people who had caught colds rated their cold remedies as more effective if they had paid full price for them. Another investigation demon‐ strated similar placebo effects for analgesics pills: Participants who were told the pill had been discounted were unable to tolerate as much physical pain as those who were told the pill was not discounted (Waber et al., 2008).
Taken together, these studies suggest that preconceptions and ideas about prod‐ ucts may modify affective and sensory components of product experience. The taste of beer, wine and Coke, as well as the feeling of physical pain, can be affected by price and brand information. Sensory experiences (such as noisiness) can be affected by pleasant and unpleasant memories associated with products (whistle kettles and alarm clocks). Furthermore, negative cognitive attitudes toward some
175
DISCUSSION
product groups (such as a dehydrated food) may prevent people from appreciating their sensory properties (such as good taste and smell).
All these examples demonstrate the complex interactions between sensory, affec‐ tive and cognitive components of product experience, which cannot be easily sepa‐ rated and investigated independently. In a continuously changing stream of con‐ sciousness, different sensory properties of products such as color, shape, sound, smell, as well as affective and cognitive contents like beliefs, memories and emo‐ tions, bind together into a single experience (Barrett et al., 2006). Therefore, it is important for a theoretical model of product experience to take into account the integrative processes that bind together information from different sensory mo‐ dalities with affective reactions and higher order cognitive processes.
3. PERSPECTIVES FOR FUTURE RESEARCH
3.1. HOW ARE SENSORY AND AFFECTIVE PRODUCT EXPERIENCES RELATED?
In product design, it is important to promote positive, pleasurable product experi‐ ences and to prevent frustration, pain, and stress associated with product usage (Hancock et al., 2005). Traditionally, designers have been concentrating on pre‐ venting bad things from happening during product usage, but recently they have started paying more and more attention to creating pleasurable products (Jordan, 2000), exciting product experiences (Norman, 2004; Desmet, 2002), and enjoyable product‐user interactions (Han & Hong, 2003; Helander & Tham, 2003; Khalid, 2004; Krippendorff, 2004; Liu, 2003).
An interesting avenue of investigation is to look at the relative contribution of stimuli of various sensory modalities to the affective product experience. Multiple data point to the differences between sensory modalities in respect to their ability to produce strong affective reactions. Researchers argue that touch (Hollins, 2010) and olfaction (Yeshurun & Sobel, 2010) are more closely connected to emotions than vision and audition. It might be interesting to compare the relative influence of sensory properties of various modalities on affective product experience using experimental methodology with systematic variable manipulations.
176
SENSORY DOMINANCE IN PRODUCT EXPERIENCE
The idea of one‐to‐one correspondences between sensory attributes of products and users’ affective reactions seems very tempting. Various researchers (e.g., Norman, 2004; Hanckock et al., 2005) have created lists of attributes that could make users' experiences of products and services enjoyable, pleasurable, and fun. Some examples of attributes that induce positive affect are smiling faces; warmth; comfort; sweet tastes; pleasant smells; bright and highly saturated hues; harmonious music and sounds; rhythmic beats; symmetrical, round, smooth shapes. Attributes that induce negative affect include darkness; harsh, abrupt sounds; startling noises; bitter tastes; sharp objects; rotting smells; decaying foods; sudden, bright lights; extreme tempera‐ tures. However, some researchers point out that empirical studies are needed to link these attributes to experience (Murphy, Stanney, & Hancock, 2003). The studies in Chapters 5, 6 and 7 demonstrate that, although correspondences between sensory stimuli and affective reactions can be found within one sensory modality, they can not predict the affective reactions to the combinations of stimuli in real products (see also Schifferstein et al., 2010). Probably, affective experiences are more dependent on the combinations of stimuli used and their degree of (in)congruence than sensory experiences. Future research is needed into sensory‐ affective correspondences, which may concentrate on complex multisensory stim‐ uli and look at such variables as consistency/inconsistency or congru‐ ence/incongruence of sensory product properties (Schifferstein & Verlegh, 1996; Ludden et al., 2007).
3.2. HOW ARE SENSORY AND SYMBOLIC PRODUCT EXPERIENCES RELATED?
No matter how pleasant and enjoyable sensory properties of a product are, the decision to buy and use the product might be influenced by people’s attitudes, be‐ liefs and values (Wood, 1995, Mennel, et al., 1992). For instance, the dynamics of the naturalness experience in dehydrated food demonstrates that people may ig‐ nore positive gustatory and olfactory experiences if they have strong pre‐existing ideas about the naturalness of the product. Another striking example of an ‘ideo‐ logical’ influence on sensory experience is reported by Annemarie Mol:
“Let me tell you, I don’t like Granny Smiths. In the late 1970s and early 1980s we (my political friends and myself) invested a lot in disliking Granny Smiths. At the time they were always imported from Chile, and thus stained with the 177
DISCUSSION
blood spilled by Pinochet and his men. Once Pinochet had gone, it turned out to be difficult to re‐educate my taste. It should be possible, but so far I have not succeeded. Yes, I can eat a Granny Smith apple: bite, chew, swallow, gone. But it does not give me pleasure” (Mol, 2008, p.29).
In future research it might be interesting to investigate the complex relationships between sensory experience and symbolic product properties. What sensory in‐ formation is used to form specific product attitudes? How can these attitudes be changed? Our findings suggest that it may be difficult to modify beliefs based on sensory experience of olfaction and taste, probably because these modalities are more strongly associated with emotions than with cognitive processes. Experimen‐ tal data suggest that vision and audition are the two sensory modalities that are most closely connected to rational thinking (Goodale & Humphrey, 1998; Neisser, 1994; Paivio, 2006). In addition, in our study of verbal descriptions of product ex‐ perience, symbolic properties (such as modern, expensive, and natural) demon‐ strated strong visual dominance, while affective properties (such as pleasant, excit‐ ing, or boring) were equally related to all sensory modalities. Both for theoretical understanding of product experience andr fo the practice of product development, it is important to investigate the influence of the information from sensory modali‐ ties on the formation and change of attitudes towards different product groups.
3.3. SENSORY METAPHORS IN PRODUCT EXPERIENCE In empirical research, it is often difficult to make a distinction between sensory and symbolic components of product experience, because almost any sensory property of a product also has a figurative meaning. The color of a dress can be ‘loud’; the sound of music can be ‘sweet’, and so on. Sensory terms that describe physical properties of things (such as warm, cold, heavy, sweet, bitter, etc.) also describe psychological qualities. In future research, we could investigate the interaction be‐ tween sensory and symbolic product properties further, and we may determine how they contribute to the overall product experience. We suggest that future research may concentrate on language differences in sen‐ sory metaphors and employ a broad variety of languages. In cognitive linguistics, sensory metaphors (such as “knowledge is vision”, “understanding is grasping”) are viewed as fundamental to language, thought, and experience (Lakoff & Johnson, 1980, 1999; Sweetser, 1990). Most cognitive linguists assume t tha such basic metaphors are explicit representations of embodied cognitive structures. However, some scholars suggest that metaphors are not merely representative of universal 178
SENSORY DOMINANCE IN PRODUCT EXPERIENCE
body experience, but are tied to specific socio‐cultural cognition (Kimmel, 2006; Zlatev, 2006). Further research into cultural differences in sensory metaphors might help to resolve this theoretical argument. It might also help to understand cultural differences in product experience and to create products that are more closely tailored to various cultural groups of users.
3.4. INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES IN SENSORY EXPERIENCE
Recently, designers have been trying more and more to take into account individual differences between product users by employing technologies that allow customiza‐ tion and individuation of products (Hancock, 2003; MacDonald, 2003). In this respect, it might be interesting and useful to investigate individual differences in sensory in‐ formation processing. According to dual coding theory, individuals can be classified as visualizers versus verbalizers. Visualizers rely primarily on visual information when attempting to perform cognitive tasks, whereas verbalizers rely primarily on verbal‐ analytical strategies. Here is how Temple Grandin describes visual thinking: “Thinking in language and words is alien to me. I think totally in pictures. The process is like trying to figure out what the picture on a jig saw puzzle is, when only some of the pieces are put together. A piece is put on one corner and then another corner and after about one fourth of the pieces are in place, a person can tell that the puzzle has a picture of a house on it. When I think about abstract concepts, such as relationships with people, I use visual images, such as a sliding glass door. Relationships must be ap‐ proached gently because barging forward too quickly may shatter the door” (Grandin, 1995). These differences may determine the attention individuals pay to visual informa‐ tion in comparison to information from other sensory modalities. Consumer re‐ search has demonstrated that aesthetic judgments differ among individuals with different cognitive styles (Childers et al. 1985; Holbrook & Morris, 1986). For exam‐ ple, visualizers respond more sensitively to organic patterns and feature interac‐ tions, while verbalizers pay more attention to single stimuli and isolated details. These differences may also affect product experience. In future research, it would be interesting to investigate how people with different cognitive styles process information from various sensory modalities, and how this information affects their overall product experience. The results of this research may help designers to cus‐ tomize products and services for people with different cognitive styles.
179
DISCUSSION
4. IMPLICATIONS FOR DESIGNERS
When designers create new products, they manipulate physical properties of these products (material, shape, color, smell, etc.) in order to provide more pleasurable qualities for consumers. In our research we have demonstrated that although simple one‐to‐one correspon‐ dences may be found between single modality stimuli and affective experiences (pleasure and annoyance), it is much more difficult to predict the affective reactions to combinations of stimuli in real products. Therefore, in design practice it is impor‐ tant to bear in mind that the pleasantness of complex products may depend on other variables, such as the degree of congruence between the various sensory properties of products, and not on the pleasantness of the individual sensory property per se. Furthermore, our findings suggest that in order to create a long‐lasting positive product experience, designers need to consider user‐product interaction at differ‐ ent stages of product usage. When trying to create a pleasurable sensory experience, it is also important to take into account the symbolic meaning of products. As one of our studies demonstrated, positive sensory experiences can be ignored by consumers if these experiences con‐ tradict pre‐existing negative attitudes towards the product. This suggests that for creating a successful product it might not be enough to select sensory pleasurable properties and to integrate them into a congruent combination. The product also needs to communicate symbolic meaning that fits consumers’ beliefs and values. Interrelations between sensory experiences and symbolic product properties need to be investigated further. But our findings suggest that sensory product properties might be linked to symbolic properties through the metaphorical meaning of sensory adjectives. Communicating product experience through multiple sensory modalities may evoke different associations in different cultures. For designers involved in de‐ veloping products for various cultural groups, it may be useful to consider the sym‐ bolic associations of sensory product properties in different languages. Every year, industries spend huge amounts of time and money on product evalua‐ tion. For designers and product developers, it is vital to understand how products are experienced by users. This thesis provides insights into multisensory integration in product experience. Nevertheless, our findings are limited to specific experiences and product groups, and more research is needed to understand the relationships be‐ tween the sensory, affective, and symbolic components of product experience.
180
SUMMARY
People perceive the material world around them with their five senses. Information from different sensory modalities is integrated in the brain to create a stable and meaningful experience of objects, including industrial products that accompany us in our everyday life. Some of the sensory systems play a more important role in product experience than others. The aim of this research was to understand which sensory modalities are more important for specific product experiences, and how product experience can be influenced by various combinations of sensory stimuli in products. We investigated the relative importance of various sensory modalities at different stages of product usage, for specific product experiences (freshness, natu‐ ralness, warmth, and noisiness), and for different groups of users.
In the first two studies described in Chapters 2 and 3 we investigated dynamic as‐ pects of sensory dominance. In the first study the questionnaire approach was used. We asked participants to describe their experiences with products in various situations: while buying a product, after the first week, the first month, and the first year of usage. The data demonstrate that the dominant sensory modality de‐ pends on the period of product usage. At the moment of buying, vision is the most important modality, but during usage the other sensory modalities gain impor‐ tance. The roles of the different modalities during usage are product‐dependent. Averaged over 93 products analyzed in this study, after one month of usage touch becomes more important than vision, and after one year vision, touch and audition appear to be equally important. We conclude that to create a long‐lasting positive 181
SUMMARY
product experience, designers need to consider user‐product interaction at differ‐ ent stages of product usage and to determine which sensory modality dominates product experience at each stage. In the second study described in Chapter 3 we used an experimental approach to investigate how the sensory properties of a dehydrated vegetable dfoo product influence the experience of naturalness and emotional reactions at different stages of user‐product interaction. The results demonstrate that both emotional and sym‐ bolic experience (naturalness) change during product usage. At the buying stage, people pay most attention to visual properties of the food package. At the opening and cooking stages olfaction becomes as important as vision. At the eating stage taste becomes dominant. The importance of tactile properties increased at the eating stage, because the thickness of the food product constitutes one of the components of eating experience. The research demonstrates that different sensory experiences may have a different impact on the overall product assessment. At the buying stage, when vision is the main source of information about the product, people rely mainly on their pre‐ existing attitudes and beliefs about the product. When they have more opportuni‐ ties to use other senses (touch, smell, and taste), their assessment of the product relies more on the actual sensory experience. But the influence of these experi‐ ences on conscious attitudes towards the product may be limited, because tactile, olfactory and gustatory experiences are more difficult to verbalize and to recognize consciously than visual experiences.
