THE STUDY OF RATIONAL AND EMOTIONAL COGNITION ...

THE SCIENCE OF DESIGN BULLETIN OF JSSD Vol. xx No. x 20xx 1

THE STUDY OF RATIONAL AND EMOTIONAL COGNITION OF CHAIRS

Chiu-Wei CHIEN*, Chih-Long LIN*,Rung-Tai LIN*

*National Taiwan University of Arts 59,Sec. 1, Daguan Rd., Banqiao Dist., New Taipei City 22058, Taiwan

Abstract: Classification of product appearances can help determine the style of product design and market orientation. In the present study, rational and emotional adjectives were extracted from literature review, and the chairs, more than a hundred years old, were used as product samples to create questions for the pretest, ultimately, there were 24 converged questions. 15 chairs were used to develop the norm for the official testing. 292 valid questionnaires were conducted. Results showed: academic major was the only variable that produced significant difference out of the three variables in the participants. Chairs that bring on emotional cognition had higher overall assessments than those with rational construct. The aesthetic condition is the form that makes the consumer feel safe and comfortable, while using material features to produce elegant, intricate, and holistic forms; forms that approximate the human posture are more likely to be emotionally cognized. Keywords: rational and emotional, form and materials, academic major, aesthetics and environmental protection

1. Foreword

This study will investigate the rational and emotional cognition of product characteristics. The reason for studying rational and emotional characteristics comes from the two major brands of Taiwan’s information industry – ACER and ASUS, which have divided products into two major categories: business products and consumer products. If product designers want to classify products with different personalities by design styles, product appearance would be an important determining characteristic. The personality of a product is the first impression people get from the product [1-3] , in other words, the personality of the product is determined the first time the consumer sees the product. This study searched for suitable adjectives to convert business and consumer styles into relative adjectives that could be accepted by both designers and consumers. Hung & Chen [4] found that the effects of product appearance innovation and aesthetic preferences include three basic semantic dimensions – trends, complexity, and emotions. The relative adjectives used for emotion were “Rational-

Emotional.” Therefore, the purpose of this study is to explore the consumer’s cognition of product characteristics, including consumers of different backgrounds and objects with different product design elements. As stated by Lin and John [5], it is important to understand the significance of user feelings and satisfaction in consumer product design, and at the same time, it is important to focus on consumer feelings while ensuring that a product is simple and easy to use.

2. Literature Review

The definitions of products as rational or emotional can be traced back to the 1980s, when due to market orientation of products, Aaker and Shansby defined product characteristics as follows: “The combination of all explicit and implicit features and characteristics that can be perceived by consumers.”[6] Japanese scholars classified products as rational or emotional based on whether consumers were rational. Most rational product characteristics involved product functionality, product

The Bulletin of JSSD Vol.1 No.2 pp.1-2(2000)

Original paper

57 THE SC IENCE OF DES IGN　 BULLET I N OF JSSD　Vol. 62　No. 3 2015

Original papersReceived March 29, 2015; Accepted August 19, 2015

Copyright © 2012　日本デザイン学会　All Rights Reserved.

2 THE SCIENCE OF DESIGN BULLETIN OF JSSD Vol. 53 No. 1 2006

quality, product price, and vendor reputation. Emotional product characteristics included pleasure, atmosphere, and trendiness sensed by consumers.[7] According to Stern, Gould &Tewari [8] product gender is a gendered perception of products, determined by consumers, based on clues in the products and past purchase and usage experiences; products were generally described as “masculine,” “feminine,” and “neutral.” This study will explore the rational and/or emotional orientation of products as decided by designers in the design stage, or by planners before development and design, when the future characteristics of the products have already been determined.

Thus, the terms “rational” and “emotional” went from

being used to interpret and describe human character, to being extended to interpreting and describing certain human actions taken to achieve certain outcomes. Using the aggregation of personal characteristics to describe product [9], characteristics can also interpret how people use the

design appearance to deduce the functional character of products [10]. People usually think that in the product design stage after product planning, designers can exercise their intuition and creative instincts to design products, mainly to convey some character, like fashion trends. Regardless, under certain circumstances, designers and laypeople have different ideas about product design [11] [12]. Therefore, past studies sought to guide designers in incorporating product character into product design (e.g., [13-15]). Therefore, there is some consensus regarding the emotions constituted by the form; many studies on emotional industrial arts have shown that emotions can be measured. The subjective SD method found that people can make emotional judgments about form if they observe certain important parts in the overall form, and that the usage of certain formal elements can create different emotions in the overall form [16]. Chang[17] used the perspective of consumers’ visual comfort regarding product appearance and sense to explore product forms that affect consumer perceptions of visual comfort. Studies on product characteristics or personality can help orient product design and provide feedback for overall operations in product marketing. Table 1 compiles rational and emotional studies on marketing and advertising; these serve as the basis for questions in the pretest.

3. Research methodology 3.1 Pretest

Rational and emotional adjectives extracted from literature review include the following. Rational dimension: function, quality, price, mechanical aesthetics, and mass production. Emotional dimension: aesthetics, fashion, pleasure, nostalgia, and environmental conservation. The extracted adjectives were used to create 36 questions to form the hypothetical model. Five experts, including three research scholars in design and two senior industrial designers who have more than 15 years of experience were invited to choose test samples and to amend the questions. This study used 50 chairs collected by Design Now-Industrial or Art? [18] from early to late 20th century (1900-1987), and 55 modern chairs collected by Design Now![19] from the beginning of the 21st century (2003- 2007). They were separated into 5 categories according to the date that they were made: 1900-1930, 1931-1950, 1951-1970, 1971-1990, and 1991-2007. Experts were asked to choose 4 of the most representative samples that were not redundant from the five eras, for a total of 20 chairs. The test proceeded as following:

Table 1: Compilation of rational and emotional studies in marketing and advertising Author/ Year

Objec- tive

Rational/ Emotional

Content

Ratchf- ord/ 1987

Shopping motives

Rational motives

Rational thinking involving language, theory, number.

Emotional motives

Emotional scope involving beauty, emotions, and ethical concepts are more inductive.

Atsushi Imagawa etal./ 1989

Rational products

product functions, product quality, product price, and vendor reputation.

Emotional products

consumers feel cheerful, a certain atmosphere, and trendy.

Kotler/ 1999

Advertising appeal

Rational appeal

Rational appeal: Primarily shows the benefits of the product, or appe- als to the self-interest of consumers.

