(3.215.180.226) 您好!臺灣時間:2021/03/09 03:31
字體大小: 字級放大   字級縮小   預設字形  
回查詢結果

詳目顯示:::

我願授權國圖
: 
twitterline
研究生:葉哲維
研究生(外文):Che-Wei Yeh
論文名稱:造型特徵與使用者情感研究─以馬克杯為例
論文名稱(外文):A Study on the Relationship of Shape Feature and Users' Emotion─Using Mugs as Examples
指導教授:朱柏穎朱柏穎引用關係
指導教授(外文):Po-Ying Chu
口試委員:朱柏穎
口試委員(外文):Po-Ying Chu
口試日期:2014-07-29
學位類別:碩士
校院名稱:大同大學
系所名稱:工業設計學系(所)
學門:設計學門
學類:產品設計學類
論文種類:學術論文
論文出版年:2014
畢業學年度:102
語文別:中文
論文頁數:79
中文關鍵詞:造型特徵PAD情感模型產品性格
外文關鍵詞:PAD temperament modelproduct personalityshape feature
相關次數:
  • 被引用被引用:5
  • 點閱點閱:471
  • 評分評分:系統版面圖檔系統版面圖檔系統版面圖檔系統版面圖檔系統版面圖檔
  • 下載下載:132
  • 收藏至我的研究室書目清單書目收藏:0
情感設計是現代產品設計的趨勢,探討如何設計符合消費者期望之產品並使 其選擇之,有許多學者理理論論研究此領領域,如市場調查、顧客心理理等,而本研究則 著重於產品造型上面。
本研究旨在以 PAD 情感模型為基礎,探索索造型特徵與使用者情感變化之關 係,研究分為兩兩階段,分別是(1)前測──證實不不同造型之產品能夠產生不不同之產 品個性,與(2)造型特徵與使用者情感之 PAD 情感模型實驗,將產品性格以明確 數數值化定義在情感空間之中。最終期望找出一個模式,幫助設計師建構符合消費 者情感之產品。
研究結果顯示:(1)每一個樣本皆能定義在 PAD 情感空間中,且每對相對地 的樣本,皆呈現相對的位置;(2) 圓潤-銳利利與愉悅度度(Pleasure)呈現正比關係;(3) 產品造型越顯穩重,喚起值(Arousal)就越低,反之最不不穩定特徵卻造成了了最高的 喚起值;(4) 外放之造型比起內斂之設計有較高之支配程度度(Dominance);(5)不不同 性別、設計背景之受測者感知到的情感並無顯著差異異,並有高度度一致性。
Emotional design has been widely used in decades, it is to discover how to design a product that attract consumers and fit in with their expectations. There’s also many researchers or theories support many other phases in this field, e.g. market research, costumers’ psychology...etc., and what we concentrating in this study is the product shape phase.
This study aims at discussing the relationship between shape feature of a product and the emotional responses of a person based on the PAD temperament model. There are two main stages in this research: first is the pre-test of finding different product shape generates different product personality according to Jordan’s product personality assignment(PPA) and to find the proof of shape feature and emotional response. Second is the experiment of the connection between shape feature and users' emotion, define every samples in PAD emotional model. We expect that we could find a pattern to help the designers build the right scenarios to fit in with customers'’ expectation.
The result of this study shows that: (1) We define every samples clearly in PAD
iii
temperament model. In each comparative pair of shape features, they’re both at the opposite side from each other of the PAD model; (2)The round –sharp shape feature is in proposition to the trait pleasure; (3) The more stable the products are, the lower trait of arousal will be, in the other hand, the unstable feature cause the highest arousal value; (4) The outstanding design have higher dominance value than the humble one; (5) No matter what gender or design background doesn’t affect the perception to a specific product shape feature by a person, and shows highly consistency of their answers.
誌謝 i
摘要 ii
ABSTRACT iii
目次v
表次 viii
圖次 x
第一章 緒論論 1
1.1 研究背景與動機 1
1.2 研究目的 2
1.3 研究範圍與前提 3
1.4 論論文架構與研究流流程 4
第二章 文獻探討 6
2.1 情感的定義 6
2.2 情緒理理論論(系統) 10
2.3 情感測量量 16
2.4 產品性格 23
2.5 造型特徵 25
2.6 小結 27
第三章 研究方法與前期調查 28
3.1 研究方法與步驟 28
3.2 前測 29
3.2.1 樣本選定 29
3.2.2 受測者與問卷設計 30
3.3 前測結果 31
3.4 小結 33
第四章 實驗設計 37
4.1 實驗流流程 37
4.2 實驗樣本 38
4.3 受測者與問卷設計 42
第五章 研究結果分析與討論論 44
5.1 信度度檢定 44
5.2 樣本情感檢視 45
5.3 相近之情緒 48
5-4 性別、領領域之差異異性檢視 51
5.5 小結 53
第六六章 結論論與建議 54
6.1 研究結論論 54
6.1.1 樣本所落落在之心情(Mood)象限 54
6.1.2 樣本所鄰近之情緒(emotion)座標 56
6.1.3 小結 57
6.2 後續研究與建議 58
參參考文獻 60
附錄錄一 實驗問卷 66
1.Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1991). The big five personality dimensions and job performance: a meta‐analysis. Personnel psychology, 44(1), 1-26.
