Positive Aesthetic Assessment of a Product Design Based on the Approach Neotonic Design
Abstract
Positive assessments from consumers on the products offered are a significant element for creative industry players. Several studies have shown that the main factor determining the decision to buy a product is not the function but the aesthetic appearance of the product. One method of assessing the aesthetics of product design is neotonic design.research was Neotonic design conducted to show how product design characteristics can objectively display a positive aesthetic. This study aims to provide input to creative industry players how consumers give a positive assessment of the outer appearance/aesthetics of product design. To achieve this goal, the research explores the question of how can neotonic design be an important factor in a positive assessment of the aesthetics of a product design? Based on these research questions, two hypotheses were made H1: The cuteness shown will be more visible if the object is smaller than the larger object (H1a), rounder than pointed (H1b), simpler than complex (H1c), brighter than darker (H1d), and wider than taller (H1e). H2: The cuteness that is displayed is related to the positive assessment of aesthetics as an attractive element in the design. The study involved 50 respondents with 34 product design research objects and 28 geometric shapes. The results showed that the complicated dimension was considered funnier than simple. So that the small, round, wide, bright, and complex dimensions become the main markers of consumers' positive (funny) assessment of product design. The five dimensions above show that funny/neotonic designs are an important factor in positive evaluation of the aesthetics of a product design.
Keywords
Full Text:
PDFReferences
Angier, N. 2006. “The cute factor. New York Times". http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/03/science/03cute.html. October 25, 2021.
Bar, ML, & Neta, M. 2006. “Humans prefer curved visual objects”. Psychological Science, 77(2001), 645-648.
Barratt, B. 2009. “How sharp is cute? Bonzer!" http://ww w .bonzerpl us .org,au/?p=2962.20 Octob er, 2021.
Chandler, J., & Schwarz, N. 2010. “Use does not wear the fabric of friendship: Thinking of objects as alive makes people less willing to replace them”. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 20(2), 138-14.
Etcoff, N. 1999. Survival of the prettiest. New York: Double day.
Frost, P. 1989. “Human skin color: The sexual differentiation of its social perception”. Mankind Quarterly, XXX (l&2), 3-16.
Glocker, ML, Langleben, D. D„ Ruparel, K., Loughead, J.Valdez, J. N„ Griffin, M. W.,D., Sachser, N., et al. 2009. “Baby schema modulates the brain reward system in nulliparous women”. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 106(22), 9115-9. Doi: 10.1073/pnas.0811620106.
Gordon, CP 1996. “Adolescent decision making: A broadly based theory and its application to the prevention of early pregnancy”. Adolescence, 31(123), 61-584.
Harris, D. 2000. Cute, quaint, hungry, and romantic: The aesthetics of consumerism. Cambridge: Da Capo Press.
Kant, I. 2001. Critique of the power of judgment. (P. Guyer & E. Matthews, Trans.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lang, K. 2009. "Realizations of rounded rectangles". http://www.uiandus.com/2009/07/27/theories/realizations-of-rounded-rectangles. 20 October, 2021.
Lindstrom. 2000. “Mini-branding comes to the net”. ClickZ. http://www.clickz.com/821661. October 25, 2021.
Lorenz, K. 1970. Studies in animal and human behavior. (R. Martin, Trans.) (pp. 115-195). Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.
Manalu, B.N., and Harahap, A. (2021). The Study of Quality of the River Pandayangan in His Review of the Factors of Physical-Chemical. Budapest International Research and Critics Institute-Journal (BIRCI-Journal) Vol 4 (1): 1236-1241.
Moskin, J. 2009 "Small wonders". The New York Times, pp. 9-12. October 20, 2021.
Patton, P. 2012. “Volkswagen Beetle: A bug with a rampaging Y chromosome”. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://wheels.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/04/18/2012-volkswagen-beetle-a[1]bug-with-a-ramaging-y-chromosome/. October 20, 2021.
Roach, M. 1999. Cute Inc. Wired 7.12. http://wwvv.wired.eom/wired/archive/7.12/cute.html. October 20, 2021.
Silvia, PJ, & Barona, CM 2009. “Do people prefer curved objects? Angularity, expertise, and aesthetic preference”. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 27(1), 25-42.
Solomon, MR 1983. "Symbolic products social stimuli: Interactionism perspective". Journal of Consumer Research, 70(3), 319-329.
Sullivan, LH 1896. “The tall office building is artistically considered”. Lippincott's Magazine, http://academics.triton.edu/faculty/fheitzman/tallofficebuilding.html. October 26, 2021.
Veryzer, RWJ, & Hutchinson, JW 1998. “The influence of unity and prototypicality on aesthetic responses to new product design”. Journal of Consumer Research, 24(4), 374-394. Wright, B., & Rainwater, L. 1962. “The meanings of color”. Journal of General Psychology, 67, 89-99
Zailani, M., Kuswardani, R.A., and Panggabean, E.L. (2019). Growth Response and Crop Production (Brassica Juncea L.) Against Watering Time Interval at Various Hydroponics Media. Budapest International Research in Exact Sciences (BirEx) Journal Vol I (1): 9-22.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.33258/birci.v4i4.3363
Article Metrics
Abstract view : 51 timesPDF - 37 times
Refbacks
- There are currently no refbacks.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.