Emotional appeal

Emotional appeal: primarily inspi- res positive or negative consumer emotions to elicit the instinct or drive to purchase; usually expressed as emotions appeal.

Macro Gobe/ 2001

Brand marketing

Emotional marketing

The consumption age of emotional marketing has arrived. Consumers not only focus on traditional, nostalgic, emotional, and humanistic symbols and images, but also began focusing on environmental conservation, brand image and social responsibility due to the effects of globalization.

Macro Gobe/ 2002

The construction of civil brands with hope, vision, and dreams is a trend. Attention must be paid to social influence when working to construct emotional connections with consumers, and to unity in discourse and practice to fulfill citizen responsibilities, and in turn move the people with magnanimity.

58 B U L L E T I N OF JSSD　Vol. 62　No. 3 2015　　THE SC IENCE OF DES IGN


quality, product price, and vendor reputation. Emotional product characteristics included pleasure, atmosphere, and trendiness sensed by consumers.[7] According to Stern, Gould &Tewari [8] product gender is a gendered perception of products, determined by consumers, based on clues in the products and past purchase and usage experiences; products were generally described as “masculine,” “feminine,” and “neutral.” This study will explore the rational and/or emotional orientation of products as decided by designers in the design stage, or by planners before development and design, when the future characteristics of the products have already been determined.

Thus, the terms “rational” and “emotional” went from

being used to interpret and describe human character, to being extended to interpreting and describing certain human actions taken to achieve certain outcomes. Using the aggregation of personal characteristics to describe product [9], characteristics can also interpret how people use the

design appearance to deduce the functional character of products [10]. People usually think that in the product design stage after product planning, designers can exercise their intuition and creative instincts to design products, mainly to convey some character, like fashion trends. Regardless, under certain circumstances, designers and laypeople have different ideas about product design [11] [12]. Therefore, past studies sought to guide designers in incorporating product character into product design (e.g., [13-15]). Therefore, there is some consensus regarding the emotions constituted by the form; many studies on emotional industrial arts have shown that emotions can be measured. The subjective SD method found that people can make emotional judgments about form if they observe certain important parts in the overall form, and that the usage of certain formal elements can create different emotions in the overall form [16]. Chang[17] used the perspective of consumers’ visual comfort regarding product appearance and sense to explore product forms that affect consumer perceptions of visual comfort. Studies on product characteristics or personality can help orient product design and provide feedback for overall operations in product marketing. Table 1 compiles rational and emotional studies on marketing and advertising; these serve as the basis for questions in the pretest.

3. Research methodology 3.1 Pretest

Rational and emotional adjectives extracted from literature review include the following. Rational dimension: function, quality, price, mechanical aesthetics, and mass production. Emotional dimension: aesthetics, fashion, pleasure, nostalgia, and environmental conservation. The extracted adjectives were used to create 36 questions to form the hypothetical model. Five experts, including three research scholars in design and two senior industrial designers who have more than 15 years of experience were invited to choose test samples and to amend the questions. This study used 50 chairs collected by Design Now-Industrial or Art? [18] from early to late 20th century (1900-1987), and 55 modern chairs collected by Design Now![19] from the beginning of the 21st century (2003- 2007). They were separated into 5 categories according to the date that they were made: 1900-1930, 1931-1950, 1951-1970, 1971-1990, and 1991-2007. Experts were asked to choose 4 of the most representative samples that were not redundant from the five eras, for a total of 20 chairs. The test proceeded as following:

Table 1: Compilation of rational and emotional studies in marketing and advertising Author/ Year

Objec- tive

Rational/ Emotional

Content

Ratchf- ord/ 1987

Shopping motives

Rational motives

Rational thinking involving language, theory, number.

Emotional motives

Emotional scope involving beauty, emotions, and ethical concepts are more inductive.

Atsushi Imagawa etal./ 1989

Rational products

product functions, product quality, product price, and vendor reputation.

Emotional products

consumers feel cheerful, a certain atmosphere, and trendy.

Kotler/ 1999

Advertising appeal

Rational appeal

Rational appeal: Primarily shows the benefits of the product, or appe- als to the self-interest of consumers.

Emotional appeal

Emotional appeal: primarily inspi- res positive or negative consumer emotions to elicit the instinct or drive to purchase; usually expressed as emotions appeal.

Macro Gobe/ 2001

Brand marketing

Emotional marketing

The consumption age of emotional marketing has arrived. Consumers not only focus on traditional, nostalgic, emotional, and humanistic symbols and images, but also began focusing on environmental conservation, brand image and social responsibility due to the effects of globalization.

Macro Gobe/ 2002

The construction of civil brands with hope, vision, and dreams is a trend. Attention must be paid to social influence when working to construct emotional connections with consumers, and to unity in discourse and practice to fulfill citizen responsibilities, and in turn move the people with magnanimity.


1)The respondents provided opinions for gradual modification of the questions, until the final two respondents had no more major opinions regarding the questions. At this stage, there were 20 samples and 36 questions.

2) New data was collected: 60 industrial design students studying modern history of design tested the questionnaire.

3) Reliability was evaluated: statistical outcomes from the questionnaire underwent reliability analysis through SPSS; the reliability of each construct had a Cronbach’s α of over 0.952.

4) Validity was evaluated: the results of the questionnaire underwent factor analysis by SPSS, to remove the constructs below par in terms of validity and the unsuitable questions, in order to reduce the dimensions. There were 10 questions under the rational dimension including function/ergonomics and technology/ manufacturing. There were 14 questions under the emotional dimension, including aesthetics and environmental conservation (shown in Table 2).

5) The normal mode was developed: ultimately, the sample size was decreased to 3 per era for a total of 15, as shown in Figure 1. These were labeled A-O, and the designers and years were noted under the images. All the images were shown in black and white without backgrounds to remove the design element of color. And the reduced scale of test samples is all of the same.

3.2 Participants

There were a total of 292 valid questionnaires from four participant groups with different academic backgrounds. The academic backgrounds were science and engineering, industrial design, crafts & design, and business. The science and engineering students were freshmen and master’s students in mechanical engineering and electrical engineering from the College of Engineering & Science of National United University. The industrial design students included freshman and senior students from National United University, master’s students from National Taipei University of Technology and National Yunlin University of Science and Technology, and master’s students and graduates from National Cheng Kung University. The crafts & design students were freshmen, seniors, and master’s students from National Taiwan University of Arts. In the business field was made up of employed workers, representing general consumers. Their numbers are described in Table 3.