Verbalization is an important component of product experience, because it allows people to recall their experience and to communicate it to others. People describe their product experiences using adjectives that can be divided in three groups: sen‐ sory descriptors (e.g., hard, red, noisy); symbolic descriptors (e.g., interesting, ex‐ pensive, modern); and affective descriptors (e.g., pleasant, beautiful). In the study described in Chapter 4 we developed a questionnaire approach to quantify the relative importance of the five sensory modalities for various descriptors of product experience. We suggested that modality importance may be influenced by lan‐ guage differences. To test this hypothesis we used two groups of participants, na‐ tive speakers of Dutch and Russian. The results demonstrate that the importance of a sensory modality differs for various groups of descriptors. Most symbolic descrip‐ tors demonstrate strong visual dominance. Affective descriptors are equally related to all sensory modalities. Sensory descriptors show significant cross‐cultural differ‐
182
SENSORY DOMINANCE IN PRODUCT EXPERIENCE
ences. The latter result can be explained by the different associations between lit‐ eral and metaphorical meanings of sensory adjectives in different languages. The validity of the questionnaire methodology in sensory dominance research is limited, because when people report their experience they may not be aware of all the sensory information ythe take into account. Some of the information may be processed subliminally, but still influence the assessment of the product. That is why in the three studies described in Chapters 5, 6, and 7 we used an experimental approach to investigate sensory dominance for three product experiences: fresh‐ ness, warmth, and noisiness. The design of each study contains the following steps. In a pre‐study, participants rate unisensory visual, tactual, auditory, or olfactory stimuli on a specific target experience dimension (e.g., warmth, freshness, noisi‐ ness). Subsequently, for each sensory dimension we select one stimulus pair that differs approximately to the same extent on this target dimension. In the main study, these stimuli are combined in all possible combinations, yielding a set of multisensory products, which are then evaluated by a new group of participants. Warmth is an important characteristic for clothes, home interior and some leisure related products. The experience of warmth has both a literal aspect, associated with the thermal characteristics of products, and a figurative aspect, associated with the metaphorical meaning of warmth (i.e., intimacy, coziness). Chapter 5 describes the experimental study aimed to determine the relative importance of material and color for the product experience of warmth. We designed products (scarves and breakfast tables) using warm and cold stimuli (colors and materials) in four different combina‐ tions and asked respondents to evaluate the warmth and pleasantness of each prod‐ uct. The results demonstrated that both color and material contribute equally to the judgments of warmth in both products. We also performed a follow‐up interview study to clarify the literal and figurative meanings people attach to warmth in the context of product usage. We found that the literal meaning is related to physical warmth and comfort, while the figurative meaning is associated with social interac‐ tion, intimacy and friendly atmosphere. eTh figurative meaning was mentioned more often in association with products than the literal meaning.
Freshness is important for food products, soft drinks, personal care products and cleaning products. Chapter 6 describes the experimental study on sensory domi‐ nance in the product experience of freshness. We created products (soft drinks, dishwashing liquids, and scented candles) using fresh and non‐fresh stimuli (colors and smells) in four different combinations and asked respondents to evaluate the freshness and pleasantness of each product. The results demonstrated that smell 183
SUMMARY
dominated the judgments of freshness for soft drinks and dishwashing liquids. However, for scented candles smell and color were equally important in determin‐ ing freshness. This suggests that the dominant sensory modality for the product experience of freshness depends on the characteristics of the particular product.
Product noisiness is a multisensory product experience that integrates auditory and visual components. In the study described in Chapter 7 we manipulated auditory and visual properties of alarm clocks and whistle kettles to find out to what extent the overall product noisiness depended on sounds these products made, or could be influenced by the visual appearance of the products. We created products com‐ bining noisy and quiet stimuli of both sensory modalities according to a full factorial design and asked participants to assess how noisy, pleasant and annoying they found these products. The results demonstrated that noisiness and annoyance of the products were generally dominated by the product sound. The noisiness of the sound had a negative influence on the overall pleasantness of the products. Sensory pleasure is an important component of product experience. In all three experiments the ratings of the target experiences (fresh, warm, and noisy) were compared with the ratings of affective experiences (pleasant and annoying). The correlations between noisiness and annoyance were found both for single stimuli and for the final products. However, the correlations between freshness and pleas‐ antness and between warmth and pleasantness were found only for single stimuli. There were no such correlations for the final products. These findings suggest that the pleasantness of a product could not always be predicted on the basis of the pleasantness attributed to its sensory components. Apparently, the combination of two pleasant stimuli does not guarantee the pleasantness of the final product.
In the final chapter of the thesis we discuss our general findings, theoretical chal‐ lenges emphasized in the research, perspectives for future research, and the impli‐ cations of our findings for industrial design and product development. Based on our own results and the analysis of the literature, we formulate two theoretical prob‐ lems that need to be addressed in future research: (1) the problem of awareness in product experience, and (2) the relationships between various components of product experience. We also suggest several topics for empirical investigation, in‐ cluding interactions between sensory, affective, and symbolic components of product experience, sensory metaphors in product experience, and individual dif‐ ferences in sensory information processing.
184
SENSORY DOMINANCE IN PRODUCT EXPERIENCE
Designing pleasurable products can enrich user satisfaction and contribute to the well‐being of people and society. While designing products, it is important for de‐ signers to be aware of the complex relationships between various sensory product properties. In this thesis we have demonstrated that the importance of sensory modalities may depend on the stage of user‐product interaction, on the specific experience that designers aim to induce, and on the language differences between users. Other factors (such as individual differences or situational variables) may also play a role in sensory dominance. Therefore, research on this topic should con‐ tinue in the future.
185
SAMENVATTING
Mensen ervaren de materiële wereld om zich heen met hun vijf zintuigen. Informa‐ tie van de verschillende sensorische modaliteiten wordt geïntegreerd in de herse‐ nen om een stabiele en betekenisvolle ervaring van objecten te creëren, met inbe‐ grip van industriële producten die ons omringen in ons dagelijks leven. Sommige zintuiglijke systemen spelen een belangrijkere rol in de productervaring dan ande‐ ren. Het doel van dit onderzoek was om te begrijpen welke sensorische modalitei‐ ten belangrijker zijn voor specifieke productervaringen, en hoe de productervaring kan worden beïnvloed door verschillende combinaties van zintuiglijke prikkels in producten. We onderzochten het relatieve belang van de verschillende zintuiglijke modaliteiten in verschillende stadia van het productgebruik, voor specifieke pro‐ ductervaringen (frisheid, natuurlijkheid, warmte en lawaaierigheid en voor verschil‐ lende groepen gebruikers.
In de eerste twee studies beschreven in hoofdstukken 2 en 3 hebben we de dyna‐ mische aspecten van de zintuiglijke dominantie onderzocht. In de eerste studie vroegen we deelnemers aan de hand van vragenlijsten om hun ervaringen te be‐ schrijven met producten in verschillende situaties: bij het kopen van een product, na de eerste week, de eerste maand, en het eerste jaar van gebruik. De gegevens tonen aan dat de dominante sensorische modaliteit afhankelijk is van de periode van gebruik van het product. Op het moment van aankoop is de visuele modaliteit het belangrijkst, maar tijdens het gebruik van het product winnen de andere zin‐ tuiglijke modaliteiten aan belang. De rollen van de verschillende modaliteiten zijn tijdens het gebruik productafhankelijk. Gemiddeld over 93 producten, vonden we
187
SAMENVATTING
dat na een maand tactiliteit belangrijker wordt dan visuele waarneming en dat na een jaar zien, voelen en horen even belangrijk lijken te zijn. We concluderen dat, om een langdurige positieve productervaring te creëren, ontwerpers genoodzaakt zijn de mens‐product interactie tijdens verschillende stadia van productgebruik te analyseren, om te bepalen welke sensorische modaliteit domineert in elke fase van het gebruik. In de tweede studie beschreven in hoofdstuk 3 hebben we gebruik gemaakt van een experimentele benadering om te onderzoeken hoe de sensorische eigenschap‐ pen van een voedingsmiddel (een gedroogd groenteproduct) de ervaring van na‐ tuurlijkheid en emotionele reacties beïnvloeden tijdens de verschillende fasen van de mens‐product interactie. De resultaten tonen aan dat zowel de emotionele als de symbolische ervaring (natuurlijkheid) veranderen tijdens het productgebruik. Tijdens het aankoopstadium besteedt men de meeste aandacht aan de visuele ei‐ genschappen van de verpakking. Tijdens het openen en bereiden van het product wordt de geur even belangrijk als de visuele eigenschappen. Tijdens het eten wordt smaak dominant. Het belang van de tactiele eigenschappen neemt toe tijdens het eten: de dikte van het product is een onderdeel van de gehele eetervaring.
Het onderzoek toont aan dat verschillende zintuiglijke ervaringen een verschillende uitwerking kunnen hebben op de totale productervaring. Tijdens de aankoopfase, wanneer het zicht de belangrijkste informatie geeft over het product, vertrouwen mensen vooral op hun reeds bestaande opvattingen en overtuigingen over het product. Wanneer er mogelijkheden zijn om andere zintuigen (tast, reuk, smaak) mee te nemen bij de beoordeling van een product, baseert men zich meer op de werkelijke zintuiglijke ervaring. Maar de invloed van deze ervaringen op de bewus‐ te houding ten opzichte van het product zijn beperkt, omdat tactiele, olfactorische en smaak ervaringen moeilijker onder woorden te brengen en bewust te herken‐ nen zijn dan visuele ervaringen.
Verbaliseren is een belangrijk onderdeel van de productervaring, omdat het men‐ sen in staat stelt om hun ervaring te herinneren en te communiceren naar anderen. Mensen beschrijven hun productervaringen met bijvoeglijke naamwoorden, die kunnen worden onderverdeeld in drie groepen: zintuiglijke descriptoren (zoals: hard, rood, lawaaierig), symbolische descriptoren (zoals: interessant, duur, mo‐ dern) en affectieve descriptoren (zoals: aangenaam, ).mooi In de studie beschreven in hoofdstuk 4 hebben we een vragenlijst ontwikkeld om het relatieve belang van de vijf zintuiglijke modaliteiten te kwantificeren voor verschillende descriptoren tijdens de algehele productervaring. We suggereerden al dat het belang van de 188
SENSORY DOMINANCE IN PRODUCT EXPERIENCE
verschillende modaliteiten kan worden beïnvloed door verschillen in taal. Om deze hypothese te testen hebben we gebruik gemaakt van twee groepen deelnemers: mensen met als moedertaal Nederlands of Russisch. De resultaten tonen aan dat het belang van een sensorische modaliteit verschilt voor verschillende groepen descriptoren. De meeste symbolische descriptoren vertonen een sterke visuele dominantie. Affectieve descriptoren hebben in gelijke mate betrekking op alle zin‐ tuiglijke modaliteiten. Zintuiglijke descriptoren laten significante crossculturele verschillen zien. Dit laatste resultaat kan worden verklaard door verschillende in associaties bij de letterlijke en metaforische betekenissen van sensorische adjectie‐ ven in verschillende talen. De validiteit van de vragenlijst‐methodologie in het onderzoek naar zintuiglijke dominantie is beperkt, omdat mensen zich mogelijk niet bewust zijn van alle zin‐ tuiglijke informatie die van belang is, wanneer zij verslag van hun ervaringen doen. Sommige delen van de informatie kunnen subliminaal worden verwerkt, maar nog steeds van invloed zijn op de beoordeling van het product. Dat is de reden waarom we in de drie studies beschreven in de hoofdstukken 5, 6 en 7 een experimentele benadering hebben gebruikt om de zintuiglijke dominantie te onderzoeken voor drie soorten productervaringen: versheid, warmte en lawaaierigheid. Het ontwerp van elk onderzoek bevat de volgende stappen. In een voorstudie rangschikken proefpersonen unisensorische visuele, tactiele, auditieve of olfactorische prikkels voor een specifieke doel‐ervaring (bijv. warmte, frisheid, lawaaierigheid). Vervol‐ gens selecteerden we voor elke sensorische dimensie twee stimuli die ongeveer in dezelfde mate verschilden met betrekking tot deze doel‐dimensie. In het hoofdon‐ derzoek zijn deze stimuli vervolgens samengevoegd in alle mogelijke combinaties tot een reeks van multi‐sensorische producten, die vervolgens werden beoordeeld door een nieuwe groep proefpersonen.
Warmte is een belangrijk kenmerk voor kleding, interieur en een aantal verwante vrijetijdsproducten. De ervaring van warmte heeft zowel een letterlijk aspect, gere‐ lateerd aan de thermische eigenschappen van producten, als een figuratief aspect, gerelateerd aan de metaforische betekenis van warmte (intimiteit, gezelligheid). Hoofdstuk 5 beschrijft een experimentele studie gericht op het bepalen van het relatieve belang van materiaal en kleur in de productervaring van warmte. We ontwierpen producten (sjaals en dienbladen) op basis van warme en koude stimuli (kleuren en materialen) in vier verschillende combinaties en vroegen de respon‐ denten om de warmte en aangenaamheid van elk product te evalueren. De resulta‐ ten toonden aan dat kleur en materiaal in gelijke mate bijdragen aan de beoorde‐
189
SAMENVATTING
lingen van warmte in beide producten. Ook deden we een follow‐up interviewstu‐ die, om de letterlijke en figuurlijke betekenissen te verhelderen, die mensen hech‐ ten aan warmte in de context van productgebruik. We vonden dat de letterlijke betekenis is gerelateerd aan fysieke warmte en comfort, terwijl de figuurlijke bete‐ kenis wordt geassocieerd met sociale interactie, intimiteit en een vriendelijke sfeer. De figuurlijke betekenis werd vaker genoemd in associatie met producten dan de letterlijke betekenis. Frisheid is belangrijk voor voedingsmiddelen, frisdranken, producten voor persoon‐ lijke verzorging en schoonmaakartikelen. Hoofdstuk 6 beschrijft een experimentele studie naar sensorische dominantie voor de frisheid in een productervaring. We creëerden producten (frisdranken, afwasmiddel, en geurkaarsen) met behulp van frisse en niet‐frisse stimuli (kleuren en geuren) in vier verschillende combinaties en we vroegen respondenten om de frisheid en de aangenaamheid van elk product te beoordelen. De resultaten toonden aan dat geur domineerde bij de beoordeling van de frisheid van frisdranken en afwasmiddel. Bij de geurkaarsen waren geur en kleur even belangrijk bij het bepalen van de frisheid. Dit suggereert dat de domi‐ nante sensorische modaliteit voor de productervaring van frisheid afhankelijk is van de eigenschappen van het product.
