No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
The Effects of Representation Mode on Conceptual Coherence in the Design of Physical Products
Part of:
Design Methods and Tools
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 26 July 2019
Abstract
Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.
Coherence is important in the design of products, because it makes them easier to understand for their users. Designers can use different representation modes to express ideas about coherence. However, perception of a representation can be influenced by its mode. Therefore, designers must be aware of the influences that different representation modes can have on perception of coherence.
The aim of the present study was to investigate the effects of experienced modality on perception of conceptual coherence. In the study, participants were divided into two conditions for two representation modes: written word and physical object, both representing the same concepts. Each participant was presented with the concepts as words or objects and asked to list the properties of each concept. The results showed that between the two conditions, frequencies of responses were similar while frequencies of response contents were dissimilar and sometimes contrary. The main findings suggest that the effects of the modalities, written word and physical object, do not differ significantly for mental activity, but do differ considerably for semantic processing in ways that has implications for design.
- Type
- Article
- Information
- Proceedings of the Design Society: International Conference on Engineering Design , Volume 1 , Issue 1 , July 2019 , pp. 1663 - 1672
- Creative Commons
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is unaltered and is properly cited. The written permission of Cambridge University Press must be obtained for commercial re-use or in order to create a derivative work.- Copyright
- © The Author(s) 2019
References
Alexander, C. (1973), Notes on The Synthesis of Form, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, England.Google Scholar
Anderson, J.R. (2015), Cognitive Psychology and Its Implications, 8th ed., Worth Publishers, New York, USA.Google Scholar
Athavankar, U.A. (1989), “Categorization… Natural Language and Design”, Design Issues, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 100–111. http://doi.org/10.2307/1511517.Google Scholar
Bowman, D. (2006), “Effective Product Platform Planning in the Front End”, In: Simpson, T.W., Siddique, Z. and Jao, J.R. (Eds.), Product Platform and Product Family Design: Methods and Applications, Springer, New York, USA, pp. 19–26. http://doi.org/10.1007/0-387-29197-0_2.Google Scholar
Brereton, M. (2004), “Distributed Cognition in Engineering Design: Negotiating between Abstract and Material Representations”, In: Goldschmidt, G. and Porter, W.L. (Eds.), Design Representation, 1st ed., Springer-Verlag London, pp. 83–103. http://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-85233-863-3_4.Google Scholar
Burnston, D. and Cohen, J. (2012), “Perception of Features and Perception of Objects”, Croatian Journal of Philosophy, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 283–314.Google Scholar
Chitturi, R., Raghunathan, R. and Mahajan, V. (2007), “Form versus Function: How the Intensities of Specific Emotions Evoked in Functional versus Hedonic Trade-Offs Mediate Product Preferences”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 44 No. 4, pp. 702–714. http://doi.org/10.1509/jmkr.44.4.702.Google Scholar
Crilly, N., Maier, A. and Clarkson, P.J. (2008), “Representing Artefacts as Media: Modelling the Relationship Between Designer Intent and Consumer Experience”, International Journal of Design, Vol. 2 No. 3, pp. 15–27.Google Scholar
Dilkina, K. and Lambon Ralph, M.A. (2012), “Conceptual structure within and between modalities”, Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, Vol. 6, pp. 1–26. http://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2012.00333.Google Scholar
Gershenson, J.K., Prasad, G.J. and Zhang, Y. (2003), “Product modularity: Definitions and benefits”, Journal of Engineering Design, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 295–313. http://doi.org/10.1080/0954482031000091068.Google Scholar
Ginns, P. (2005), “Meta-analysis of the modality effect”, Learning and Instruction, Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 313–331. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2005.07.001.Google Scholar
Goldschmidt, G. and Porter, W.L. (2004), Design Representation, 1st ed., Springer-Verlag London. https://doi.org/10.1007/b97667.Google Scholar
Hekkert, P., Snelders, D. and Van Wieringen, P.C.W. (2003), “‘Most advanced, yet acceptable’: Typicality and novelty as joint predictors of aesthetic preference in industrial design”, British Journal of Psychology, Vol. 94 No. 1, pp. 111–124. http://doi.org/10.1348/000712603762842147.Google Scholar