2.Barteneva, D., Lau, N., & Reis, L. P. (2007). Analysis of Strategy Implementations Based on Temperamental Decision Algorithms for Emotion-Behavioral Multi-Agent Systems. submitted to ICRA.
3.Baudrillard, J. (1996). The System of Objects, trans. J. Benedict. London and New York: Verso.
4.Baudrillard, J. (2006). Virtuality and Events: the hell of power. Baudrillard Studies, 3(2).
5.Berlyne, D. E. (1971). Aesthetics and psychology. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
6.Boukricha, H., Wachsmuth, I., Hofstatter, A., & Grammer, K. (2009, September). Pleasure-arousal-dominance driven facial expression simulation. In Affective Computing and Intelligent Interaction and Workshops, 2009. ACII 2009. 3rd International Conference on (pp. 1-7). IEEE.
7.Christianson, S. A. (1992). Emotional stress and eyewitness memory: a critical review. Psychological bulletin, 112(2), 284.
8.Chuang, P. H. (2006). Predicting the Affective Images of Morphing Shapes in Multidimensional Perceptual Space—Using Sofas as Examples.
9.Clark, L. A., Watson, D., & Mineka, S. (1994). Temperament, personality, and the mood and anxiety disorders. Journal of abnormal psychology, 103(1), 103.
10.Clore, G. L. (1992). Cognitive phenomenology: Feelings and the construction of judgment. The construction of social judgments, 10, 133-163.
11.Desmet, P. (2003). A multilayered model of product emotions. The Design Journal, 6(2), 4-13.
12.Desmet, P. M., & Hekkert, P. (2007). Framework of product experience. International Journal of Design, 1(1), 57-66.
13.Dumitrescu, A. (2010). A model of product personality. In 2010 Proc. of the 4th European Computing Conf (pp. 88-93).
14.Ekman, P. (1999). Basic emotions. Handbook of cognition and emotion, 4, 5-60.
15.Fontaine, J. R., Scherer, K. R., Roesch, E. B., & Ellsworth, P. C. (2007). The world of emotions is not two-dimensional. Psychological science, 18(12), 1050-1057.
16.Gebhard, P. (2005, July). ALMA: a layered model of affect. In Proceedings of the fourth international joint conference on Autonomous agents and multiagent systems (pp. 29-36). ACM.
17.Govers, P. C., & Mugge, R. (2004, July). I love my jeep, because it’s tough like me’: The effect of product-personality congruence on product attachment. In Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Design and Emotion, Ankara, Turkey.
18.Gray, E., Watson, D., Payne, R., & Cooper, C. (2001). Emotion, mood, and temperament: Similarities, differences, and a synthesis. Emotions at work: Theory, research and applications for management, 21-43.
19.Green, W. S., & Jordan, P. W. (Eds.). (2003). Pleasure with products: Beyond usability.
20.Hassenzahl, M., & Tractinsky, N. (2006). User experience-a research agenda. Behaviour & Information Technology, 25(2), 91-97.
21.Helander, M. G. (2003). Forget about ergonomics in chair design? Focus on aesthetics and comfort!. Ergonomics, 46(13-14), 1306-1319.
22.Izard, C. E. (1992). Basic emotions, relations among emotions, and emotion-cognition relations.
23.Jordan, P. W. (2002). The personalities of products. Pleasure with products: beyond usability, 19-47.
24.Jurie, F., & Schmid, C. (2004, July). Scale-invariant shape features for recognition of object categories. In Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2004. CVPR 2004. Proceedings of the 2004 IEEE Computer Society Conference on (Vol. 2, pp. II-90). IEEE.
25.Hsiao, K. A. (2006). Affective Responses of Product Shapes (Doctoral dissertation, Ph. D. Dissertation, Institute of Design, National Taiwan University of Science and Technology, Taipei, Taiwan, ROC).
26.Isen, A. M., Daubman, K. A., & Nowicki, G. P. (1987). Positive affect facilitates creative problem solving. Journal of personality and social psychology, 52(6), 1122.
27.Leventhal, H., & Scherer, K. (1987). The relationship of emotion to cognition: A functional approach to a semantic controversy. Cognition and emotion, 1(1), 3-28.
28.Lovheim, H. (2012). A new three-dimensional model for emotions and monoamine neurotransmitters. Medical Hypotheses, 78(2), 341-348.