De lawaaierigheid van een product integreert auditieve en visuele componenten in een multi‐zintuiglijke ervaring. In de studie beschreven in hoofdstuk 7 hebben we de auditieve en visuele eigenschappen van wekkers en fluitketels gemanipuleerd, om te bepalen in welke mate de lawaaierigheid van producten bepaald werd door het geluid dat producten maakten, of door het uiterlijk van deze producten. We creëerden producten met lawaaiige en rustige stimuli van beide zintuiglijke modali‐ teiten volgens een volledige factoriëel design en vroegen proefpersonen om te beoordelen hoe lawaaierig, aangenaam en irritant zij deze producten vonden. De resultaten toonden aan dat lawaaierigheid en irritantheid van de producten in het algemeen werden gedomineerd door het geluid van de producten. De lawaaierig‐ heid van het geluid had een negatieve invloed op de aangenaamheid van de pro‐ ducten. Zintuiglijk genot is een belangrijk onderdeel van de productervaring. In alle drie de experimenten zijn de beoordelingen voor de doel‐ervaringen (fris, warm en lawaai‐ erig) vergeleken met de oordelen van affectieve ervaringen (aangenaam en irri‐ tant). Tussen lawaaierigheid en irritatie werden correlaties gevonden voor zowel enkelvoudige stimuli als voor de eindproducten. Maar de correlaties tussen frisheid en aangenaamheid en tussen warmte en aangenaamheid vonden we alleen voor
190
SENSORY DOMINANCE IN PRODUCT EXPERIENCE
enkelvoudige stimuli. Deze waren afwezig bij de eindproducten. Deze bevindingen suggereren dat de aangenaamheid van een product niet altijd kan worden voor‐ speld op basis van de aangenaamheid toegeschreven aan zijn sensorische compo‐ nenten. Blijkbaar leidt combinatie van twee aangename prikkels niet altijd tot een aangenaam eindproduct.
In het laatste hoofdstuk van het proefschrift bespreken we onze algemene bevin‐ dingen, theoretische uitdagingen benadrukt in het onderzoek, perspectieven voor toekomstig onderzoek en de implicaties van onze bevindingen voor industrieel de‐ sign en productontwikkeling. Gebaseerd op onze eigen resultaten en de analyse van de literatuur, formuleren we twee theoretische problemen die dienen te wor‐ den meegenomen in toekomstige onderzoeken: (1) het probleem van het bewust‐ zijn in productervaring en (2) de relaties tussen de diverse onderdelen van de pro‐ ductervaring. We suggereren ook een aantal onderwerpen voor empirisch onder‐ zoek, waaronder interacties tussen zintuiglijke, affectieve en symbolische onderde‐ len van de productervaring, zintuiglijke metaforen in productervaring, en individue‐ le verschillen in zintuiglijke informatieverwerking. Het ontwerpen van aangename producten kan de tevredenheid van de gebruiker verhogen en kan bijdragen aan een hoger welzijn van mensen en samenleving. Tij‐ dens het ontwerpen van producten is het belangrijk voor ontwerpers om zich be‐ wust te zijn van de complexe relaties tussen de verschillende sensorische product‐ eigenschappen. In dit proefschrift hebben we aangetoond dat het belang van de sensorische modaliteiten kan afhangen van de fase van de mens‐product interactie, de specifieke ervaring die de ontwerpers trachten op te roepen, en van de taalver‐ schillen tussen gebruikers. Andere factoren, zoals individuele verschillen of situati‐ onele variabelen, kunnen ook een rol spelen in zintuiglijke dominantie. Daarom is het noodzakelijk dat onderzoek over dit onderwerp ook in de toekomst plaats blijft vinden.
191
REFERENCES
Adank, R., & Warell, A. (2008). "Five senses testing" ‐ Assessing and predicting sensory experi‐ ence of product design. In P. M. A. Desmet, J. van Erp & M. Karlsson (Eds.), Design & emotion moves. Newcastle upon Tyne, UK: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, pp. 35‐58. Allison, R.I., & Uhl, K.P. (1964). Influence of beer brand identification on taste perception. Journal of Marketing Research, 1, 36–39. Amlot, R., Walker, R., Driver, J., & Spence, C. (2003). Multimodal visualsomatosensory inte‐ gration in saccade generation. Neuropsychologia, 41, 1–15. Anderson, N.H. (1981). Foundations of information integration theory. New York: Academic Press. Arnheim, R. (1959). Art and visual perception: A psychology of the creative eye. Berkeley: University of California Press. Asch, S.E. (1946). Forming impressions of personality. Journal of Abnormal Social Psychology, 42, 258–290. Asch, S.E. (1955). On the use of metaphor in the description of persons. In: H. Werner (Ed.). On Expressive Language. Worcester: Clark University Press, p. 86‐94. Asch, S.E. (1958). The metaphor: A psychological inquiry. In: R. Tagiuri & L. Petrullo (Eds.). Person Perception and Interpersonal Behavior. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, p. 86‐94. Ashby, M., & Johnson, K. (2002) Materials and design: the art and science of material selec‐ tion in product design. Oxford, UK: Butterworth – Heinemann. Astrup, A. (1998). The American paradox: The Role of Energy‐Dense Fat‐Reduced Food in the Increasing Prevalence of Obesity. Current Opinion in Clinical Nutrition and Meta‐ bolic Care, 1, 573–577.
193
REFERENCES
Bargh, J.A., & Morsella, E. (2008). The unconscious mind. Perspectives of Psychological Science, 3, 73–79. Baron, R. A. (1981). The role of olfaction in human social behavior: Effects of a pleasant scent on attraction and social perception. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 7, 611‐617. Baron‐Cohen, S. (1996). Is there a normal phase of synaesthesia in development? Psyche, 2, 27. Barrett, L.F., Mesquita, B., Ochsner, K.N., & Gross, J.J. (2007). The experience of emotion. Annual Review of Psychology, 58, 373–403. Bartoshuk, L.M., & Beauchamp, G.K. (1994). Chemical Senses. Annual Review of Psychology, 45, 419–449. Berglund, B., Berglund, U., and Lindvall, T. (1976). Scaling loudness, noisiness, and annoyance of community noises. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 60 (5), 1119–1125. Berglund, B., Berglund, U., Engen, T., & Ekman, G. (1973). Multidimensional analysis of 21 odors. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 14, 131–137. Bergmann Tiest, W.M., & Kappers, A.M.L. (2008) Thermosensory reversal effect quantified. Acta Psychologica, 127, 46–50. Berlyne, D. E. (1970). Novelty, complexity and hedonic value. Perception and Psychophysics, 8, 279–286. Berlyne, D.E. (1963). Complexity and incongruity variables as determinants of exploratory choice and evaluative ratings. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 17, 274‐290. Berlyne, D.E. (1971). Aesthetics and psychobiology. :New York Appleton‐Century‐Crofts. Berridge, K. & Winkielman, P. (2003). What is an unconscious emotion? (The case for uncon‐ scious “liking”). Cognition & Emotion, 17 (2), 181‐211. Bertelson, P. (1999). Ventriloquism: A case of cross‐modal perceptual grouping. In: G. Aschersle‐ ben, T. Bachmann & J. Müsseler (Eds.). Cognitive contributions to the perception of spa‐ tial and temporal events. Amsterdam: Elsevier, pp. 347‐362. Bertelson, P., de Gelder, B., and Driver, J. (2000). The ventriloquist effect does not depend on the direction of deliberate visual attention, Perception and Psychophysics, 62 (2), 321–332. Birch, L.L. (1999). Development of food preferences. Annual Review of Nutrition, 19, 41–62. Bloch, P.H. (1995). Seeking the ideal form: Product design and consumer response. Journal of Marketing, 59, 16–29. Block, N. (1983). Mental Pictures and Cognitive Science. Philosophical Review, 93, 499‐542. Bone, P. F., & Jantrania, S. (1992). Olfaction as a cue for product quality. Marketing Letters, 3, 289‐296. Boroditsky, L. (2000). Metaphoric structuring: Understanding time through spatial meta‐ phors. Cognition 75, 1–28. Boroditsky, L. (2001). Does language shape thought? Mandarin and English speakers' con‐ ceptions of time. Cognitive Psychology, 43, 1‐22.
194
SENSORY DOMINANCE IN PRODUCT EXPERIENCE
Boroditsky, L., Schmidt, L., & Webb, P. (2003). Sex, syntax, and semantics. In: Gentner, D., & Goldin‐Meadow, S. (Eds.), Language in Mind: Advances in the Study of Language and Cognition. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, pp. 61‐80. Botvinick, M., & Cohen, J. (1998). Rubber hands "feel" touch that eyes see. Nature, 391, 756. Bowerman, M. (1996). The origins of children's spatial semantic categories: cognitive versus linguistic determinants. In: Gumperz, J., & Levinson, S. (Eds.), Rethinking Linguistic Relativity. Cambridge University Press, New York, pp. 145‐176. Bowlby, J. (1969). Attachment and Loss. Hogarth Press, London. Bowsher, J.M. and Robinson, D.W. (1962). On scaling the unpleasantness of sounds. British Journal of Applied Physics, 13, 179‐181. Brannen, J. (1992). Combining qualitative and quantitative approaches: an overview. In: Mix‐ ing methods: qualitative and quantitative research. Avebury, Aldershot, pp. 3‐37. Brislin, R. (1980). Translation and content analysis of oral and written material. In: Triandis, H. & Berry, J. (Eds.) Handbook of Cross‐Cultural Psychology, Vol.2, Allyn and Bacon, Boston, MA, pp. 389‐444.
Bruehl, S., Chung, O.Y., & Burns, J.W. (2006). Anger expression and pain: an overview of find‐ ings and possible mechanisms. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 29, 593–606. Buck, C.D. (1949). A Dictionary of Selected Synonyms in the Principal Indo‐European Lan‐ guages. Chicago University Press, Chicago. Byrne, R., & Whiten, A. (Eds.) (1988). Machiavellian Intelligence: Social Expertise and the Evolution of Intellect in Monkeys, Apes, and Humans. Oxford University Press, New York. Cacioppo, J. T., Klein, D. J., Berntson, G. ,G. & Hatfield, E. (1993). The Psychophysiology of Emo‐ tion. In M. Lewis & J. M. Haviland (Eds.) Handbook of Emotions. New York: The Guil‐ ford Press, pp. 119‐142. Caclin, A., Soto‐Faraco, S., Kingstone, A., & Spence, C. (2002). Tactile "capture" of audition. Perception & Psychophysics, 64, 616‐630. Cain, W.S. (1979). To know with the nose: keys to odor identification. Science, 203, 467–470. Calvert, G.A., & Thesen, T. (2004). Multisensory integration: methodological approaches and emerging principles in the human brain. Journal of Physiology, 98, 191–205. Calvert, G.A., Spence, C., & Stein, B.E. (2004). The handbook of multisensory processes. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Caplan, D. (1973). A note on the abstract readings of verbs of perception. Cognition, 2, 269– 277. Carpenter, G.S., & Nakamoto, K. (1996). Impact of consumer preference formation on mar‐ keting objectives and second mover strategies. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 5(4), 325–358. Charles, N., & Kerr, M. (1988). Women, Food and Families. Manchester University Press, Manchester/New York. Chen, J.‐Y. (2007). Do Chinese and English speakers think about time differently? Failure of replicating Boroditsky (2001). Cognition 104, 427–436. 195
REFERENCES
Childers, T. L., Houston, M.J, & Heckler, S.E. (1985). Measurement of individual differences in visual versus verbal information processing. Journal of Consumer Research, 12, 125‐134. Chu, S., & Downes, J.J. (2000). Odour‐evoked autobiographical memories: Psychological inves‐ tigations of proustian phenomena. Chemical Senses 25, 111–116. Claeys, C., Swinnen, A., & Vanden A.P. (1995). Consumers' means‐end chains for "think" and "feel" products. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 12, 193‐208. Clark, A. (1997). Being There: Putting Brain, Body, and World Together Again. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. Classen, C. (1993). Worlds of Sense. Exploring the Senses in History and Across Cultures. Lon‐ don, Routledge. Classen, C. (2005). McLuhan in the rainforest. In: Howes, D. (Ed.), Empire of the Senses. Berg, Oxford, pp. 147‐163. Clos, F., & Carole Bouchard, C. (2010). Building relevant contexts to design experiences. Pa‐ per presented at the International Conference on Kansei Engineering and Emotion Research, Paris, March 2‐4 2010, pp. 1161‐1171. Clydesdale, F.M. (1993). Color as a factor in food choice. Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition, 33, 83‐101. Clydesdale, F.M., Gover, R., Philipsen, D.H., & Fugardi, C. (1992). The effect of color on thirst quenching, sweetness, acceptability and flavor intensity in fruit punch flavored beverages. Journal of Food Quality, 15, 19–38. Coates, D. (2003). Watches tell more than time: Product design, information and the quest for elegance. London: McGraw‐Hill. Colonius, H., & Arndt, P. (2001). A two‐stage model for visual–auditory interaction in sac‐ cadic latencies. Perception & Psychophysics, 63, 126–147. Crilly, N., Moultrie, J., & Clarkson, P.J. (2004). Seeing things: Consumer response to the visual domain in product design. Design Studies, 25, 547–577. Damasio, A.R. (1999). The Feeling of What Happens: Body and Emotion in the Making of Consciousness. New York: Harcourt Brace. Davidoff, J., Davies, I., & Robertson, D. (1999). Colour categories of a stone‐age tribe. Nature 398, 203‐204. Davis, R. G. (1981). The role of nonolfactory context cues in odor identification. Perception & Psychophysics, 30, 83‐89. de Gelder, B., & Vroomen, J. (2000). Perceiving emotions by ear and by eye. Cognition and Emotion, 14, 289‐311. de Wijk, R.A., & Cain, W.S. (1994). Odor identification by name and by edibility: life‐span development and safety. Human Factors, 36, 182–187. de Wijk, R.A., Schab, F.R., & Cain, W.S. (1995). Odor identification. In Schab, F.R. (Ed.) Mem‐ ory for Odors. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, pp. 21–37. Dehaene, S. & Naccache, L. (2001). Towards a cognitive neuroscience of consciousness: basic evidence and a workspace framework. Cognition, 79, 1–37.