Kahlaoui, K., Baccino, T., Joanette, Y. and Magnié, M.-N. (2007), “Pictures and Words: Priming and Category Effects in Object Processing”, Current Psychology Letters, Vol. 3 No. 23, pp. 1–13.Google Scholar
Karjalainen, T.-M. (2003), “Strategic Brand Identity and Symbolic Design Cues”, 6th Asian Design Conference, October 14-17, Science of Council of Japan, Tsukuba, Japan, pp. 1–13.Google Scholar
Kidd, M.W. and Thompson, G. (2000), “Engineering design change management”, Integrated Manufacturing Systems, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 74–77. http://doi.org/10.1108/09576060010303686.Google Scholar
Kotler, P. and Armstrong, G. (2012), Principles of Marketing, 14th ed., Pearson Education, Inc., New Jersey, USA.Google Scholar
McRae, K., Cree, G.S., Seidenberg, M.S. and McNorgan, C. (2005), “Semantic feature production norms for a large set of living and nonliving things”, Behavior Research Methods, Vol. 37 No. 4, pp. 547–559. http://doi.org/10.3758/BF03192726.Google Scholar
Medin, D.L. (1989), “Concepts and Conceptual Structure”, American Psychologist, Vol. 44 No. 12, pp. 1469–1481. http://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.44.12.1469.Google Scholar
Murphy, G.L. (1991), “Parts in object concepts: Experiments with artificial categories”, Memory & Cognition, Vol. 19 No. 5, pp. 423–438. http://doi.org/10.3758/BF03199563.Google Scholar
Murphy, G.L. and Medin, D.L. (1985), “The Role of Theories in Conceptual Coherence”, Psychological Review, Vol. 92 No. 3, pp. 289–316. http://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.92.3.289.Google Scholar
Norman, D. (2013), The Design of Everyday Things, Revised and expanded edition, Basic Books, New York, USA.Google Scholar
Oxford Dictionary of English: Apple Inc. (2005/2018) Oxford Dictionary of English (British English)Google Scholar
Rosch, E., Mervis, C.B., Gray, W.D., Johnson, D.M. and Boyes-Braem, P. (1976), “Basic Objects in Natural Categories”, Cognitive Psychology, Vol. 8, pp. 382–439. http://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(76)90013-X.Google Scholar
Schifferstein, H.N.J. and Desmet, P.M.A. (2008), “Tools Facilitating Multi-sensory Product Design”, The Design Journal, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 137–158. http://doi.org/10.2752/175630608X329226.Google Scholar
Schifferstein, H.N.J. and Hekkert, P. (2008), Product Experience, 1st ed., Elsevier Science, San Diego, USA. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-045089-6.X5001-1.Google Scholar
Sloman, S.A., Love, B.C. and Ahn, W.K. (1998), “Feature Centrality and Conceptual Coherence”, Cognitive Science, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 189–228. http://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog2202_2.Google Scholar
Smith, E.E. and Medin, D.L. (1981), Categories and Concepts, 1st ed., Harvard University Press, Cambridge, England.Google Scholar
Smith, P.G. (2007), Flexible Product Development: Building Agility for Changing Markets, 1st ed., Jossey-Bass, San Fransisco, USA.Google Scholar
Su, H and Hao, N (2010), “The Principles for Modern Product Design”, in Chunqing, Y (Ed.), International Conference on Information Technology and Scientific Management 2010, December 20-21, Scientific Research Publishing Inc., Tianjin, China, pp. 1–3.Google Scholar
Tanaka, J.W. and Taylor, M. (1991), “Object Categories and Expertise: Is the Basic Level in the Eye of the Beholder?”, Cognitive Psychology, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 457–482. http://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(91)90016-H.Google Scholar
Thomke, S. and Reinertsen, D. (1998), “Agile Product Development: Managing Development Flexibility in Uncertain Environments”, California Management Review, Vol. 41 No. 1, pp. 8–30. http://doi.org/10.2307/41165973.Google Scholar
Townsend, J.D., Montoya, M.M. and Calantone, R.J. (2011), “Form and Function: A Matter of Perspective”, Journal of Product Innovation Management, Vol. 28 No. 3, pp. 374–377. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5885.2011.00804.x.Google Scholar
Ullah, I., Tang, D. and Yin, L. (2016), “Engineering product and process design changes: A literature overview”, 9th International Conference on Digital Enterprise Technology - DET 2016 – Intelligent Manufacturing in the Knowledge Economy Era, March 29-31, Nanjing, China, pp. 25–33. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2016.10.010.Google Scholar
Ulrich, K.T. and Eppinger, S.D. (2012), Product Design and Development, 5th ed., The McGraw-Hill, New York, USA.Google Scholar
Unsworth, S.J., Sears, C.R. and Pexman, P.M. (2005), “Cultural influences on categorization processes”, Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, Vol. 36 No. 6, pp. 662–688. http://doi.org/10.1177/0022022105280509.Google Scholar
Vosniadou, S. (2002), “Mental Models in Conceptual Development”, In: Magnani, L. and Nersessian, N.J. (Eds.), Model-Based Reasoning, 1st ed., Springer, New York, USA, pp. 353–368. http://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615-0605-8_20.Google Scholar
You have
Access
Open access