3.8 Article

Integrating affective values to sustainable behaviour focused on Kansei engineering

期刊

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/19397038.2016.1206984

关键词

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

资金

  1. NEC C&C Foundation Japan

向作者/读者索取更多资源

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.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

3.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据