Advertisement

Exploring the Fit Between Materials’ Expressive Values and the Self-expression of the End-User

  • Veelaert Lore
  • Moons Ingrid
  • Coppieters Werner
  • Du Bois Els
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 824)

Abstract

In industrial design, materials selection plays an important role. Being the interface of a product, a material does not only have to meet technical-functional requirements, but also has to include intended experiential characteristics. Unfortunately, there is no one-to-one correspondence between materials and their expressive value, since a material’s perceived character is influenced by multiple contextual factors that are product-related (shape, function), user-related (gender, culture, etc.), and context-related (time, place, etc.). Our current research aims to explore possible relationships between materials, their expressive value and the link with self-expression of the end-user. It defines expressive value in terms of Schwartz end values. Consequently, this paper reveals insight in the expressive values that twelve pre-selected materials evoke in itself and in interaction with different pre-selected forms. Moreover, respondents are classified in meaningful self-expressive categories, based on their value orientation. For each of these segments, the materials and form-material combinations were investigated, both indirectly and directly, in relation to the fit between the expressive value of the material and the self-expression. Relationships were found between the self-perception and a material’s fit with the self-expression, and between materials and their perceived expression of values.

Keywords

Industrial design Materials experience Expressive value Self-expression Schwartz personal values 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The study represented above was conducted in collaboration with five master students of Product Development within the course of Applied Research Methods at the University of Antwerp. Therefore we would like to acknowledge Anouk Winants, Emiel Tormans, Wouter Hendrickx, Hervé Houard and Thomas Roscam for their enthusiasm and commitment.