196
SENSORY DOMINANCE IN PRODUCT EXPERIENCE
Demattè, M. L., Sanabria, D., Sugarman, R., & Spence, C. (2006). Crossmodal interactions between olfaction and touch. Chemical Senses, 31, 291‐300. Desmet, P. M. A. (2003). Measuring emotion: development and application of an instrument to measure emotional responses to products. In M. A. Blythe, A. F. Monk, K. Over‐ beeke & P. C. Wright (Eds.), Funology: from usability to enjoyment (pp. 111‐123). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer. Desmet, P.M.A. (2002). Designing Emotions. Phd Thesis, Delft University of Technology. Desmet, P.M.A., & Schifferstein, H.N.J. (2008) Positive and negative emotions associated with food experience. Appetite, 50, 290‐301. Desmet, P.M.A., & Schifferstein, H.N.J. (Eds) (2010). From floating wheelchairs to mobile car parks: A collection of 35 experience‐driven design projects. Lemma, Den Haag. DeVault, M. L. (1991). Feeding the Family. The Social Organization of Caring as Gendered Work. University of Chicago Press, Chicago. Dilthey, W. (1985). Poetry and experience. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Dittmar, H. (1992). The social psychology of material possessions: To have is to be. New York: St. Martin’s Press. Dolan, R. J., Morris, J. S., & de Gelder, B. (2001). Crossmodal binding of fear in voice and face. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 98, 10006‐10010. Easton, R., & Moran, P.W. (1978). A quantitative confirmation of visual capture of curvature. Journal of General Psychology, 98, 105‐112. Edelman, G.M., & Tononi, G. (2000). A Universe of Consciousness. New York: Basic Books. Eertmans, A., Baeyens, F., & van Den Bergh, O. (2001). Food likes and their relatives impor‐ tance in human eating behaviour: Review and preliminary suggestions for health promotion, Health Education Research 16, 443–456. Eisenman, R. (1967). Complexity–simplicity: Preference for symmetry and rejection of com‐ plexity. Psychonomic Science, 8, 169‐170. Ekman, P., & Friesen, W.V. (1978). Facial Action Coding System: A technique for the meas‐ urement of facial movement. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press. Engen, T. (1982). The Perception of Odors. New York: Academic Press. Epple, G., & Herz, R.S. (1999). Ambient odors associated to failure influence cognitive per‐ formance in children. Developmental Psychobiology, 35, 103–107. Evans, N. & Wilkins, D. (2000). In the mind’s ear: The semantic extensions of perception verbs in Australian languages. Language 76, 546‐592. Eysenck, H. J., and Hawker, G. W. (1994). The taxonomy of visual aesthetic preferences: An empirical study. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 12, 95‐101. Falk, P. (1994). The Consuming Body. London: Sage. Feldman Barrett, L., & Russell, J. (1998). Independence and bipolarity in the structure of current affect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 74, 967‐984. Feldman, J. (1997). Regularity‐based perceptual grouping. Computational Intelligence, 13(4), 582‐623.
197
REFERENCES
Fenko, A, Schifferstein, H.N.J., & Hekkert, P. (2010). Shifts in sensory dominance between various stages of user‐product interactions. Applied Ergonomics, 41, 34–40. Fenko, A. (2008). Sensory dominance in product experience: The paradox of theory and prac‐ tice. Paper presented at the 7th Nordcode Seminar, Lund, Sweden, 28‐30 May 2008. Fenko, A., Otten, J.J., & Schifferstein, H.N.J. (2010). Describing product experience in different languages: The role of sensory modalities. Journal of Pragmatics, 42, 3314‐3327. Fenko, A., Schifferstein, H.N.J., & Hekkert, P. (2009). Shifts in sensory dominance between various stages of user‐product interactions. Applied Ergonomics, 41, 34‐40. Fenko, A., Schifferstein, H.N.J., & Hekkert, P. (2008). Which senses dominate in product ex‐ perience. Paper presented at the Design Research Society Conference, Sheffield, UK, 16‐19 July. Fenko, A., Schifferstein, H.N.J., & Hekkert, P. (2010). Looking hot or feeling hot: What deter‐ mines the product experience of warmth? Materials and Design, 31, 1325–1331. Fenko, A., Schifferstein, H.N.J., Huang, T.‐C., & Hekkert, P. (2009). What makes products fresh: The smell or the colour? Food Quality & Preference, 20, 372–379. Fiore, A. M. (1992). Effect of composition of olfactory cues on impressions of personality. Social Behavior and Personality, 20, 149‐161. Fiore, A. M., & Kimle, P. A. (1997). Understanding aesthetics for the merchandising and de‐ sign professional. New York: Fairchild. Fiske, S.T., Cuddy, A.J.C., & Glick, P. (2006). Universal dimensions of social cognition: warmth and competence. Trends in Cognitive Science, 11, 77‐83. Fodor, J.A. (1975). The language of thought. New York: Harvard University Press. Fontaine, J.R., Scherer, K.R., Roesch, E.B., Ellsworth, P.C. (2007). The world of emotions is not two‐dimensional. Psychological Science, 18, 1050–1057. Forster, B., Cavina‐Pratesi, C., Aglioti, S.M., & Berlucchi, G. (2002). Redundant target effect and intersensory facilitation from visual–tactile interactions in simple reaction time. Experimental Brain Research, 143, 480–487. Foucault, M. (1972). The Archaeology of Knowledge, trans. A. M. Sheridan Smith. Pantheon, New York. Frassinetti, F. Pavani, F., & Ladavas, E. (2002). Acoustical vision of neglected stimuli: interac‐ tion among spatially converging audiovisual inputs in neglect patients, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 14 (1), 62–69. French, S. J., Read, N. W., Booth, D. A. & Arkley, S. (1993). Satisfaction of hunger and thirst by foods and drinks. British Food Journal, 95, 19‐26. Frens, M.A., van Opstal, A.J., & van der Willigen, R.F. (1995). Spatial and temporal factors determine auditory–visual interactions in human saccadic eye movements. Percep‐ tion & Psychophysics, 57, 802–816. Frijda, N.H. (2006). The Laws of Emotion. Mahwah, N.J.: Erlbaum. Frith, C. D., & Nias, D. K. B. (1974). What determines aesthetic preferences? Journal of Gen‐ eral Psychology, 91, 163–173.
198
SENSORY DOMINANCE IN PRODUCT EXPERIENCE
Fujii, K., Soeta, Y., and Ando, Y. (2001). Acoustical properties of aircraft noise measured by tempo‐ ral and spatial factors. Journal of Sound and Vibration, 241, 69‐78. Gadamer, H.‐G. (1975). Truth and method. New York: Seabury Press. Gallup, G. Jr., & Cameron, P. (1992). Modality specific metaphors: Isl our menta machinery "colored" by a visual bias? Metaphor and Symbolic Activity 7, 93‐98. Gatignon, H., Eliashberg, J., & Robertson, T. (1989). Modeling multinational diffusion pat‐ terns: an efficient methodology. Marketing Science 8, 231‐47. Gelman, R., & Gallistel, C. (2004). Language and the origin of numerical concepts. Science 306, 441–443. Gentner, D., & Imai, M. (1997). A cross‐linguistic study of early word meaning: Universal ontology and linguistic influence. Cognition, 62, 169‐200. Gentner, D., & Goldin‐Meadow, S. (Eds.), 2003. Language in Mind: Advances in the Study of Language and Cognition. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. Gentner, D., Bowdle, B., Wolff, P., & Boronat, C. (2001). Metaphor is like analogy. In Dedre G., K.J. Holyoak, & B.N. Kokinov (Eds.), The Analogical Mind: Perspectives from Cognitive Science. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 199–253. Giard, M.H., & Peronnet, F. (1999). Auditory–visual integration during multimodal object recognition in humans: a behavioral and electrophysiological study. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 11 473–490. Gibbs, R.W., Jr. (1994). The Poetics of Mind: Figurative Thought, Language, and Understand‐ ing. Cambridge and NewYork: Cambridge University Press. Gilbert, A., Regier, T., Kay, P., & Ivry, R. (2006). Whorf hypothesis is supported in the right visual field but not the left. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 103, 489–494. Glenberg, A. (1997). What memory is for. Behavioural Brain Science 20, 1–55. Goodale, M.A., & Humphrey, G.K. (1998). The objects of action and perception. Cognition, 67, 181‐207. Gordon, P. (2004). Numerical cognition without words: Evidence from Amazonia. Science, 306, 496. Govers, P. (2004). Product Personality. Unpublished PhD dissertation, Delft University of Technology, Delft, the Netherlands. Grandin, T. (1995). Thinking in pictures. New York: Doubleday. Graybiel, A. (1952). Oculogravic illusion. AMA Archives of Ophthalmology, 48, 605–615. Griffiths, I. D. & Langdon, F.J. (1968). Subjective response to road traffic noise. Journal of Sound and Vibration, 8, 16‐32. Guest, S., & Spence, C. (2003). Tactile dominance in speeded discrimination of textures. Ex‐ perimental Brain Research, 150, 201–7. Gumperz, J., & Levinson, S. (Eds.) (1996). Rethinking Linguistic Relativity. Cambridge Univer‐ sity Press, New York. Gyoba, J., Suzuki, M., Kawabata, Y., & Hiroshi, K. (2005). Analyses of sensory‐relevance of adjective pairs frequently used in the semantic differential method. Paper pre‐
199
REFERENCES
sented at the 6th Annual Meeting of the International Multisensory Research Fo‐ rum, Rovereto, Italy, 5‐8 June 2005. Hamstra, I.A. (1998). Public Opinion about Biotechnology: A Survey of Surveys. Delft: Euro‐ pean Federation of Biotechnology, Task Group on Public Perceptions of Biotech‐ nology, ISBN 90‐76110, http://www.kluyver.stm.tudelft.nl/efb/tgppb/pdf/survey.pdf. Han, S., H., & Hong S. W. (2003). A systematic approach for coupling user satisfaction with product design. Ergonomics, 46, 1441‐1461. Hancock, P.A., Pepe, A.A., & Murphy, L.L. (2005). Hedonomics: The Power of Positive and Pleasurable Ergoriornics. Ergonomics in Design, Winter, 8‐14. Harlow, H.F. (1958). The nature of love. American Psychologist, 13, 673‐685. Harrington, L.K., & Peck, C.K. (1998). Spatial disparity affects visualauditory interactions in human sensorimotor processing. Experimental Brain Research, 122, 247–252. Harte, J.M., & Koele, P. (1995). A comparison of different methods for the elicitation of attrib‐ ute weights: Structural modeling, process tracing, and self‐reports. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 64, 75‐117. Hay, J.C., Pick, H.L., & Ikeda, K. (1965). Visual capture produced by prism spectacles. Psy‐ chonomic Science (2), 215‐216. Heaps, C., and Handel, C.H. (1999). Similarity and features of natural textures. Journal of Experi‐ mental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 25, 299 ‐320. Heenan, S.P., Dufour, J.‐P., Hamid, N., Harvey, W., & Delahunty, C.M. (2008). The sensory quality of fresh bread: Descriptive attributes and consumer perceptions. Food Re‐ search International, 4, 989–997. Heidegger, M. (1962). Being and Time. Translated by John Macquarrie and Edward Robinson. New York: Harper. Heidegger, M. (1971). On the way to language. New York: Harper & Row. Heider, E. (1972) Universals in color naming and memory. Journal of Experimental Psychol‐ ogy 93, 10‐20. Heini, A. F. and R. L. Weinsier, (1997). Divergent Trends in Obesity and Fat Intake Patterns: The American paradox. American Journal of Medicine, 102(3), 259–264. Hekkert, P., & Schifferstein, H.N.J. (2008). Introducing product experience. In: Schifferstein, H.N.J., & Hekkert, P. (Eds.). Product experience. Amsterdam: Elsevier, pp.1‐8. Helander, M. G., & Tham,M. P. (2003) Hedonomics: Affective human factors design. Ergo‐ nomics, 46, 1269‐1 272. Hellman, R.P. (1982). Loudness, annoyance, and noisiness produced by single‐tone–noise complexes. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America; 72, 62–73. Hellman, R.P. (1984). Growth rate of loudness, annoyance, and noisiness as a function of tone location within the noise spectrum. Journal of the Acoustical Society of Amer‐ ica, 75(1): 209–218. Hellman, R.P. (1985). Perceived magnitude of two‐tone–noise complexes: loudness, annoy‐ ance, and nosiness. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America; 77 (4): 1497–1504.