Table 2. Questions after convergence Rational Emotional 01. This chair is comfortable 11. This chair is pleasing to

you 02. This chair is practical 12. This chair makes me feel

a certain atmosphere 03. This chair feels safe 13. This chair is modern 04. This chair is ergonomic 14. The appearance of this

chair is fashionable 05. This chair has good

quality 15. This chair is nostalgic

06. The material of this chair is satisfactory

16. This chair can accentuate my personal taste

07. The cost of this chair is high

17. This chair wastes no materials

08. This chair has structural aesthetics

18. This chair can be recycled for other uses

09. The structure of this chair is strong

19. This chair is very beautiful

10. This chair involves high-tech manufacturing

20. The overall form of this chair is satisfying to me

21. This chair has some symbolic meaning

22. This chair is interesting 23. This chair is

intoxicatingly enjoyable 24. I would want to have

this chair

Figure1. Test samples – 15 chairs

Table 3. Description of participant backgrounds Major Science &

engineering

Industrial design

Crafts &

design

Business

Total

N 79 125 72 16 292

Experience

Seniors &

master’s

students 59 85 40 16 200

Fresh- men 20 40 32 0 92 G

ender

Female 18 74 51 12 155 Male 61 51 21 4 137

59 THE SC IENCE OF DES IGN　　B U L L E T I N OF JSSD　Vol. 62　No. 3 2015


3.3 Procedure The 24 questions and 15 chairs after convergence from

the pretest were included in the official questionnaire. All the images were shown in black and white without backgrounds to remove the design element of color. Each chair had 24 questions, and the questionnaire took about 30 minutes to complete. Subjects who completed the questionnaire received a gift worth about US$ 1. This questionnaire existed both online and on paper. The online version yielded 108 valid questionnaires. 203 paper questionnaires were released, resulting in 184 valid and complete questionnaires. There were a total of 292 valid questionnaires. The online questionnaires were shared using Google Drive, and the questions were given in a random order. The paper questionnaires were filled out in school classrooms. The proctor took 5 minutes to explain the questionnaire, and the respondents had to use a consistent method to answer the entire questionnaire. In other words, they could use intuitive judgment or cognitive judgment, but the method had to be consistent. After retrieval of the questionnaires, SPSS software was used to analyze the results.

3.4 Results

This study conducted multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) of the three variables related to the subjects’ identities: academic major, academic seniority, and gender. The results only showed a significant difference in the category of academic majors; there were no significant differences for academic seniority and gender. First, the differences between the four academic majors were analyzed to consider differences in rational and emotional cognition of product characteristics. As shown in Table 4, the means and the standard deviations were recorded. For mean, the * symbol referred to significant differences with science and engineering students, and the ! symbol referred to significant differences with business students. The rational dimension included function/safety and technology dimensions, while the emotional dimension included aesthetics and environmental protection dimensions. Results showed that among the four dimensions, industrial design and crafts & design students all showed significant differences with science and engineering students. Compared to business students, crafts & design students showed significant differences in function/safety and environmental conservation; industrial design students showed significant difference from business students in the dimension of environmental conservation.

After confirming that different academic majors had an effect on the perceived rational and emotional characteristics of the products, the study then explored the different effects of different majors on the 15 chairs of different eras. The means and ranks of 15 chairs for different majors were analyzed as shown in Table 7. In terms of means and ranks, other than the individual means of the four majors , the overall means and overall ranks of

Table 5. Means and ranks of the 15 chairs by the four majors

Chair

Science and

engineering

Industrial design

Crafts & design

Business Total

M S M S M S M S M S A 3.32 13 3.94 12 4.12 10 3.27 14 3.78 13 B 3.51 8 4.34 5 4.24 8 3.74 5 4.06 7 C 4.39 1 5.16 1 5.11 1 4.23 1 4.89 1 D 3.44 10 4.08 11 4.31 6 3.54 10 3.93 10 E 4.33 2 4.68 2 5.04 2 4.13 2 4.65 2 F 3.24 12 4.11 10 3.91 14 3.41 13 3.78 12 G 3.52 7 4.25 8 4.03 12 3.53 11 3.95 9 H 3.49 9 3.86 13 3.96 13 3.68 6 3.77 14 I 3.75 3 4.58 3 4.44 5 3.93 3 4.29 3 J 3.06 15 3.48 15 3.56 15 3.04 15 3.36 15 K 3.44 11 3.81 14 4.20 9 3.57 9 3.79 11 L 3.72 4 4.25 7 4.73 3 3.53 11 4.18 4 M 3.67 6 4.49 4 4.27 7 3.76 4 4.17 5 N 3.71 5 4.20 9 4.54 4 3.59 8 4.11 6 O 3.31 14 4.34 6 4.08 11 3.65 7 3.95 8 M=Mean, S= Sequence

Figure 2. The four quadrants of the 15 chairs

Table 4. Means and standard deviations of rational and emotional characteristics in different majors

Major

Rational Emotional Function Technology Aesthetics Environmental

conservation Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD

SE 3.58 0.88 3.77 0.91 3.31 0.73 3.60 0.89 ID 4.20* 0.73 4.40* 0.68 3.80* 0.59 4.30*! 0.73 CD 4.36*! 0.68 4.55* 0.66 3.77* 0.67 4.32*! 0.72 Bs 3.57 0.70 4.05 0.87 3.51 0.74 3.56 0.71

* showed significant difference from science and engineering. ! showed significant difference from business. Major: SE=Science and engineering, ID=Industrial design, CD=Crafts & design, Bs=Business



3.3 Procedure The 24 questions and 15 chairs after convergence from

the pretest were included in the official questionnaire. All the images were shown in black and white without backgrounds to remove the design element of color. Each chair had 24 questions, and the questionnaire took about 30 minutes to complete. Subjects who completed the questionnaire received a gift worth about US$ 1. This questionnaire existed both online and on paper. The online version yielded 108 valid questionnaires. 203 paper questionnaires were released, resulting in 184 valid and complete questionnaires. There were a total of 292 valid questionnaires. The online questionnaires were shared using Google Drive, and the questions were given in a random order. The paper questionnaires were filled out in school classrooms. The proctor took 5 minutes to explain the questionnaire, and the respondents had to use a consistent method to answer the entire questionnaire. In other words, they could use intuitive judgment or cognitive judgment, but the method had to be consistent. After retrieval of the questionnaires, SPSS software was used to analyze the results.