References

  1. 1.
    Hodgson SNB, Harper JF (2004) Effective use of materials in the design process: more than a selection problem. In: DS 33: Proceedings of E&PDE 2004, The 7th International Conference on Engineering and Product Design Education, Delft, the Netherlands, 02–03 09 2004, pp 593–601Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Deng YM, Edwards KL (2007) The role of materials identification and selection in engineering design. Mater Des 28(1):131–139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Van Kesteren IEH (2008) Selecting materials in product design (Doctoral dissertation). TU Delft, Delft University of TechnologyGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Karana E (2010) How do materials obtain their meanings? METU J Fac Archit 27(2):271–285CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Giaccardi E, Karana E (2015) Foundations of materials experience. In: Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI 2015, pp 2447–2456Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    van Kesteren I, de Bruijn S, Stappers PJ (2008) Evaluation of materials selection activities in user-centred design projects. J Eng Des 19(5):417–429CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hasling KM (2016) Bridging understandings of materials in sustainable product design education. in Celebration & Contemplation, 10th International Conference on Design & Emotion, 2016, pp. 181–190Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Jordan PW (1998) Human factors for pleasure in product use. Appl Ergon 29(1):25–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Pedgley O (2010) Invigorating industrial design materials and manufacturing education. METU 27(2):339–360Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Balaji MS, Raghavan S, Jha S (2011) Role of tactile and visual inputs in product evaluation: a multisensory perspective. Asia Pacific J Mark Logist 23(4):513–530CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Crilly N, Moultrie J, Clarkson P (2004) Seeing things: consumer response to the visual domain in product design. Des StudGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Zuo H (2010) The selection of materials to match human sensory adaptation and aesthetic expectation in industrial design. METU J Fac Archit 27(2):301–319CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Choi J (2017) Material selection by the evaluation of diffuse interface of material perception and product personality. Int J Interact Des Manuf 11(4):967–977CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Karana E, Hekkert P, Kandachar P (2010) A tool for meaning driven materials selection. Mater Des 31(6):2932–2941CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Van Kesteren I (2010) A user-centred materials selection approach for product designers. METU J Fac Archit 27(2):321–338CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Karana E, Hekkert P, Kandachar P (2009) Meanings of materials through sensorial properties and manufacturing processes. Mater Des 30(7):2778–2784CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Rao RV, Davim JP (2008) A decision-making framework model for material selection using a combined multiple attribute decision-making method. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 35(7–8):751–760CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Sapuan S (2001) A knowledge-based system for materials selection in mechanical engineering design. Mater Des 22(8):687–695CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Ashby MF (1999) Materials Selection in Mechanical Design, 2nd edn. Butterworth-Heinemann, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Farag MM (1989) Selection of Materials and Manufacturing Processes for Engineering Design. Prentice Hall, UKGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Ashby MF, Johnson K (2010) Materials and Design: The Art and Science of Material Selection in Product Design. Elsevier/Butterworth-HeinemannGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Van Kesteren I, Stappers PJ, Kandachar P (2005) Representing product personality in relation to materials in a product design problem. In: Nordic Design Research Conference, no. 1Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Jordan P (2002) Designing pleasurable products: an introduction to the new human factorsGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Karana E (2009) Meanings of Materials (Doctoral dissertation). Delft University of Technology, Delft, the NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Govers (2004) Product Personality. Technical University of DelftGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Mugge R, Govers PCM, Schoormans JPL (2009) The development and testing of a product personality scale. Des Stud 30(3):287–302CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Desmet PMA (2002) Designing emotions. Delft University of TechnologyGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Camere S, Karana E (2017) Ma2E4 Toolkit. Materials Experience Lab - Tools & Methods. http://materialsexperiencelab.com/ma2e4-toolkit-experiential-characterization-of-materials/. Accessed 07 May 2018
  29. 29.
    Karana E, van Weelderen W, van Woerden (E-J) The effect of form on attributing meanings to materials, pp 471–487Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Creusen MEH (1998) Product appearance and consumer choice (doctoral dissertation). TU DelftGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Belk RW (1988) Possessions and the Extended Self. J Consum Res 15(2):139MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Rosenberg M (1979) Conceiving the Self. Basic Books Inc., New YorkGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Sirgy MJ (2015) The self-concept in relation to product preference and purchase intention. In: Bellur VV (ed) Marketing Horizons: A 1980’s Perspective. DMSPAMS. Springer, Cham, pp 350–354.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-10966-4_94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Sirgy MJ (1982) Self-concept in consumer behavior: a critical review. J Consum Res 9(3):287CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Hosany S, Martin D (2012) Self-image congruence in consumer behavior. J Bus Res 65(5):685–691CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Schwartz SH (2012) An overview of the Schwartz theory of basic values. Online Readings Psychol Cult 2(1)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    McCrae RR, Costa PT (1987) Validation of the five-factor model of personality across instruments and observers. J Pers Soc Psychol 52(1):81–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Aaker JL (1997) Dimensions of Brand Personality. J Mark Res 34(3):347–357CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Geuens M, Weijters B, De Wulf K (2009) A new measure of brand personality. Int J Res Mark 26(2):97–107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Goldberg LR (1981) Language and individual differences: the search for universals in personality lexicons. Rev Pers Soc Psychol 2(1):141–165Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Lindeman M, Verkasalo M (2005) Measuring values with the short Schwartz’s value survey. J Pers Assess 85(2):170–178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Krystallis A, Vassallo M, Chryssohoidis G (2012) The usefulness of Schwartz’s ‘Values Theory’ in understanding consumer behaviour towards differentiated products. J Mark Manag 28(11–12):1438–1463CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Schwartz SH (1992) Universals in the content and structure of values: theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 countries. Adv Exp Soc Psychol 25:1–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Brunel FF, Kumar R (2007) Design and the big five: linking product aesthetics to product personality. ACR North Am Adv NA-34Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Rokeach M (1973) The Nature of Human Values. Free Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Hinkin TR A Brief Tutorial on the Development of Measures for Use in Survey QuestionnairesGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Beasley TM, Schumacker RE (1995) Multiple regression approach to analyzing contingency tables: post hoc and planned comparison procedures. J Exp Educ 64(1):79–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Soto CJ, John OP (2017) Short and extra-short forms of the Big Five Inventory–2: The BFI-2-S and BFI-2-XS. J Res Pers 68:69–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Veelaert Lore
    • 1
  • Moons Ingrid
    • 1
  • Coppieters Werner
    • 1
  • Du Bois Els
    • 1
  1. 1.University of AntwerpAntwerpBelgium

Personalised recommendations