200
SENSORY DOMINANCE IN PRODUCT EXPERIENCE
Helmholtz, H. (1878). The Facts of Perception from Selected Writings of Hermann Helmholtz: Wesleyan University Press. Hershenson M. (1962). Reaction time as a measure of intersensory facilitation. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 63, 289–293. Hertenstein, M.J., Verkamp, J.M., Kerestes, A.M., & Holmes, R.M. (2006). The communicative functions of touch in humans, nonhuman primates, and rats: A review and synthesis of the empirical research. Genetic, Social, and General Psychology Monographs, 132, 5–94. Herz, R. S. (1998a). Are odors the best cues to memory? A cross‐modal comparison of associa‐ tive memory stimuli. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 855, 670‐674. Herz, R. S. (1998b). An examination of objective and subjective measures of experience asso‐ ciated to odors, music, and paintings. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 16, 137‐152. Herz, R. S., & Schooler, J. W. (2002). A naturalistic study of autobiographical memories evoked by olfactory and visual cues: Testing the Proustian hypothesis. American Journal of Psychology, 115, 21‐32. Herz, R.S., & von Clef, J. (2001). The influence of verbal labeling on the perception of odors: Evidence for olfactory illusions? Perception, 30, 381‐391. Hinton, P.B., & Henley, T.B. (1993). Cognitive and affective components of stimuli presented in three modes. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 31, 595‐598. Hiramatsu, K., Takagi, K., and Yamamoto, T. (1983). Experimental investigation on the effect of some temporal factors of nonsteady noise on annoyance, Journal of the Acousti‐ cal Society of America, 74, 1782‐1793. Hirschman, E. (1984). Experience seeking: A subjectivistic perspective for consumption. Jour‐ nal of Business Research 12, 115‐136. Hirschman, E.C., & Holbrook, M.B. (1982). Hedonic consumption: Emerging concepts, meth‐ ods and propositions. Journal of Marketing, 46, 92‐101. Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture's Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviours, Institutions, and Organizations across Nations, 2nd ed. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA. Holbrook, M. B. (1986). Aims, Concepts, and Methods for the Representation of Meaningful Heterogeneity in Evaluative Judgments of Esthetic Objects With Known Features. The Journal of Consumer Research, 13, 337‐347. Hollins, M. (2010). Somesthetic Senses. Annual Review of Psychology, 61, 243–271. Hollins, M., BensmaЁıa, S.J., Karlof, K., & Young, F. (2000). Individual differences in percep‐ tual space for tactile textures: evidence from multidimensional scaling. Perception & Psychophysics, 62, 1534–1544. Holm, L. (2003). Food health policies and ethics: Lay perspectives on functional foods. Jour‐ nal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 16, 531–544. Holm, L. and Kildevang, H. (1996). Consumers’ Views on Food Quality. A Qualitative Inter‐ view Study. Appetite 27, 1–14. Holmes, C.B., & Buchanan, J.A. (1984). Color preference as a function of the object de‐ scribed. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 22, 423‐425.
201
REFERENCES
Hong, Y.‐Y., Morris, M., Chiu, C.‐Y., & Benet‐Martínez, V. (2000). Multicultural minds: A dy‐ namic constructivist approach to culture and cognition. American Psychologist 55, 709–720. Horigushi, A. et al. (1995). A Kansei approach to a driver / vehicle system. International Jour‐ nal of Industrial Ergonomics, 5, 25‐37. Hughes, H.C., Reuter‐Lorenz, P.A., Nozawa, G., & Fendrich, R. (1994). Visual‐auditory interac‐ tions in sensorimotor processing: saccades versus manual responses. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 20, 131–153. Hunt, E., & Agnoli, F. (1991). The Whorfian hypothesis: a cognitive psychology perspective. Psychological Review 98, 377–389. Husserl, E. (1964). Cartesian Meditations. Translated by Dorion Cairns. The Hague: Nijhoff. Ibarretxe‐Antuñano, I. (1999). Metaphorical mappings in the sense of smell. In: Gibbs, R., & Steen, G. (Eds.) Metaphor in Cognitive Linguistics, John Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp. 29–45. Ibarretxe‐Antuñano, I. (2008). Vision metaphors for the intellect: Are they really cross‐ linguistic? Atlantis. Journal of the Spanish Association of Anglo‐American Studies 30, 15–33. Iordanskaja, L. (1979). The semantics of three Russian verbs of perception. Linguistics 17, 825‐842. Itten, J. (1961). Art of Color. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold. Izard, C.E. (2009). Emotion theory and research: Highlights, unanswered questions, and emerging issues. Annual Review of Psychology, 60, 1–25. Izard, C.E., Fantauzzo, C.A., Castle, J.M., Haynes, O.M., Rayias, M.F., Putnam, P.H. (1995). The ontogeny and significance of infants’ facial expressions in the first 9 months of life. Developmental Psychology, 31, 997–1013. Jaccard, J., Brinberg, D., & Ackerman, L.J. (1986). Assessing attribute importance: A compari‐ son of six methods. Journal of Consumer Research, 12, 463‐468. Jack, A.I., & Roepstorff, A. (2002). Introspection and cognitive brain mapping: from stimulusre‐ sponse to script‐report. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 6, 333–339.
Jack, A.I., & Shallice, T. (2001). Introspective physicalism as an approach to the science of consciousness. Cognition, 79, 161–96. Jacob, T.J.C., Fraser, C.S., Wang, L., Walker, V.E., & O'Connor, S. (2003). Psychophysical evaluation of responses to pleasant and mal‐odour stimulation in human subjects; adaptation, dose response and gender differences. International Journal of Psy‐ chophysiology, 48, 67‐80. James, W. (1890). The Principles of Psychology, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1981. Originally published in 1890.
January, D., & Kako, E. (2007). Re‐evaluating evidence for linguistic relativity: Reply to Boro‐ ditsky (2001). Cognition 104, 417–426.
202
SENSORY DOMINANCE IN PRODUCT EXPERIENCE
Job, R.F.S. (1988). Community response to noise: a review of factors influencing the relation‐ ship between noise exposure and reaction, Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 83, 991–1001. Johansson A., & Strømnes, F. (1995). Cultural differences in occupational accidents. Part I: Theoretical background. Presented at the 44th Nordic Meeting on Work Environ‐ ment, Nantali, Finland. Johansson, A., & Salminen, S. (1996). Different languages: different information processing systems? Part I: Why can we expect differences in occupational accidents between language groups. Presented at the International Symposium on Work in the Informa‐ tion Society, 20‐22 May 1996, Helsinki, Finland. Johnson, M. (1987). The Body in the Mind: The Bodily Basis of Meaning, Imagination, and Reasoning. University of Chicago Press, Chicago. Johnson, M. (1991). Knowing through the body. Philosophical Psychology 4, 3–20. Jordan, P. (2000). Designing pleasurable products. London: Taylor and Francis. Jousmäki, V., & Hari, R. (1998). Parchment‐skin illusion: sound biased touch. Current Biology, 8, 190. Kalucy, R.S. (1987). The “new” nutrition. The Medical Journal of Australia, 147, 529—530. Karapanos, E., Hassenzahl, M., & Martens, J.‐B. (2008). User experience over time. CHI '08 extended abstracts on Human factors in computing systems. ACM, Florence, Italy. Kass, L. (1994). The Hungry Soul. New York: The Free Press.
Kay, P., & Kempton, W. (1984). What is the Sapir‐Whorf hypothesis? American Anthropolo‐ gist 86, 65–79. Kellert, S.R., & Wilson, E.O. (Eds.) (1993). The biophilia hypothesis. Washington, DC: Island Press. Khalid, H.M. (2004). Conceptualizing affective human factors design. Theoretical lssues in Ergonomics Science, 5(1), 1‐3. Khan, R., Luk, C., Flinker, A., Aggarwal, A., Lapid, H., et al. (2007). Predicting odor pleasant‐ ness from odorant structure: pleasantness as a reflection of the physical world. Journal of Neuroscience, 27, 10015–10023. Kimmel, M. (2006). Culture regained: situated and compound image schemas., In: Hampe B. (Ed.), From Perception to Meaning: Image Schemas in Cognitive Linguistics. Mou‐ ton de Gruyter, Berlin, pp. 285–312. Kosslyn, S. (1983). Ghosts in the Mind's Machine. New York: W.W. Norton & Co. Kosslyn, S.M. (1980). Image and Mind. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. Köster, E.P. (2003). The psychology of food choice: Some often encountered fallacies. Food Quality and Preference, 14, 359–373. Kövecses, Z. (2005). Metaphor in culture: Universality and variation. Cambridge University Press, New York. Krippendorff, K. (1980). Content analysis: an introduction to its methodology. Sage, London. Krippendorff, K. (2004). Intrinsic motivation and human‐centered design. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 5(I), 43‐ 71. 203
REFERENCES
Kroll, J., & de Groot, A. (1997). Lexical and conceptual memory in the bilingual: mapping form to meaning in two languages. In: de Groot, A., & Kroll, J. (Eds.), Tutorials in Bi‐ lingualism: Psycholinguistic Perspectives. Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ, 169–99. Kryter, K.D. (1966). Psychological reactions to aircraft noise. Science, 151, 1346‐1355. Kunst‐Wilson, W.R., & Zajonc, R.B. (1980). Affective discrimination of stimuli that cannot be recognized. Science, 207, 557–558. Kurath, H. (1921). The Semantic Sources of the Words for the Emotions in Sanskrit, Greek, Latin and the Germanic Languages. George Banta Publishing, Menasha, WI. Labbe, D., Almiron‐Roig, E., Hudry, J., Leathwood, P., Schifferstein, H.N.J., & Martin, N. (2009). Sensory basis of refreshing perception: Role of psychophysiological factors and food experience. Physiology & Behavior, 98, 1‐9. Labbe, D., Gilbert, F., Antille, N., & Martin, N. (2009). Sensory determinants of refreshing. Food Quality and Preference, 20, 100‐109. Labbe, D., Schlich, P., Pineau, N., Gilbert, F., & N. Martin, N. (2009). Temporal dominance of sensations and sensory profiling: A comparative study. Food Quality and Prefer‐ ence, 20, 216–221. Labovitz, S. (1970). The assignment of numbers to rank order categories. American Socio‐ logical Review, 35, 5151‐5524. LaFromboise, T., Coleman, H., & Gerton, J. (1993). Psychological impact of biculturalism: Evidence and theory. Psychological Bulletin 114, 395–412.
Laird, D.A. (1932). How the consumer estimates quality by subconscious sensory impres‐ sions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 16, 241‐246. Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors We Live By. University of Chicago Press, Chi‐ cago. Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1999). Philosophy in the flesh: The embodied mind and its chal‐ lenge to Western thought. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Langer, S.K. (1967/1982). Mind: An Essay on Human Feeling. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press. Larson‐Powers, M., & Pangborn, R. M. (1978). Paired comparison and time‐intensity measure‐ ments of the sensory properties of beverages and gelatins containing sucrose or syn‐ thetic sweeteners. Journal of Food Science, 43, 41–46. Laurans, G., & Desmet, P. (2008). Speaking in tongues – Assessing user experience in a global economy. Paper presented at Design & Emotions Conference, Hong Kong, 6‐9 Oc‐ tober, 2008. Laurans, G., Desmet, P., & Hekkert, P. (2009). Assessing emotion in interaction: Some prob‐ lems and a new approach. Paper presented at International Conference on Design‐ ing Pleasurable Products and Interfaces, 13‐ 16 October 2009, Compiegne, France. Lawless, H., & Engen, T. (1977). Associations to odors: interference, mnemonics, and verbal label‐ ing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning & Memory, 3, 52–59.
204
SENSORY DOMINANCE IN PRODUCT EXPERIENCE
Le Reverend, F.M., Hidrio, C., Fernandes, A., & Aubry, V. (2008). Comparison between tem‐ poral dominance of sensations and time intensity results. Food Quality and Prefer‐ ence, 19, 174–178. Lederman, S.J., & Abbott, S.G. (1981). Texture perception: studies of intersensory organiza‐ tion using a discrepancy paradigm, and visual versus tactile psychophysics. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 4, 902‐915. Lederman, S.J., Thorne, G., & Jones, B. (1986). Perception of texture by vision and touch: multidimensionality and intersensory integration. Journal of Experimental Psychol‐ ogy: Human Perception and Performance, 12, 169‐180. LeDoux, J.E. (2000). Emotion circuits in the brain. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 23, 155–184. Lee, H.S., & O’ Mahony, M. (2005). Sensory evaluation and marketing: Measurement of a consumer concept. Food Quality and Preference, 16, 227–235. Lee, L., Frederick, S., & Ariely, D. (2006). Try it, you’ll like it: the influence of expectation, consumption, and revelation on preferences for beer. Psychological Science, 17, 1054–1058. Lee, M., & Lou, Y. –C. (1996). Consumer reliance on intrinsic and extrinsic cues in product evaluations: a conjoint approach. Journal of Applied Business Research 12, 21‐29. Lehrer, A. (1978). Structures of the lexicon and transfer of meaning. Lingua 45, 95‐123. Leibovitz, M., London, P., Cooper, L., & Hart, J. (1972). Dominance in mental imagery. Educa‐ tional and Psychological Measurement 32, 679‐703. Levinson, S. (1996). Language and space. Annual Review of Anthropology, 25, 353‐382. Levinson, S. (2003). Space in Language and Cognition: Explorations in Cognitive Diversity. Cambridge University Press, New York. Levinson, S., & Jaisson, P. (Eds), 2006. Evolution and Culture: A Fyssen Foundation Sympo‐ sium. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. Levinson, S., & Meira, S. (2003). 'Natural concepts' in the spatial topological domain ‐ adposi‐ tional meanings in cross‐linguistic perspective: An exercise in semantic typology. Language 79, 485‐516. Levinson, S., & Wilkins, D. (Eds.), 2006. Grammars of Space. Cambridge University Press, New York. Lewinski, R.H. (1938). An investigation of individual responses to chromatic illumination. Journal of Psychology, 6, 155‐160. Lewkowicz, D.J. (1996). Perception of auditory‐visual temporal synchrony in human infants. Jour‐ nal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 22, 1094 –1106. Li, P., & Gleitman, L. (2002). Turning the tables: Language and spatial reasoning. Cognition 83, 265–294. Liu, Y. (2003). The aesthetic and the ethic dimensions of human factors and design. Ergo‐ nomics, 46, 1293‐1305. Lloyd, D.M., Calvert, G.A., Hansen, P.C., & McGlone, X.L.F. (2001). Visuo‐tactile Integrations Sites are Modulated by Task and Attention. Society for Neuroscience, San Diego, CA. Lord, F. (1980). Applications of Item Response Theory to Practical Testing Problems. Law‐ rence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ. 205
REFERENCES
Loveless, N.E., Brebner, J., & Hamilton, P. (1970). Bisensory presentation of information. Psychological Bulletin, 73, 161–199. Lucy, J. (1992). Language Diversity and Thought: A Reformulation of the Linguistic Relativity Hypothesis. Cambridge University Press, New York. Lucy, J., & Gaskins, S. (2001). Grammatical categories and the development of classification preferences: A comparative approach. In: Bowerman, M., & Levinson, S. (Eds.). Language Acquisition and Conceptual Development. Cambridge University Press, New York, pp. 257‐283. Ludden, G. D. S., & Schifferstein, H. N. J. (2007). Effects of visual–auditory incongruity on product expression and surprise. International Journal of Design, 1 (3), 29‐39. Lupton, D.). (1996 Food, the Body and the Self. London: Sage. Lutz, A. & Thompson, E. (2003). Neurophenomenology: integrating subjective experience and brain dynamics in the neuroscience of consciousness. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 10, 31‐52. Lutz, A. (2002). Toward a neurophenomenology as an account of generative passages: a first empirical case study. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences, 1, 133–67. Lyon, R. H. (2000). Designing for product sound quality. New York: Marcel Dekker, Inc. MacDonald, A. (2002). The scenario of sensory encounter: Cultural factors in sensory‐ aesthetic experience. In W.S. Green & P.W. Jordan (Eds.), Pleasure with products: Beyond usability. London: Taylor & Francis, pp. 113‐123. Macdonald, A. S. (2000). Aesthetic intelligence: Optimizing user centred design. Journal of Engineering Design, 12, 37–45. MacDonald, A.S. (2003). Affective technology and affective human factors design in an era of rapid technological change. In Proceedings of the XVth Triennial Congress of the In‐ ternational Ergonomics Association. lEA, Seoul, Korea. Majid, A., & Levinson, S. (2008). Language does provide support for basic tastes. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 31, 86‐87. Majid, A., Bowerman, M., Kita, S., Haun, D, & Levinson, S. (2004). Can language restructure cogni‐ tion? The case for space. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 8, 108–114. Malt, B., Sloman, S., Gennari, S,, & Wong, Y. (1999). Knowing versus naming: similarity and the linguistic categorization of artefacts. Journal of Memory and Language 40, 230‐ 262. Martindale, C., & Moore, K. (1988). Priming, prototypicality, and preference. Journal of Experi‐ mental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 14, 661–670. Maurer, D. (1993). Neonatal synesthesia: implications for the processing of speech and faces. In de Boysson‐Bardies, B., de Schonen, S., Jusczyk, P., McNeilage, P., & Mor‐ ton, J. (Eds) Developmental Neurocognition: Speech and face processing in the first year of life. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht. McClure, S.M., Li, J., Tomlin, D., Cypert, K.S., Montague, L.M., & Montague, P.R. (2004). Neu‐ ral correlates of behavioral preference for culturally familiar drinks. Neuron, 44, 379–387.