29.Mehrabian, A., & Russell, J. A. (1974). An approach to environmental psychology.
30.Mehrabian, A. (1978). Measures of individual differences in temperament. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 38(4), 1105-1117.
31.Mehrabian, A. (1980). Basic dimensions for a general psychological theory: Implications for personality, social, environmental, and developmental studies. Cambridge, MA: Oelgeschlager, Gunn & Hain.
32.Mehrabian, A. (1996). Pleasure-arousal-dominance: A general framework for describing and measuring individual differences in temperament. Current Psychology, 14(4), 261-292.
33.Mehrabian, A. (1996). Analysis of the Big‐five Personality Factors in Terms of the PAD Temperament Model. Australian Journal of Psychology, 48(2), 86-92.
34.Mehrabian, A., & Ljunggren, E. (1997). Dimensionality and content of optimism-pessimism analyzed in terms of the PAD temperament model. Personality and Individual Differences, 23(5), 729-737.
35.Norman, D. A., Ortony, A., & Russell, D. M. (2003). Affect and machine design: Lessons for the development of autonomous machines. IBM Systems Journal, 42(1), 38-44.
36.Norman, D. (2004). Why we love (or Hate) Everything Things. New York: Basic books.
37.Norman, D. A. (2010). Living with complexity. Mit Press.
38.Osgood, C. E. (1957). The measurement of meaning (No. 47). University of Illinois press.
39.Picard, R. W. (1997). Affective computing. 1997. Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
40.Plous, Scott. The Psychology of Judgment and Decision Making. New York: McGraw-Hill. 1993. ISBN 0-07-050477-6.
41.Plutchik, R. (2003). Emotions and life: Perspectives from psychology, biology, and evolution. American Psychological Association.
42.Proshansky, H. M., Ittelson, W. H., & Rivlin, L. G. (1970). Freedom of choice and behavior in a physical setting. Environmental psychology: Man and his physical setting, 173-183.
43.Reis, L. P., Barteneva, D., & Lau, N. (2008). A computational study on emotions and temperament in multi-agent systems. arXiv preprint arXiv:0809.4784.
44.Rifkin, J. (2011). The third industrial revolution: How lateral power is transforming energy, the economy, and the world. Palgrave Macmillan.
45.Rucker, D. D., & Petty, R. E. (2004). Emotion specificity and consumer behavior: Anger, sadness, and preference for activity. Motivation and Emotion, 28(1), 3-21.
46.Russell, J. A., & Mehrabian, A. (1977). Evidence for a three-factor theory of emotions. Journal of research in Personality, 11(3), 273-294.
47.Russell, J. A., & Carroll, J. M. (1999). On the bipolarity of positive and negative affect. Psychological bulletin, 125(1), 3.
48.Sakurai, H., & Gossard, D. C. (1988). Shape feature recognition from 3D solid models. ASME Computers in Engineering, San Francisco.
49.Santos, R., Marreiros, G., Ramos, C., Neves, J., & Bulas-Cruz, J. (2011). Personality, emotion, and mood in agent-based group decision making.
50.Schlosberg, H. (1954). Three dimensions of emotion. Psychological review, 61(2), 81.
51.Schmitt, B. (1999). Experiential marketing. Journal of marketing management, 15(1-3), 53-67.
52.Sivam K., 2011, A practical generative design method, Computer-Aided Design, Vol. 43: 88-100.
53.Sullivan, L. H. (1896). The Tall Office Building Artistically Considered. Lippincott's Magazine (March 1896): 403–409
54.Sweet, F. (1999). Frog: form follows emotion. Thames & Hudson.
55.Tomkins, S. S. (1984). Affect theory. Approaches to emotion, 163, 195.
56.Tractinsky, N., Katz, A. S., & Ikar, D. (2000). What is beautiful is usable. Interacting with computers, 13(2), 127-145.
57.Tupes, E. C., & Christal, R. E. (1992). Recurrent personality factors based on trait ratings. Journal of personality, 60(2), 225-251.
58.Valdez, P., & Mehrabian, A. (1994). Effects of color on emotions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 123(4), 394.
59.Watson, D., & Tellegen, A. (1985). Toward a consensual structure of mood. Psychological bulletin, 98(2), 219.
60.Wundt, W. M. (1897). System der philosophie. W. Engelmann.
61.林榮泰. (2009). 文化創意產品設計: 從感性科技, 人性設計與文化創意談起. 人文與社會科學簡訊》, 第十一卷第一期, 12, 32-43.
62.簡文倩, & 蕭坤安. (2010). 影響瓶體造形喜好程度之認知探討. 工業設計, (122), 75-81.
63.陳殿禮, & 徐向蓉. (民99). 沙發造形視覺意象之研究 -- 以 IKEA 為例. 台灣感性學會研討會, D-80
QRCODE
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top
系統版面圖檔 系統版面圖檔