3.4 Results

This study conducted multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) of the three variables related to the subjects’ identities: academic major, academic seniority, and gender. The results only showed a significant difference in the category of academic majors; there were no significant differences for academic seniority and gender. First, the differences between the four academic majors were analyzed to consider differences in rational and emotional cognition of product characteristics. As shown in Table 4, the means and the standard deviations were recorded. For mean, the * symbol referred to significant differences with science and engineering students, and the ! symbol referred to significant differences with business students. The rational dimension included function/safety and technology dimensions, while the emotional dimension included aesthetics and environmental protection dimensions. Results showed that among the four dimensions, industrial design and crafts & design students all showed significant differences with science and engineering students. Compared to business students, crafts & design students showed significant differences in function/safety and environmental conservation; industrial design students showed significant difference from business students in the dimension of environmental conservation.

After confirming that different academic majors had an effect on the perceived rational and emotional characteristics of the products, the study then explored the different effects of different majors on the 15 chairs of different eras. The means and ranks of 15 chairs for different majors were analyzed as shown in Table 7. In terms of means and ranks, other than the individual means of the four majors , the overall means and overall ranks of

Table 5. Means and ranks of the 15 chairs by the four majors

Chair

Science and

engineering

Industrial design

Crafts & design

Business Total

M S M S M S M S M S A 3.32 13 3.94 12 4.12 10 3.27 14 3.78 13 B 3.51 8 4.34 5 4.24 8 3.74 5 4.06 7 C 4.39 1 5.16 1 5.11 1 4.23 1 4.89 1 D 3.44 10 4.08 11 4.31 6 3.54 10 3.93 10 E 4.33 2 4.68 2 5.04 2 4.13 2 4.65 2 F 3.24 12 4.11 10 3.91 14 3.41 13 3.78 12 G 3.52 7 4.25 8 4.03 12 3.53 11 3.95 9 H 3.49 9 3.86 13 3.96 13 3.68 6 3.77 14 I 3.75 3 4.58 3 4.44 5 3.93 3 4.29 3 J 3.06 15 3.48 15 3.56 15 3.04 15 3.36 15 K 3.44 11 3.81 14 4.20 9 3.57 9 3.79 11 L 3.72 4 4.25 7 4.73 3 3.53 11 4.18 4 M 3.67 6 4.49 4 4.27 7 3.76 4 4.17 5 N 3.71 5 4.20 9 4.54 4 3.59 8 4.11 6 O 3.31 14 4.34 6 4.08 11 3.65 7 3.95 8 M=Mean, S= Sequence

Figure 2. The four quadrants of the 15 chairs

Table 4. Means and standard deviations of rational and emotional characteristics in different majors

Major

Rational Emotional Function Technology Aesthetics Environmental

conservation Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD

SE 3.58 0.88 3.77 0.91 3.31 0.73 3.60 0.89 ID 4.20* 0.73 4.40* 0.68 3.80* 0.59 4.30*! 0.73 CD 4.36*! 0.68 4.55* 0.66 3.77* 0.67 4.32*! 0.72 Bs 3.57 0.70 4.05 0.87 3.51 0.74 3.56 0.71

* showed significant difference from science and engineering. ! showed significant difference from business. Major: SE=Science and engineering, ID=Industrial design, CD=Crafts & design, Bs=Business


the four majors were also listed to serve as a basis for comparison. Overall means and overall ranks represent overall subject groups with different backgrounds , or consumer cognitions. Takahashi[20] pointed out that the human aesthetic sense is actually a shared experience. The comparison of different majors to the general outcomes could be used to find cognitive differences between the majors and the general group. In particular, as students of industrial design and crafts & design are involved in creative product design, they will be able to provide certain views that can help modify their personal design ideas.

For the subjects as a whole, other than using means and ranks, the intersections in rational and emotional dimensions of the 15 was shown using the alternating least squares scaling (ALSCAL) method of multidimensional scaling (MDS), to orient the products as spatial diagrams. The relative characteristics represented by each chair could be clearly explained; this is shown in Figure 2. The distribution diagram of the two dimensions of rational and emotional shows that the first quadrant showed function and technology in the rational dimension, the second quadrant showed function in the rational dimension and aesthetics in the emotional dimension, the third quadrant showed aesthetics and environmental conservation in the emotional dimension, and the fourth quadrant showed environmental conservation in the emotional dimension and technology in the rational dimension. Comparison of these four quadrants to the overall rankings showed that the top 1, 2, 4 in rankings all fell in the second quadrant, while those ranked 15, 14, and 12 all fell in the first quadrant.

4. Discussion

Based on the results of the test and analysis, the following will discuss three areas: people – the effect of the backgrounds of the subjects; objects – the effect of the time periods of the chairs; cognition – how people perceive rational and emotional aspects of objects.

4-1. The effect of test subjects’ backgrounds

Of the three variables of the backgrounds of the subjects, gender made the smallest difference when it came to rational and emotional cognition of products, followed by the level of professional experience. These two variables did not create a significant difference; only the category of academic major showed significant differences. Past studies showed that in terms of information transmission, male transmitters tended to be perceived as being more professional[21], more likely to demonstrate logical and

analytical skills, while women were more likely to use subjective and intuitive descriptions. In other words, women were perceived as more emotional and men were perceived as more rational in terms of information transmission. The study by Rasoal, Danielsson & Jungert [22]pointed out that science and engineering majors were less empathetic, but when engineers face challenges in managing and leading organizations, they need social skills and empathy due to the demands of their positions. Due to the prevalence of university education and the progression of online information, rational and emotional cognition of chairs did not differ in this study. In addition, the study paid special attention to how freshmen replied to this questionnaire, finding that before professional education in university, freshmen’s rational and emotional cognition of product characteristics were slightly but insignificantly higher compared to more senior students in their majors when it came to rational questions about function and technology and emotional questions about environmental conservation. Their cognition was slightly lower than senior students in emotional questions about aesthetics.

Academic major was the only category that showed a significant difference in cognitive patterns. Subjects in the science and engineering major and in the business major had similar cognition of product characteristics; subjects in the industrial design and crafts & design majors had similar cognition of product characteristics. Industrial design students were in design colleges at general universities, while crafts & design students were in design colleges at art universities. In terms of professional educational characteristics, the former received professional training on product design for mass production, while the latter was involved in more unique crafts & design. Crafts & design students had slightly higher scores in the rational dimensions of function and technology as well as in the emotional dimension of environmental conservation than did industrial designs, only scoring a little lower in the emotional dimension of aesthetics. The standard deviation was also higher, which meant that crafts & design students had greater cognitive differences regarding aesthetics, while industrial design students had smaller cognitive differences regarding aesthetics. In other words, since products designed by industrial designers were for mass production, they must understand the aesthetic preferences of consumers in general. Therefore, their collective cognition for aesthetics would be closer to that of overall subjects compared to the demand for uniqueness imposed on crafts & design students.