206
SENSORY DOMINANCE IN PRODUCT EXPERIENCE
McConkie, G.W., & Currie, C.B., (1996). Visual stability across saccades while viewing com‐ plex pictures. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Perform‐ ance 22, 563–581. McCrory, M., Saltzma, E., Rolls, B.J., & Roberts, S.B. (2006). A twin study of the effects of energy density and liking on energy intake of individual foods. Physiology & Behav‐ ior 87, 451–459. McEwan, J. A., & Colwill, J. S. (1996). The sensory assessment of the thirstquenching charac‐ teristics of drinks. Food Quality and Preference, 7, 101‐111. McGuire, W. (1976). Some internal psychological factors influencing consumer choice. Jour‐ nal of Consumer Research, 2, 302‐319. McGurk, H., & MacDonald, J. (1976). Hearing lips and seeing voices. Nature, 264, 746–748. McKennel, A.C. (1963). Aircraft noise annoyance around London (Heathrow) airport. London: Central Office of Information. McLuhan, M. (1961). Inside the five sense sensorium. The Canadian Architect, 6 (June), 49‐54. Mela, D.J. (2006). Eating for pleasure or just wanting to eat? Reconsidering sensory hedonic responses as a driver of obesity. Appetite, 47, 10–17.
Mennel, S., Murcott, A. & van Otterloo, A.H. (1992). The Sociology of Food: Eating, Diet and Culture. Sage Publications, London. Merleau‐Ponty, M. (1962) Phenomenology of Perception, trans. Colin Smith, New York: Hu‐ manities Press. Merleau‐Ponty, M. (1973). Consciousness and the Acquisition of Language, trans. Hugh Silverman, Evanston: Northwestern Univ. Press. Mervis, C., & Rosch, E. (1981) . Categorization of natural objects. Annual Review of Psychol‐ ogy 32, 89‐115. Messinger, S.M. (1998). Pleasure and complexity: Berlyne revisited. Journal of Psychology, 132, 558‐564. Meyers, L.S., Guarino, A., & Gamst, G. (2005). Applied Multivariate Research: Design and Interpretation. Sage Publications, p. 20. Michael, G.A., & Roihion, P. (2008). Cool colors: Color‐induced nasal thermal sensations. Neuroscience Letters, 436, 141‐144.
Miller, E.A. (1972). Interaction of vision and touch in conflict and nonconflict form percep‐ tion tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 96, 114‐123. Miller, G., & Johnson‐Laird, P. (1976). Language and Perception. Cambridge University Press, New York. Millot, J., & Brand, G. (2001). Effects of pleasant and unpleasant ambient odors on human voice pitch, Neuroscience Letter, 297, 61–63. Mintz, S.W. (1985). Sweetness and Power: The Place of Sugar in Modern History. New York: Viking. Mol, A. (2008). I eat an apple. On theorizing subjectivities. Subjectivity, 22, 28–37. Monö, R. (1997). Design for product understanding. Stockholm: Liber.
207
REFERENCES
Morgan, G.A., Goodson. F.E., & Jones, T. (1975) Age differences in the associations between felt temperatures and color choices. American Journal of Psychology, 88, 125‐130. Moskowitz, H.R., Dravnieks, A., Klarman, L.A. (1976). Odor intensity and pleasantness for a diverse set of odorants. Perception & Psychophysics, 19, 122–128. Mugge, R., Schifferstein, H.N.J., & Schoormans, J.P.L. (2004). Personalizing product appear‐ ance: the effect on product attachment. In: A. Kurtgözü (Ed.) 4th International Con‐ ference on Design and Emotion, Ankara, Turkey. Murcott, A. (1982). On the Social Significance of the Cooked Dinner in South Wales. Social Science Information, 25, 677–96.
Murphy F.C., Nimmo‐Smith, I., & Lawrence, A.D. (2003). Functional neuroanatomy of emo‐ tions: a meta‐analysis. Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience, 3, 207–233. Murphy, L.L., Stanney K., & Hancock, P. A. (2003). The effect of affect: The hedonomic evaluation of human‐computer interaction. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 47th Annual Meeting. Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, pp. 764‐767. Nagamashi, M. (1989). Kansei Engineering. Kaibundo, Tokyo. Neisser, U. (1994). Multiple systems: a new approach to cognitive theory. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology 6, 225–241. Nemeroff, C., & Rozin, P. (1994). The contagion concept in adult thinking in the United States: Transmission of germs and interpersonal influence. Ethos, 22, 158–186. Nemeroff, C., & Rozin, P. (2000). The makings of the magical mind. In K.S. Rosengren, C.N. Johnson, & P.L. Harris (Eds.), Imagining the impossible: Magical, scientific, and reli‐ gious thinking in children (pp. 1–34). New York: Cambridge University Press. Newhall, S.M. (1941). Warmth and coolness of colors. Psychological Record, 4, 198‐212. Newton, N. (1996). Foundations of Understanding, Benjamins, Amsterdam. Nguyen, T.D., Heslin, R., and Nguyen, M.L. (1975). The meanings of touch: Sex differences. Journal of Communication 25, 92–103. Niedenthal, P.M., Halberstadt, J.B., & Innes‐Ker, Å.H. (1999). Emotional response categoriza‐ tion. Psychological Review, 106, 337‐361. Nisbett, R., and Wilson, T. (1977). Telling more than we can know: Verbal reports on mental processes. Psychological Review, 84, 231‐259. Nogales, P. (2007). The extent of the literal by Marina Rakova. Mind, 116, 467‐471. Norman, D. (2004). Emotional Design: Why We Love (or Hate) Everyday Things. Basic Books, New York. Northwood, T.D. (1963). Sound and People. Canadian Building Digest, Vol. 41, 973‐978. Núñez, R., & Sweetser, E. (2006). Looking ahead to the past: Convergent evidence from Ay‐ mara language and gesture in the crosslinguistic comparison of spatial construals of time. Cognitive Science 30, 401–450. O’Regan, J.K. (1992). Solving the ‘real’ mysteries of visual perception: The world as an out‐ side memory. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 46, 461–488.
208
SENSORY DOMINANCE IN PRODUCT EXPERIENCE
Olausson, H., Cole, J., Rylander, K., McGlone, F., Lamarre, Y., et al. (2008). Functional role of unmyelinated tactile afferents in human hairy skin: sympathetic response and per‐ ceptual localization. Experimental Brain Research, 184, 135–140. Olausson, H., Lamarre, Y., Backlund, H., Morin, C., Wallin, B.G., et al. (2002). Unmyelinated tactile afferentssignal touch and project to insular cortex. Nature Neuroscience, 5, 900–904. Oliva, A., and Torralba, A. (2001). Identifying the perceptual dimensions of visual complexity of scenes. International Journal of Computer Vision, 42, 145‐175. Osgood, C.E., Suci, G.J., & Tannenbaum, P.H. (1957). The Measurement of Meaning. Univer‐ sity of Illinois Press, Urbana. Özcan, E. & Van Egmond, R. (2008). Product sound design: An interdisciplinary approach. Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Design Research. Sheffield: UK. Paivio, A. (1971). Imagery and verbal processes. New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston. Paivio, A. (2006). Mind and its evolution; A dual coding theoretical interpretation. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Palmer, S.E. (1999). Vision Science: Photons to Phenomenology. MIT Press. Pan, Y., & Schmitt, B. (1996). Language and brand attitudes: Impact of script and sound matching in Chinese and English. Journal of Consumer Psychology 5, 263‐277. Park, C.W. & Young, M. (1983). Types and levels of involvement and brand attitude formation. In: P. Bagozzi & A. Tybout (Eds.). Advances in consumer research, 10, 320–324. Pearson, P. (1970). Relationships between global and specific measures of novelty seeking. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 34, 199‐204. Peneau, S., Hoehn, E., Roth, H. R., Escher, F., & Nuessli, J. (2006). Importance and consumer perception of freshness of apples. Food Quality and Preference, 17, 9–19. Pfaffmann, C. (1960). The pleasures of sensation. Psychological Review, 67, 253–268. Phan, K.L., Wager, T., Taylor, S.F., & Liberzon, I. (2002). Functional neuroanatomy of emo‐ tion: a meta‐analysis of emotion activation studies in PET and fMRI. Neuroimage, 16, 331–348. Pica, P., Lemer, C., Izard, V., & Dehaene, S. (2004). Exact and approximate arithmetic in an Amazonian indigene group. Science 306, 499–503. Piggott, J. R. (1990). Relating sensory and chemical data to understand flavour. Journal of Sensory Studies, 4, 261‐272. Pine, B.J., & Gilmore, J.H. (1998). Welcome to the experience economy. Harvard Business Review, 76, 97‐105. Pineau, N., Cordelle, S., Imbert, A., Rogeaux, M., & Schlich, P. (2003). Dominance Temporelle des Sensations – Codage et analyse d’un nouveau type de données sensorielles. XXXVème journée de statistiques, 2–6, 777–780. Pineau, N., Schlich, P., Cordelle, S. Mathonnière. C., Issanchou, S., Imbert, A., Rogeaux, M., Etiévant. P., & Köster, E. (2009). Temporal Dominance of Sensations: Construction of the TDS curves and comparison with time–intensity. Food Quality and Prefer‐ ence, 20, 450–455.
209
REFERENCES
Plassmann, H., O’Doherty, J., Shiv, B., & Rangel, A. (2008). Marketing actions can modulate neural representations of experienced pleasantness. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science USA, 105, 1050–1054. Ponterotto, J.G. (2005) Qualitative Research in Counseling Psychology: A Primer on Research Paradigms and Philosophy of Science. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 52 ( 2), 126–136. Posner, M.I., Nissen, M.J., & Klein, R.M. (1976). Visual dominance: an information‐processing account of its origins and significance. Psychological Review, 83, 157‐171. Postrel, V. I. (2003). The substance of style: How the rise of aesthetic value is remaking commerce, culture, and consciousness. New York: Harper Collins, pp. 34‐65. Radeau, M. (1994). Auditory–visual spatial interaction and modularity. In: Cahiers de Psy‐ chologie Cognitive/Current Psychology of Cognition, pp. 3–51. Rakova, M. (2003) The Extent of the Literal. Houndmills, UK: Palgrave Macmillan, 2003. Ratchford, B. (1987). New insights about the FCB‐grid. Journal of Advertising Research, Au‐ gust/September, 24–38. Rein, M., & Schön, D. (1977). Problem setting in policy research. In: Weiss, C. (Ed.), Using Social Research in Public Policy Making. Lexington Books, Lexington, MA, pp. 235–251. Renaud, S., & Logeril, M. de. (1992). Wine, alcohol, platelets, and the French paradox for coronary heart disease. Lancet, 339, 1523‐1526. Rennie, D. L. (Ed.). (2002). Qualitative research: History, theory and practice [Special issue]. Canadian Psychology, 43 (3). Rensink, R.A., O’Regan, J.K., & Clark, J.J., (1997). To see or not to see: the need for attention to perceive changes in scenes. Psychological Science 8, 368–373. Rétiveau, A.N., Chambers, I.V.E., & Milliken, G.A. (2004). Common and specific effects of fine fragrances on the mood of women, Journal of Sensory Studies, 19, 373–394. Richardson, A. (1977). Verbalizer‐visualizer: a cognitive style dimension. Journal of Mental Imagery, 1, 109‐125. Robertson, D., Davies, I., & Davidoff, J. (2000). Color categories are not universal: Replica‐ tions and new evidence from a stone‐age culture. Journal of Experimental Psy‐ chology: General 129, 369–398. Rock, I., & Victor, J. (1964). Vision and touch: An experimentally created conflict between the two senses. Science, 143, 594‐596. Rolls, E.T. (2005). Emotion Explained. Oxford University Press, Oxford. Rolls, E.T. (2008). The Representation of Flavor in the Brain. In: The Senses: A Comprehensive Reference, pp. 469‐478. Roos, G., & Wandel, M. (2005). “I Eat because I’m Hungry, because it’s Good and to Become Full”: Eating Voiced by Carpenters, Drivers and Engineers in Contemporary Oslo. Food and Foodways, 13, 169–80. Rosch, E. (1978). Principles of categorization. In: Rosch, E. & Lloyd, B. (Eds.), Cognition and Catego‐ rization. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ, pp. 27‐48.
