3.8 Article

Integrating affective values to sustainable behaviour focused on Kansei engineering

Journal

Publisher

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/19397038.2016.1206984

Keywords

Evaluation methodology; affective engineering; preference; sustainability; decision-making

Funding

  1. NEC C&C Foundation Japan

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Due to the changes and complications of emerging society, designers are required not only to know about their design values, but also understand the link between their design and the impacts on the users. This paper aims to show a Kansei focused proposition for sustainable behaviour. By investigating the relationship between Subjective Preference (Like-Dislike) and product evaluation, it shows how affective values, which are used in Kansei engineering researches, influence user's preferences. In this study, it was considering (1) various factors of product (e.g. the view variation and blackness of products), and (2) Reality Sets (Uninominal-Binominal). Car-front-face, car-side, car-multi-aspect (as Uninominal Reality Sets) and combinations of car front and side (as Binominal Reality Sets) were used as stimuli. The experiment consists of item screening and product evaluation. Subjects were participated in both. The aim of item screening was at selecting subjectively preferred/non-preferred images. Images, which were screened through item screening, were reconciliated per subject. The aim of product evaluation was at investigating if Subjective Preference has related to product evaluation. Semantic Differential method was used as product evaluation method. Evaluation values were preference, aesthetic and pleasure. The findings shows: (1) Subjective Preference is related to product evaluation independently in Uninominal Reality Sets, whereas Subjective Preference is related to product evaluation dependently in Binominal Reality Sets (2) partial preferred images influence product evaluation in Uninominal Reality Sets, whereas Binominal Reality Sets do not influence it.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

3.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available