The overall ranks and individual rankings of the different backgrounds show that those ranked 1, 2, and 15 were all the same products, which were chairs C, E, and J. The overall ranks and rankings of those in different backgrounds show that science and engineering students were most similar to overall rankings, with 9 out of 15 products being the same, followed by 5 of the business students, 4 of the industrial design students, and 3 of the crafts & design students. The collective cognition of consumers was more similar to the more rational science and engineering students, while it was different from industrial designers who design products. This is a phenomenon that industrial designs must pay attention to: industrial designers design for consumers rather than for themselves. The Industrial Designers Society of America (IDSA) defined industrial design as follows: professional services for the mutual benefit of users and manufacturers, to create and develop concepts and specifications for functions, values, and appearance of optimal products and systems [23].

The products for which rankings by different students were more divergent from overall ranks (by more than 3 levels) were discussed, including products K, L, and N of those with industrial design backgrounds, and A, D, G, and O of crafts & design students. The rankings of products K, L, and N for industrial designers were all lower than in overall rankings. K was a design with a shaped steel pole, L had three legs, and N was also a one-piece design of curved rattan. For consumers, these unique designs were more innovative, but for industrial designers engaged in innovative design, there was less novelty in these innovations. In other words, designers may know what they mean by design, but such understanding was usually based on experiential knowledge, making it more difficult to express or communicate[24]. These experiences would be different from the general public when designers express their views and cognition regarding products.

4-2. Effects of the era of the chairs

The 15 chairs from different time periods showed that eras represent the advancement of technology for eras were reflected in chairs as material improvements. This was demonstrated through the evolution of natural materials (wood) to the metallic materials of Bauhaus in the 1920s (processing technology of steel pipe chairs), to the invention of malleable plastic processing technology in the 1930s, and to the well-known cheap plastic chairs of American designer Charles Eames in the 1950s. As shown

in Figure 3, the classic works of these important materials were distributed in the different eras. As of the 21st century, the evolution of these material processing technologies still affected the forms of chairs. After confirming the importance of the form of the product, the true dominance of functionalism arose in Germany after World War II. The resurgence of mass production seemed to be a suitable tool for standardized and rational manufacturing, and it was also applied to design and architecture[25]. Next, we will explain these three chairs: chair M was the MT hollow formal chair from designer Ron Arad; its elegant lines and light weight came from the combination of the plastic material and the rotational manufacturing process. Chair N was a rattan chair designed by Filipino designer Kenneth Cobonpuec, which maintained the original thickness of rattan, and the design was directly based on the material. Through bending, twisting, and weaving techniques, an organic image and design with personality unlike works designed through computer rendering was created. For Chair O, designer Konstantin Grcic used cast aluminum materials to calculate the structural frame, and created a design on that basis [19]. The figure showing the four dimensions corresponding to the Figure 2 chairs showed that the three chairs of the 21st century included both environmental conservation and technology dimensions.

Considering the academic backgrounds of the subjects, materials had a greater effect than forms on those that were most artistically orientation, and the high technology and manufacturing abilities evinced by the combination of material and form also had a greater influence. Compared to those with design backgrounds, those with science and engineering backgrounds had higher standards for functional factors, affecting product evaluation, such as the comfort and safety of chairs. The functional factors were the same as overall ranks, and closest to consumer cognition at a broad level -the most basic needs were also the most important ones. The model on the relationship between product quality and satisfaction proposed by KANO[26] explored the increase of consumer satisfaction and the characteristics of product quality demanded. Meeting basic needs was a product feature that would not increase consumer satisfaction if it was present, but consumers would be extremely dissatisfied if it were absent. Therefore, industrial designers must find an equilibrium between product technology and user interaction, to choose the most suitable and feasible material in order to produce high-quality products [27]. For instance, a smooth surface



The overall ranks and individual rankings of the different backgrounds show that those ranked 1, 2, and 15 were all the same products, which were chairs C, E, and J. The overall ranks and rankings of those in different backgrounds show that science and engineering students were most similar to overall rankings, with 9 out of 15 products being the same, followed by 5 of the business students, 4 of the industrial design students, and 3 of the crafts & design students. The collective cognition of consumers was more similar to the more rational science and engineering students, while it was different from industrial designers who design products. This is a phenomenon that industrial designs must pay attention to: industrial designers design for consumers rather than for themselves. The Industrial Designers Society of America (IDSA) defined industrial design as follows: professional services for the mutual benefit of users and manufacturers, to create and develop concepts and specifications for functions, values, and appearance of optimal products and systems [23].

The products for which rankings by different students were more divergent from overall ranks (by more than 3 levels) were discussed, including products K, L, and N of those with industrial design backgrounds, and A, D, G, and O of crafts & design students. The rankings of products K, L, and N for industrial designers were all lower than in overall rankings. K was a design with a shaped steel pole, L had three legs, and N was also a one-piece design of curved rattan. For consumers, these unique designs were more innovative, but for industrial designers engaged in innovative design, there was less novelty in these innovations. In other words, designers may know what they mean by design, but such understanding was usually based on experiential knowledge, making it more difficult to express or communicate[24]. These experiences would be different from the general public when designers express their views and cognition regarding products.

4-2. Effects of the era of the chairs

The 15 chairs from different time periods showed that eras represent the advancement of technology for eras were reflected in chairs as material improvements. This was demonstrated through the evolution of natural materials (wood) to the metallic materials of Bauhaus in the 1920s (processing technology of steel pipe chairs), to the invention of malleable plastic processing technology in the 1930s, and to the well-known cheap plastic chairs of American designer Charles Eames in the 1950s. As shown

in Figure 3, the classic works of these important materials were distributed in the different eras. As of the 21st century, the evolution of these material processing technologies still affected the forms of chairs. After confirming the importance of the form of the product, the true dominance of functionalism arose in Germany after World War II. The resurgence of mass production seemed to be a suitable tool for standardized and rational manufacturing, and it was also applied to design and architecture[25]. Next, we will explain these three chairs: chair M was the MT hollow formal chair from designer Ron Arad; its elegant lines and light weight came from the combination of the plastic material and the rotational manufacturing process. Chair N was a rattan chair designed by Filipino designer Kenneth Cobonpuec, which maintained the original thickness of rattan, and the design was directly based on the material. Through bending, twisting, and weaving techniques, an organic image and design with personality unlike works designed through computer rendering was created. For Chair O, designer Konstantin Grcic used cast aluminum materials to calculate the structural frame, and created a design on that basis [19]. The figure showing the four dimensions corresponding to the Figure 2 chairs showed that the three chairs of the 21st century included both environmental conservation and technology dimensions.