210
SENSORY DOMINANCE IN PRODUCT EXPERIENCE
Ross, R.T. (1938). Studies in the psychology of the theatre. Psychological Record, 2, 127‐190. Rossiter, J., & Percy, L. (1991). A better advertising planning grid. Journal of Advertising Re‐ search, October, 11–21. Rozin, P. (1990). Development in the food domain. Developmental Psychology 26, 555–562. Rozin, P. (1999). Food is fundamental, fun, frightening, and far‐reaching. Social Research, 66, 9‐30. Rozin, P. (1999). Preadaptation and the puzzles and properties of pleasure. In: D. Kahneman, E. Diener and N. Schwarz (Eds.) Well‐being: The foundations of hedonic psychology. Russell Sage Foundation, New York, NY, pp. 109–133. Rozin, P. (2005). The Meaning of “natural”: Process more important than content. Psycho‐ logical Science, 16, 652‐658. Rozin, P., & Royzman, E.B. (2001). Negativity Bias, Negativity Dominance, and Contagion. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 5, 296‐320. Rozin, P., & Nemeroff, C.J. (1990). The laws of sympathetic magic: A psychological analysis of similarity and contagion. In J. Stigler, G. Herdt, & R.A. Shweder (Eds.), Cultural psy‐ chology: Essays on comparative human development (pp. 205–232). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Rozin, P., Ashmore, M. B., & Markwith, M. (1996). Lay American conceptions of nutrition: Dose insensitivity, categorical thinking, contagion, and the monotonic mind. Health Psychology, 15, 438‐447. Rozin, P., Haidt, J., McCauley, C. R., & Imada, S. (1997). The cultural evolution of disgust. In H. M. Macbeth (ed.). Food preferences and taste: Continuity and change (pp. 65‐ 82). Oxford, U.K.: Berghahn. Rozin, P., Spranca, M., Krieger, Z., Neuhaus, R., Surillo, D., Swerdlin, A.,, & Wood K. (2004). Natural preference: Instrumental and ideational/moral motivations, and the contrast between foods and medicines. Appetite, 43, 147–154. Rozin, P.N., & Schulkin, J. (1990) Food selection. In: E.M. Stricker (Ed.) Neurobiology of food and fluid intake, 10, 297–328. Rudrauf, D. et al. (2003). From autopoiesis to neurophenomenology. Biological Research, 36, 27–66. Ruiz, J.H. (2006). The role of metaphor, metonymy, and conceptual blending in understand‐ ing advertisements: The case of drug‐prevention ads. Revista Alicantina de Estu‐ dios Ingleses 19, 169‐190. Russell, J.A. (2003). Core affect and the psychological construction of emotion. Psychological Review, 110, 145–172. Sacks, O. (1995). An Anthropologist on Mars. Toronto: Vintage Canada, p. 122. Salminen, S., & Hiltunen, E. (1995). Cultural differences in occupational accidents. Part II: A case study of Finnish‐ and Swedish‐speaking workers in Finland. Presented at the 44th Nordic Meeting on Work Environment, Naantali, Finland. Scherer, K.R. (2005). What are emotions? and how can they be measured? Social Science Information, 44 (4), 695‐729.
211
REFERENCES
Schifferstein, H.N.J., & Zwartkruis‐Pelgrim, E.P.H. (2008). Consumer‐product attachment: measurement and design implications. International Journal of Design 2, 1‐13. Schifferstein, H.N.J. & Spence, C. (2008). Multisensory product experience. In: Schifferstein, HNJ, Hekkert P. (Eds.). Product experience: Elsevier, p. 133‐162.
Schifferstein, H.N.J. (2006). The relative importance of sensory modalities in product usage: a study of self‐reports. Acta Psychologica, 121, 41‐64. Schifferstein, H.N.J., & Cleiren, M.P.H.D. (2005). Capturing product experiences: a split‐ modality approach. Acta Psychologica, 118, 293‐318. Schifferstein, H.N.J., & Desmet, P.M. A. (2007). The effect of sensory impairments on product experience and personal well ‐being. Ergonomics, 50, 2026‐2048. Schifferstein, H.N.J., & Verlegh, P.W.J. (1996). The role of congruency and pleasantness in odor‐ induced taste enhancement. Acta Psychologica, 94, 87‐105. Schifferstein, H.N.J., Otten, J.J., Thoolen, F., & Hekkert, P. (2010). An experimental approach to assess sensory dominance in a product development context, Journal of Design Research, 8(2), 119‐144. Schiffman S., Robinson, D.E., Erickson, R.P. (1977). Multidimensional‐scaling of odorants— examination of psychological and physiochemical dimensions. Chemical Senses: Flavor, 2, 375–390. Schiffman, S.S. (1974). Physicochemical correlates of olfactory quality. Science, 185, 112–117. Schleidt, M., Neumann, P., & Morishita, H. (1988). Pleasure and disgust: Memories and asso‐ ciations of pleasant and unpleasant odours in Germany and Japan, Chemical Senses, 13, 279–293. Schlosser, E. (2001). Fast Food Nation: The Dark Side of the All‐American Meal. Houghton Mifflin. Schmitt B., & Zhang S. (1998). Language structure and categorization: A study of classifiers in con‐ sumer cognition, judgment and choice. Journal of Consumer Research 25, 108–22. Schmitt, B. (1999). Experiential marketing. Journal of Marketing Management, 15, 53‐67. Schmitt, B., Pan, Y., & Tavassoli, N. (1994). Language and consumer memory: The impact of linguistic differences between Chinese and English. Journal of Consumer Research 21, 419‐431. Schroeder, J. (2002). Visual consumption. London: Routledge. Schultz, T.J. (1978). Synthesis of social surveys on noise annoyance. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America; 74: 377–405. Seeger, A. (1975). The meaning of body ornaments: A Suya example. Ethnology, 14, 211‐224. Sekuler, R. and Blake, R. (1994) Perception (3rd edn). Alfred A. Knopf, New York. Sekuler, R., Sekuler, A.B. & Lau, R. (1997). Sound alters visual motion perception, Nature, 385, 308. Shams, L., Kamitani, Y., & Shimojo, S. (2000). Illusions. What you see is what you hear. Na‐ ture, 408, 788. Shams, L., Kamitani, Y., & Shimojo, S. (2002). Visual illusion induced by sound. Cognitive Brain Research, 14, 147–152. 212
SENSORY DOMINANCE IN PRODUCT EXPERIENCE
Shapiro, K.L., Egerman, B. & Klein, R.M. (1984). Effects of arousal on human visual domi‐ nance. Perception & Psychophysics, 35, 547‐552. Shiv, B., Carmon, Z., & Ariely, D. (2005). Placebo effects of marketing actions: Consumers may get what they pay for. Journal of Marketing Research, 42, 383–393.
Siminon, B.L., & Ruth, J.A. (1998). Is a company known by the company it keeps? Assessing the spillover effects of brand alliances on consumer brand attitudes. Journal of Marketing Research, 35(1), 30–42. Simner, J., & Ward, J. (2006). Synaesthesia: The taste of words on the tip of the tongue, Na‐ ture, 444, 438. Simpson, J., & Weiner, E. (Eds.) (1989). The Oxford English Dictionary. Second edition. Oxford University Press, New York. Singer, G., & Day, R. N. (1969). Visual capture of haptually judged depth. Perception & Psy‐ chophysics, 6, 203‐205. Sloutsky, V.M., & Napolitano, A.C. (2003). Is a picture worth a thousand words? Preference for auditory modality in young children. Child Development, 74(3), 822‐833. Slovic, P., & Lichtenstein, S. (1971). Comparison of Bayesian and regression approaches to the study of information processing in judgment. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 6, 649‐744. Smets, G.J.F., & Overbeeke, C. J. (1995). Expressing tastes in packages. Design Studies, 16, 349–365. Snedecor, G.W., & Cochran, W.G. (1980) Statistical Methods. Ames, Iowa: The Iowa State University Press. Soussignan, R., Schaal, B., Marlier, L., & Jiang, T. (1997). Facial and autonomic responses to bio‐ logical and artificial olfactory stimuli in human neonates: re‐ examining early hedonic discrimination of odors. Physiology & Behavior, 62, 745–758. Spence, C., & Driver, J. (2004). Crossmodal space and crossmodal attention. Oxford, UK: Ox‐ ford University Press. Spence, C., Nicholls, M. E. R., & Driver, J. (2001). The cost of expecting events in the wrong sensory modality. Perception & Psychophysics, 63, 330‐336. Stadtlander, L., & Murdoch, L. (2000). Frequency of occurrence and rankings for touch‐ related adjectives. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers 32, 579‐587. Stein, B.E., and Meredith, M.A. (1993). The merging of the senses. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. Stein, B.E., Meredith, M.A., Huneycutt, W.S., & McDade, L. (1989). Behavioral indices of mul‐ tisensory integration: orientation to visual cues is affected by auditory stimuli. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 1, 12–24. Steiner, J.E. (1979). Human facial expressions in response to taste and smell stimulation. Advances in Child Development and Behavior, 13, 257–295. Stemmler, G. (2003) Methodological Considerations in the Psychophysiological Study of Emotion. In R.J. Davidson, K.R. Scherer and H. Goldsmith (eds) Handbook of the Af‐ fective Sciences, pp. 225–55. New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press. 213
REFERENCES
Stevenson, R.J., & Boakes, R.A. (2003) A mnemonic theory of odor perception. Psychological Review, 110 (2), 340‐364. Stratton, G.M. (1897). Vision without inversion of the retinal image. Psychological Review, 4, 341‐369, 463‐481. Strømnes, F. (1973). A semiotic theory of imagery processes with experiments on an Indo‐ European and a Ural‐Altaic language: Do speakers of different languages experi‐ ence different cognitive worlds? Scandinavian Journal of Psychology 14, 291‐304.
Strømnes, F. (1974). No universality of cognitive structures? Two experiments with almost‐perfect one‐trial learning of translatable operators in a Ural‐Altaic and IndoEuropean language. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology 15, 300‐309. Suzuki, M. & Gyoba, J. (2008). Visual and tactile cross‐modal mere exposure effects. Cogni‐ tion & Emotion, 22, 147‐154. Suzuki, M., & Gyoba, J. (2001). Contrastive analysis of sensory‐relevance of factors affecting aesthetic impressions. Tohoku Psychologica Folia 60, 81‐92. Suzuki, M., Gyoba, J., & Sakuta, Y. (2005). Multichannel NIRS analysis of brain activity during semantic differential rating of drawing stimuli containing different affective polari‐ ties. Neuroscience Letters 375, 53‐58. Suzuki, M., Gyoba, J., Kawabata, H., Yamaguchi, H., & Komatsu, H. (2006). Analyses of the sensory‐relevance of adjective pairs by the modality differential method. Shinri‐ gaku Kenkyu 77, 464‐470. Sweetser, E. (1990). From Etymology to Pragmatics: Metaphorical and Cultural Aspects of Semantic Structure. Cambridge University Press, New York. Taft, C. (1997) Color meaning and context: comparisons of semantic ratings of colors on samples and objects. Colour Research and Application, 22, 40‐50. Takeshima, H., Suzuki, Y., Sone, T. (1991). Evaluation of steady noise from a multidimen‐ sional point of view. Journal of Sound and Vibration; 151, 519–528. Taylor‐Clarke, M., Kennett, S., & Haggard, P. (2004). Persistence of visual‐tactile enhance‐ ment in humans. Neuroscience Letters, 354, 22–25. Teghtsoonian, R., & Teghtsoonian, M. (1970). Two varieties of perceived length. Perception & Psychophysics, 8, 389‐392. Tinker, M.A. (1938). Effect of stimulus‐texture upon apparent warmth and affective value of colors. American Journal of Psychology 51,532‐535. Tomasello, M. (2003). Constructing a Language: A Usage‐based Theory of Acquisition. Cam‐ bridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Turner, B.S. (1984) The Body and Society, Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Ullmann, S. (1963). Semantic universals. In: Greenberg, J. (Ed.) Universals of Language. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, pp. 179‐207. Van Dale (2008). Van Dale Comprehensive Dictionary Dutch to English / Van Dale Groot Woor‐ denboek Nederlands / Engels, 4th edition, French & European Publs. Van der Helm, P.A. (2000). Simplicity versus likelihood in visual perception: From surprisals to precisals. Psychological Bulletin, 126, 770‐800. 214
SENSORY DOMINANCE IN PRODUCT EXPERIENCE
Van Dijk, T.A., & Kintsch, W. (1983). Strategies of Discourse Comprehension. Academic Press, New York. Van Essen, D., Felleman, D., DeYoe, E., Olavarria, J., & Knierim, J. (1990). Modular and hierar‐ chical organization of extrastriate visual cortex in the Macaque monkey. Cold Spring Harbor Symposia on Quantitative Biology 55, 679–696. Van Ittersum, K., Pennings, J.M.E., Wansink, B., & van Trijp, H.C.M. (2007). The validity of attribute‐importance measurement: A review. Journal of Business Research, 60, 1177‐1190. Varela, F.J. (1996). Neurophenomenology: A methodological remedy to the hard problem. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 3 (4), 330–350.