Considering the academic backgrounds of the subjects, materials had a greater effect than forms on those that were most artistically orientation, and the high technology and manufacturing abilities evinced by the combination of material and form also had a greater influence. Compared to those with design backgrounds, those with science and engineering backgrounds had higher standards for functional factors, affecting product evaluation, such as the comfort and safety of chairs. The functional factors were the same as overall ranks, and closest to consumer cognition at a broad level -the most basic needs were also the most important ones. The model on the relationship between product quality and satisfaction proposed by KANO[26] explored the increase of consumer satisfaction and the characteristics of product quality demanded. Meeting basic needs was a product feature that would not increase consumer satisfaction if it was present, but consumers would be extremely dissatisfied if it were absent. Therefore, industrial designers must find an equilibrium between product technology and user interaction, to choose the most suitable and feasible material in order to produce high-quality products [27]. For instance, a smooth surface


was used to create a tactile sense of evenness, then the sensory perceptions were transmitted back to the brain. Reasonable materials and complex functions elicit new praise[28], which demonstrated the effect of material on product characteristics and quality.

4-3. Competition and cooperation between rational and

emotional In summary, the two axes that affect the four

dimensions of rational and emotional characteristics (axis X and axis Y in Figure 2), and the eras of chairs and their overall rankings were cross-analyzed, as shown in Figure 4, which is explained as follows:

1) Regarding the rational - the rational expresses the structural and formal features of material. Chair J, the Omkstack chair, represents the chair with the technology dimension in X axis and function dimension in Y axis. This chair was developed in the 50s after the trend of cheap plastic chairs. The study discovered that the chairs of this dimension were all representative of the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s. This showed the effect of plastic technology on forms with curved planes. The seat face evolved from flat planes of wooden materials in the past to curved planes of plastic; this made chairs more comfortable. Chairs A and D were both chairs with more technology than aesthetics, and also use wood structure and technology.

Regarding the emotional – the emotional is the aesthetic aspect and environmental protection in materials used in an elegant form. The aesthetics dimension of the X axis: chair C, the Barcelona chair, was an important design after the German steel pipe chair of the 1920s. Chairs C and E, the Taliesin chair, were both representative of lounge chairs in the early 20th century. The seating posture requirements of lounge chairs made the size and structure of C conform to the requirement for human safety and comfort. The legs were made of steel in elegant, intricate, and simple intersecting lines, while the seating surface was a simple rhombus shape made of soft foam and leather, materials with opposite qualities as steel. Therefore, the aesthetic

condition was to enable consumers to feel safe and comfortable, and to use the characteristics of materials to create holistic, elegant, and intricate forms. Environmental conservation on the Y axis: the Z-shaped chairs and high-back chairs of the early 20th century and the rattan chairs and cast aluminum chairs were all made of a single type of material, thereby conforming to the ideals of environmental conservation in design. Since the development of manufacturing technology involving metal and plastic in the 20th century, the concept of mass production filled the consumption market with chairs. As a result of over-production, environmental conservation in design is an issue that must be faced by designers of the 21st century; it is also an important new concept in emotional design. The early stages of planning and conceptual design have the most influence on the benefits of environmental conservation in products [29]. Results of this study showed that the representative chairs of the 21st century all incorporate this dimension of environmental conservation.

2) From emotional to rational: The four quadrants in Figure 2 show that chairs I and M fell in the third quadrant of the intersection between emotional and rational. The similar features between the two were the elegant compound curved plane formed by one piece, which was also ergonomic and comfortable. The four quadrants in Figure 2 showed that chairs F, G, H, and J fell in the intersection of rational dimensions. Their common factors were that F, G, and J were plastic chairs with curved planes and four thin steel legs from the 1950s and 1980s, while H was a chair with a single curved plane with leather-wrapped metal plus two wide metallic legs. This study then extended the four quadrants in Figure 2, showing the emotional to the rational from Figure 5. The form and materials were used to analyze the 15 chairs, as shown in Table 6.

Analysis of the factors influencing emotional and rational cognition of the 15 chairs clearly showed that this study incorporated the issue of environmental conservation

Figure 3. The eras and technical developments of the 15 chairs

Figure 4. The dual axis diagram for rational and emotional



emphasized in the 21st century into the emotional dimension. Therefore, both chairs in the most emotional quadrant were all composite curved works made with one piece of plastic. Three of the four chairs in the most rational quadrant were all cheap plastic chairs that could be mechanically mass produced to lower costs. The chair surfaces tended to be composite curved planes and single curved planes that best conformed to the human body; this was also part of the malleable advantage of plastic. The chair legs were thin steel beams with the best support and structural security, and were infused with the design ideal of mass industrial production, thereby making them the most rational chairs.

Chairs between emotional and rational clearly demonstrated multidimensional design and application. In terms of form and materials, other than the combination of one-piece plastic and the thin steel beam legs, there were also feasible structural technologies and material applications in chair design. This was the diverse innovation pursued by product design, and was what designers strived for. Therefore, the formal and material analysis of these four quadrants showed that there were indeed concrete differences between emotional and rational cognition. This will provide product planners, marketers, and designers with a clear reference.

3) Ranking evaluations of the emotional and rational. Figure 5 clearly showed that chair O was in the 8th place for emotional-rational rankings and overall rankings out of the 15 chairs. The overall rankings left of the center emotional works were 1-7, while right of the center rational works were 9-15. Among these, the most rational chair J was also ranked 15. This showed that designing chairs with high acclaim not only must meet basic rational needs, but also must meet emotional dimension needs including aesthetics and environmental conservation. Rational chairs have been duplicated and produced in massive quantities in contemporary times, so that most consumers can have a comfortable, solid, and financially appropriate chair. Designers continuously use new technologies and innovative thinking to present emotional works in various ways.

4) Historical background and differences among modern subjects. In the book Great Design, Philip Wilkinson[30] commented on classical designs that have changed the world. These included four chairs in the present study. The explanations on the forms, materials, structures, technologies, design inspirations, and temporal significance of the chairs are shown in Table 7.

Chair A was a high-back wooden chair that followed geometric rules such as perpendicularity and parallelism, and was significant as an avant-garde abstract artwork in

Figure 5. Emotional to rational

Table 6. Analysis of formal materials Emotional－Rational

A/E A/F E/T F/T Form

Chair

Complex curved planes made of one piece of material

v

Composite curved planes v Minor curved planes v v Single curved plane v v v Two-dimensional v v

Chair legs

One leg v Two legs v v Three legs v v Four legs v v v

Material

Plastic v v Foam + leather/woven textiles v v Leather v v Wood v v Rattan v Metal v v v

A= Aesthetics, E=Environmental conservation, F= Function, T= Technology

Table 7. The historical orientation of the four chairs A

Hill House chair

B Wassily chair

C Barcelona

chair

I Panton Chair

Form, m

aterial, structure Wooden mate-

rial made based on geometric principles of perpendicular- ty and parallelism.

The winding steel beam ser- ved as the frame, along with tightly stretche- d canvas over the armrests, seat, and back.

Clean X-shaped steel structure lines, minim- alist frame, and glamor- ous leather cushion.

The curved form of plastic and large base must meet ergonomic conditions to elevate overall strength and stability.

Skills

The vanguard of steel beam chairs

The first chair made of a single piece of plastic

Inspiration

Compared to Victorian furniture of the same era, this was an avant- garde modern abstract work of art

The form and structure of bicycle handles

Gerrit Rietve- ld’s S-shaped wooden chair

Period

Fashionable and light, loved by interior designers

Unique shapes and bright colo- rs, the best representation of pop art

Rational Em

otional

Environmental conservation Technical structure

Aesthetics Function

Aesthetics Function

Aesthetics Environmental conservation



emphasized in the 21st century into the emotional dimension. Therefore, both chairs in the most emotional quadrant were all composite curved works made with one piece of plastic. Three of the four chairs in the most rational quadrant were all cheap plastic chairs that could be mechanically mass produced to lower costs. The chair surfaces tended to be composite curved planes and single curved planes that best conformed to the human body; this was also part of the malleable advantage of plastic. The chair legs were thin steel beams with the best support and structural security, and were infused with the design ideal of mass industrial production, thereby making them the most rational chairs.

Chairs between emotional and rational clearly demonstrated multidimensional design and application. In terms of form and materials, other than the combination of one-piece plastic and the thin steel beam legs, there were also feasible structural technologies and material applications in chair design. This was the diverse innovation pursued by product design, and was what designers strived for. Therefore, the formal and material analysis of these four quadrants showed that there were indeed concrete differences between emotional and rational cognition. This will provide product planners, marketers, and designers with a clear reference.

3) Ranking evaluations of the emotional and rational. Figure 5 clearly showed that chair O was in the 8th place for emotional-rational rankings and overall rankings out of the 15 chairs. The overall rankings left of the center emotional works were 1-7, while right of the center rational works were 9-15. Among these, the most rational chair J was also ranked 15. This showed that designing chairs with high acclaim not only must meet basic rational needs, but also must meet emotional dimension needs including aesthetics and environmental conservation. Rational chairs have been duplicated and produced in massive quantities in contemporary times, so that most consumers can have a comfortable, solid, and financially appropriate chair. Designers continuously use new technologies and innovative thinking to present emotional works in various ways.

4) Historical background and differences among modern subjects. In the book Great Design, Philip Wilkinson[30] commented on classical designs that have changed the world. These included four chairs in the present study. The explanations on the forms, materials, structures, technologies, design inspirations, and temporal significance of the chairs are shown in Table 7.

Chair A was a high-back wooden chair that followed geometric rules such as perpendicularity and parallelism, and was significant as an avant-garde abstract artwork in

Figure 5. Emotional to rational

Table 6. Analysis of formal materials Emotional－Rational

A/E A/F E/T F/T

Form

Chair

Complex curved planes made of one piece of material

v

Composite curved planes v Minor curved planes v v Single curved plane v v v Two-dimensional v v

Chair legs

One leg v Two legs v v Three legs v v Four legs v v v

Material

Plastic v v Foam + leather/woven textiles v v Leather v v Wood v v Rattan v Metal v v v

A= Aesthetics, E=Environmental conservation, F= Function, T= Technology

Table 7. The historical orientation of the four chairs A

Hill House chair

B Wassily chair

C Barcelona

chair

I Panton Chair

Form, m

aterial, structure Wooden mate-

rial made based on geometric principles of perpendicular- ty and parallelism.

The winding steel beam ser- ved as the frame, along with tightly stretche- d canvas over the armrests, seat, and back.

Clean X-shaped steel structure lines, minim- alist frame, and glamor- ous leather cushion.

The curved form of plastic and large base must meet ergonomic conditions to elevate overall strength and stability.

Skills

The vanguard of steel beam chairs

The first chair made of a single piece of plastic

Inspiration

Compared to Victorian furniture of the same era, this was an avant- garde modern abstract work of art

The form and structure of bicycle handles

Gerrit Rietve- ld’s S-shaped wooden chair

Period

Fashionable and light, loved by interior designers

Unique shapes and bright colo- rs, the best representation of pop art

Rational Em

otional

Environmental conservation Technical structure

Aesthetics Function

Aesthetics Function

Aesthetics Environmental conservation


the early 20th century. However, for modern subjects, it is a chair that has environmental conservation and technology dimensions; the aesthetic cognition has declined over time. Chair B, the Wassily chair and chair C, the Barcelona chair, aesthetics and function. For modern subjects, there was still perception of its aesthetics. Chair I, the Panton chair, was the first plastic chair designed and produced from techniques involving a single piece of plastic. It had composite curved surfaces conforming to the natural sitting posture, as well as to the spirit of pop art as popular culture; it represented avant-garde breakthroughs, and was the chair with the greatest emotional element in this study. The literature review of the specific design elements such as rational and emotional, and form and materials, showed that with the passage of time, forms that better conformed to human postures were more likely to elicit emotional perceptions.