Verhagen, J.V., & Engelen, L. (2006). The neurocognitive bases of human multimodal food percep‐ tion: Sensory integration. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 30(5): 613‐650. Verhoog, H., Matze, M., Lammerts van Bueren, E., and Baars, T. (2003) .The Role of the Con‐ cept of the Natural (Naturalness) in Organic Farming. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, ),16 (1 29‐49. Veryzer, R.W., & Hutchinson, J.W. (1998). The influence of unity and prototypicality on aes‐ thetic responses to new product designs. Journal of Consumer Research, 24(4), 374–394. Viberg, A. (1984). The Verbs of Perception: a Typological Study. In: Butterworth, B., Comrie, B., & Dahl, Ö. (Eds), Explanations for Language Universals. Mouton, Berlin, pp. 123–62. Villemure, C., Slotnick, B.M., & Bushnell, M.C. (2003). Effects of odors on pain perception: deci‐ phering the roles of emotion and attention. Pain, 106, 101–108. Vroomen, J., Bertelson, P., and de Gelder, B. (2001). The ventriloquist effect does not de‐ pend on the direction of automatic visual attention, Perception and Psychophysics, 63 (4), 651–659. Vygotsky, L.S. (1986). Thinking and Speech. New York: Plenum. Vygotsky, L.S. (1986). Thought and Language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Waber, R.L., Shiv, B., Carmon, Z., & Ariely, D. (2008). Commercial features of placebo and therapeutic efficacy. Journal of Americal Medical Association, 299, 1016–1017. Wallace, M.T. & Stein, B.E. (1997) Development of multisensory neurons and multisensory integration in cat superior colliculus. Journal of Neuroscience, 17, 2429–2444. Wallace, M.T. (2004) The development of multisensory processes. Cognitive Processes, 5, 69–83. Warde, A. (1997). Consumption, Food and Taste: Culinary Antinomies and Commodity Cul‐ ture. London: Sage. Warde, A. (1999). Convenience Food: Space and Timing. British Food Journal 101(7): 518–27. Warren, D.H., & Cleaves, W. (1971). Visual‐proprioceptive interaction under large amounts of conflict. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 90, 206‐214. Weber S.T., Heuberger, E. (2008). The impact of natural odors on affective states in humans. Chemical Senses, 33, 441–47.
215
REFERENCES
Weimer, W.B. (1977). A conceptual framework for cognitive psychology: motor theories of mind. In: R. Shaw, J. Bransford (Eds), Perceiving Acting and Knowing: Toward an Ecological Psychology. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ, pp. 267–311. Welch, R.B. (1999). Meaning, attention, and the "unity assumption" in the intersensory bias of spatial and temporal perceptions. In G. Aschersleben, T. Bachmann, & J. Müsseler (Eds.). Cognitive contributions to the perception of spatial and temporal events. Amsterdam: Elsevier, pp. 371‐387. Welch, R.B., & Warren, D.H. (1986). Intersensory Interactions, in: K.R. Boff, L. Kaufmann, J.P. Thomas (Eds.), Handbook of Perception and Human Performance, Wiley, New York, pp. 4–5. Westerink, J., & Kozlov, S. (2004). Freshness in oral care: Attributes and time‐dependency of a multidimensional, dynamic concept. Journal of Sensory Studies, 19, 171–192. Whittlesea, B.W.A. (1993). Illusions of familiarity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learn‐ ing, 19, 1235–1253. Whorf, B.L. (1956). Language, Thought and Reality: Selected Writings of Benjamin Lee Whorf, ed. J.B. Carroll. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. Willander, J., & Larsson, M. (2006). Smell your way back to childhood: Autobiographical odor memory. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 13, 240‐244. Williams, J. (1976). Synaesthetic adjectives: A possible law of semantic change. Language, 52, 461‐418. Williams, L.E., & Bargh, J.A. (2008). Experiencing physical warmth promotes interpersonal warmth. Science, 322, 606–607. Willis, J., & Todorov, A. (2006). First impressions: making up your mind after a 100‐ms expo‐ sure to a face. Psychological Science, 17, 592–598. Wilson, E.O. (1984). Biophilia: The human bond with other species. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Wilson, T.D., & Dunn, E.W. (2004). Self‐knowledge: its limits, value and potential for improve‐ ment. Annual Review of Psychology, 55: 493–518. Wojciszke, B., et al. (1998). On the dominance of moral categories in impression formation. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 24, 1245–1257. Wood,C. R. (1995). The Sociology of the Meal. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Wright, B. (1962). The influence of hue, brightness, and color on apparent warmth. American Journal of Psychology , 75, 232‐241. Wright, B., & Rainwater, L. (1962). The meaning of color. Journal of General Psychology, 67, 89‐99. Wundt, W. (1874). Principles of physiological psychology. Titchener, E.B., trans. London: Allen. Translation of Wundt, 1874. [New York, 1904] Yellott, J.I., & Kaiwi, J.L. (1979). Depth inversion despite stereopsis: The appearance of random‐ dot stereograms on surfaces seen in reverse perspective. Perception, 8, 135‐142. Yeshurun, Y. & Sobel, N. (2010). An odor is not worth a thousand words: From multidimensional odors to unidimensional odor objects, Annual Review of Psychology, 61, 219–241.
216
SENSORY DOMINANCE IN PRODUCT EXPERIENCE
Zajonc, R.B. (1968). Attitudinal effects of mere exposure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 9, 1–27. Zampini, M., & Spence, C. (2004). The role of auditory cues in modulating the perceived crispness and staleness of potato chips. Journal of Sensory Studies, 19, 347‐363. Zampini, M., & Spence, C. (2005). Modifying the multisensory perception of a carbonated bever‐ age using auditory cues. Food Quality and Preference, 16, 632‐641. Zampini, M., Guest, S., & Spence, C. (2003). The role of auditory cues in modulating the percep‐ tion of electric tooth brushes. Journal of Dental Research, 82, 929‐932. Zarzo, M. (2008). Psychological dimensions in the perception of everyday odors: pleasant‐ ness and edibility. Journal of Sensory Studies, 23, 354–376. Zellner, D. A., & Durlach, P. (2002). What is refreshing? An investigation of the color and other sensory attributes of refreshing foods and beverages. Appetite, 39, 185–186. Zellner, D. A., & Kautz, M. A. (1990). Color affects perceived odor intensity. Journal of Experi‐ mental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 16, 391‐397. Zellner, D. A., Bartoli, A. M. & Eckard, R. (1991). Influence of color on odor identification and liking ratings. American Journal of Psychology, 104, 547‐561. Zellner, D.A., & Durlach, P. (2003). Effect of color on expected and experienced refreshment, intensity, and liking of beverages. American Journal of Psychology, 116, 633‐647. Zhang, S., & Schmitt, B. (1998). Language‐dependent classification: The role of classifiers in cognition, memory and ad evaluation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied 4, 375–85. Zhang, S., & Schmitt, B. (2001). Creating local brands in multilingual international markets. Journal of Marketing Research 38, 313‐325. Zhang, S., & Schmitt, B. (2002). Activating sound and meaning in brand name evaluations: The role of language proficiency. In: Bilinguals’ Differential Processing. Working paper, UCLA Marketing Studies Center. Zhang. S., & Sood, S. (2002). “Deep” and “surface” cues: brand extension evaluations by chil‐ dren and adults. Journal of Consumer Research, 29(1), 129–141. Zlatev, J. (2006). What’s in an image schema? Bodily mimesis and the grounding of language. In: Hampe, B. (Ed.), From Perception to Meaning: Image Schemas in Cognitive Lin‐ guistics. Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin, pp. 313–342.
217
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
PhD research is a long project that requires the help of many people. I would like to thank everybody who contributed to the success of my work.
First of all, I am grateful to my promoter Paul Hekkert and co‐promoter Rick Schif‐ ferstein. They invited me to work on thist projec and they always expressed confi‐ dence in its success. I learned a lot from both of them. Paul inspired me to think strategically, to focus on the big picture and to ask important theoretical questions. Rick taught me to pay attention to methodological details and to appreciate the beauty ofr clea definitions, well designed experiments and precise conclusions. I would like to thank our dean Cees de Bont for his help; without it this defense would have not taken place. I am grateful to Zoltan Rusak, Eelco van Stokkom, and Tanja Herbert for their advices and support.
I did not do this research alone. Many students and employees of Industrial Design helped me to run experiments and collect the data. I want to thank my graduate student Tse‐Chia (Joyce) Huang for her commitment to the “freshness” study. I am grateful to Agnes Tan for her help in the organization of the “naturalness” study, and to Dirk‐Jan Oudshoorn, Christiaan Maats and Reinoud Valks for their contribu‐ tion to data collection and analysis for this study. I want to thank Roderick Huiijgen, Cees Jan Stam, Jeroen van der Liende, Merel Pick, and Charlotte Marsman for their contribution to data gathering for the “warm” study, and Alexandra Bochaver for gathering Russian data for the cross‐cultural study. I want to thank Anna Bernard, Kjille Schutten, Peter van den Herik, Alex Maliepaard and Dennis Willemsen for
219
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
their contribution to data gathering for the “noisy” study, and Mariska Rooijakkers, Katja Leuschner, Gaspard Bos, and Rein Pas for their help with preliminary experi‐ ments. I am grateful to all my colleagues at the Department of Industrial Design who con‐ tributed to the creative atmosphere at the faculty. During these four years I en‐ joyed sharing the office with Kamiel, Gineke, Thomas, Bea, Gael, and Valentijn. I want to thank all my roommates for the nice working environment they created. I am grateful to all members of Design Aesthetics section for our lively meetings on Monday mornings which filled me with energy for the whole week. I want to thank Cha Joong, Jaap, Sonia, Jackie and Liz for the great time we had together while or‐ ganizing the PhD day. Special thanks to Gael for sharing recipes of delicious French dishes, to Cha Joong for practical tips on Dutch housing and tax systems, and to Olga, my former colleague from Ukraine, for all the fun we had together. I am grateful to my family members, especially to Philipp, who took over my duties back home and made it possible for me to finish this project. I would like to thank my Russian friends, Julia, Tanya, Mark, and Inga, who helped me to stay connected with my cultural roots. I also want to thank my friends in the Netherlands, Duke, Tanja, Pieter, Ron, and Erwin, who made this country feel like home. Thank you, Roeslan, for your love and support, for your positive life attitude and for delicious dinners you cooked when I was working late. I am so happy we are together!
ANNA FENKO
220
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Anna Fenko was born in Moscow, Russia. She graduated as psychologist (diploma with honors) and received a “candidate of psychology” degree from Moscow State University. Before moving to the Netherlands she was teaching consumer psychol‐ ogy at Moscow University and consulting at a local marketing agency. She com‐ pleted several research projects funded by international scientific foundations. In 2003‐2004 she was a Fulbright visiting scholar at Jones School of Management at Rice University, Houston, USA. In August 2006 she started the PhD research at the Department of Industrial Design of Delft University of Technology. The results of this project are presented at various international conferences and published in Applied Ergonomics, Food Quality & Preference, Materials & Design, Journal of Pragmatics, and Metaphor & Symbol. Her scientific interests include cognitive and affective drivers of consumer behavior, multisensory integration and cultural dif‐ ferences in product experience, and symbolic meaning of everyday products.
221
LIST OF PUBLICATIONS
Fenko, A., Otten, J.J., & Schifferstein, H.N.J. (2010). Describing product experience in different languages: The role of sensory modalities. Journal of Pragmat‐ ics, 42, 3314–3327. Schifferstein, H.N.J., & Fenko, A. (2010). Investigating sensory dominance in prod‐ uct experience. Proceedings of the 7th Conference on Design & Emotion, 4‐ 7 October 2010, Chicago, Il, USA. Fenko, A., Schifferstein, H.N.J., & Hekkert, P. Noisy products: Does appearance mat‐ ter? International Journal of Design, submitted. Fenko, A., Schifferstein, H.N.J., & Hekkert, P. (2010) Looking hot or feeling hot: What determines the product experience of warmth? Materials & Design, 31, 1325–1331. Fenko, A., Schifferstein, H.N.J., & Hekkert, P. (2010). Shifts in sensory dominance between various stages of user‐product interactions. Journal of Applied Ergonomics, 41, 34–40. Fenko, A., Schifferstein, H.N.J., & Hekkert, P. (2010). Can we design pleasurable products by combining pleasurable sensory properties? Proceedings of the International Conference on Kansei Engineering and Emotion Research 2010, 2‐4 March 2010, Paris, France. Bochaver, A., & Fenko, A. (2010). Metaphors in happy and unhappy life stories of Russian adults. Metaphor and Symbol, 25, 243–262.
223
PUBLICATIONS
Fenko, A., Schifferstein, Huang, T.‐C., & Hekkert, P. (2009). What makes products fresh: The smell or the color? Food Quality and Preference, 20, 372–379. Fenko, A., Schifferstein, & Hekkert, P. (2009). Which senses dominate the product experiences of warmth and freshness? Paper presented at the 8th Pang‐ born Sensory Science Symposium, 26‐30 July 2009, Florence, Italy. Fenko, A., Schifferstein, H.N.J., & Hekkert, P. (2008) Factors contributing to product experience: The cases of ‘warmth’ and ‘freshness’. Proceedings of the 6th Conference on Design & Emotion, 6‐9 October, 2008, Hong Kong. Fenko, A., Schifferstein, H.N.J., & Hekkert, P. (2008) hWhic senses dominate the different stages of product experience. Proceedings of the 4th Design Re‐ search Society Conference, 16‐19 July, 2008, Sheffield, UK. Fenko, A. (2008) Sensory dominance in product experience: the paradox of theory and practice. Paper presented at the 7th Nordcode Seminar, 28‐30 May, 2008, Lund, Sweden.
224