5. Conclusion

This study used 15 chairs spanning a century to explore rational and emotional cognition of products, the Wassily chair and chair C, the Barcelona chair, and included an analysis of the backgrounds of subjects, the effects of the temporal backgrounds of the chairs, and the form and materials of the chairs. The conclusions are as follows:

The category of academic major was the only one that showed significant difference, while gender and academic seniority showed no effect. Science and engineering students and business students had more similar cognition of product characteristics; industrial design students and crafts & design students had more similar cognition of product characteristics. The science and engineering students were the most similar to the overall ranks of all subjects, while crafts & design students showed the greatest difference. Eras represent the advancement of technology, reflected in chairs as material improvements. This was demonstrated through the evolution of materials. Materials had a greater effect than forms on crafts & design students, the complete combination of material and form had a greater effect on industrial design students, and functional requirements had a greater effect on science and engineering students.

The present study incorporated the issue of environmental conservation which has received contemporary attention as an emotional indicator, therefore, the two chairs with the most emotional dimension were works with complex curves created from single pieces of plastic. The representative chairs of the 21th century tend to

incorporate the environmental conservation dimension. The most rational chairs were infused with the design ideal of mass industrial production. In other words, these best conformed to basic functional requirements of users. Rational chairs have been duplicated and produced in massive quantities in contemporary times, so that most consumers can have a comfortable, solid, and financially appropriate chair. Designers continuously use new technologies and innovative thinking to present emotional works in various ways. There were indeed specific differences in emotional and rational cognition as seen from the analysis of forms and materials of the four quadrants. This information can serve as a definitive reference for product planners, marketers, and designers.

Designing a chair with high praise for design not only must conform to basic rational needs but also must include the emotional dimensions of aesthetics and environmental conservation. The conditions for aesthetics include: a form that makes consumers feel safe and comfortable, and the use of materials to produce a form that is elegant, delicate, and holistic. Finally, confirmation of the literature on rational and emotional in this study showed that forms that more closely conform to the human form also better meet the criteria for emotional cognition. References 1.Brunel F. F., Kumar R. Design and the big five: Linking

visual product aesthetics to product personality. In G. Fitzsimons & V. Morwitz (Eds.), Advances in consume research 2007;34, 238-239. Orlando, FL: Association for Consumer Research.

2.Govers P. C. M., Hekkert P., & Schoormans J. P. L.Happy, cute and tough: Can designers create a product personality that consumers understand? In D. McDonagh, P. 2002.

3.Mugge R., Govers P. C. M., & Schoormans, J. P. L.The development and testing of a product personality scale. Design Studies 2009; 30(3), 287-302.

4.Hung WK, & Chen LL. Effects of novelty and its dimensions on aesthetic preference in product design. International Journal of Design 2012; 6(2), 81-90.

5.Lin RT,John G. K. Do Not Touch. Taipei: YuChen.2014. 6.Aaker D. A., & Shansby, G. J. Positioning Your Product.

Business Horizon1982; 56–62. 7.Atsushi I, Masahiro M, Masahito T, & Kazuo S.

Emotional consumption, rational consumption – what type of consumer are you? (trans. Cheng MH). Taipei: Ye Chiang.1989.



8.Stern B. B., Tewari S., & Gould S. J. Sex-typed service images: An empirical investigation of self-service variables. Service Industries Journal 1993;13(3), 74-96.

9.Govers P. C. M., Schoormans J. P. L. Product personality and its influence on consumer preference. Journal of Consumer Marketing 2005; 22(4), 189-197.

10.Mugge, R. The effect of a business-like personality on the perceived performance quality of products. International Journal of Design 2011; 5(3), 67-76.

11.Blijlevens J., Creusen, M. E. H., & Schoormans, J. P. L. How consumers perceive product appearance:The identification of three product appearance attributes International Journal of Design 2009;3(3), 27-35.

12.Hsu SH, Chuang MC, & Chang CC A semantic differential study of designers’ and users’ product form perception. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 2000;25(4), 375-381.

13.Dahlgaard J. J., Schütte S., Alikalfa, E., & Dahlgaard Park, S. M. Kansei /affective engineering design – A methodology for profound affection and attractive quality creation. The TQM Journal – International Review of Organizational Improvements 2008; 20(4), 299-311.

14.Hsiao SW, & Wang HP, Applying the semantic transformation method to product form design. Design Studies1998; 19(3), 209-330.

15.OrthU. R., & Malkewitz K. Holistic package design and consumer brand impressions. Journal of Marketing 2008;72(3), 64-71.

16.Fann SC, Chuang MC,&Hsu CC (2013). A Study on Form Composition and Eye Gaze Position of Positive Kansei Evaluation. Journal of Design 2013; 18(3),63-84.

17.Chang CC. Factors influencing visual comfort appreciation of the product form of digital cameras. International Journal of IndustrialErgonomics2008;38,

1007- 1016. 18.Fischer V. Ed. Design Now: Industry or Art?.

Munich:Prestel-Verlag,1988. 19.Fiell C., Fiell M. P. Design Now!. Italy:TASCHEN

GmbH ,2007. 20.Takahashi S. Aesthetic properties of pictorial perception.

Psychological Review 1995;102(4), 671-683. 21.Kempf D. S., & Palan K. M. The effects of gender and

argument strength on the processing of word-of-mouth communication. Academy of Marketing Studies Journal 2006;10(1), 1-18.

22.Rasoal, C., Danielsson, H., & Jungert, T. Empathy among students in engineering programmes. European Journal of Engineering Education 2012;37(5), 427-435.

23.IDSA. Industrial Designers Society of America Website, http://www.idsa.org/,2002.

24.John H. Past, present, and future in design for industry, Design Issues 2001;17 (1), 18-26.

25.Bernhard E.B.Design History, theory and practice of product design. Berlin: Birkhäuser,2005.

26.Kano N., Seraku N., Takahash F., & Tsuji, S. Attractive quality and must-be quality. Journal of the Japanese Society for Quality Control 1984; 14(2), 147-156.

27.van Kesteren I.E.H, Stappers P.J., & de Bruijn J.C.M. Material in Products Selection: Tools for Including User-Interaction in Materials Selection. International Journal of Design 2007;1(3), 41-55.

28.Slack L. What is Product Design? USA: Quayside Pub Group.2006.

29.Kobayashi, H.A systematic approach to eco-innovative product design based on life cycle planning.Advanced engineering informatics 2006;20(2), 113-125.

30.Philip W. Great Design-the world’s best design explored & explained. London: DK Adult.2013.


THE STUDY OF RATIONAL AND EMOTIONAL COGNITION ...

Documents

Transcript of THE STUDY OF RATIONAL AND EMOTIONAL COGNITION ...