Dear Francesca,
Good question. Wondering what the problem is that your research seeks to
resolve?
What seems to be missing in your query is reference to causal understanding
about how humans create emotions, derive values and make meaning.
Without this knowledge and body of theory, any analysis following your
question is likely to reach only to the superficial aspects of psychology.
The foundation knowledge needed to make sense of your questions lies at the
intersection of the realms of 'practical application of biological
understanding of human psychological functioning (cognitive neuroscience)
and ethology (understanding the behaviour of human animals in terms of the
way that their physiological evolution has shaped the detail of how they
interact with their ecological contexts.
Authors I suggest initially to look to in these areas include Damasio (esp.
'The feeling of what happens' and 'Descartes' Error'), most of Daniel
Dennett ( - for a nice take on Design read the box in 'Personal Life' on his
wiki page), Bastick (Intuition, how we think and act - buy it!), Darwin (on
emotion in animals), Lorenz (fixed action patterns), Tinbergen (his four
questions), Bowlby (on child development), Bronfenbrenner....
These together help provide a foundational causal theory context to answer
your query.
Another way to get to a similar point is to rephrase the content of your
query, while maintaining the same form, e.g.:
'Leaves are green, roses are red, and pumpkins are yellow. Why? Are they
the same thing?'
Answering this parallel query well requires much deeper knowledge than
graphic design theories about colour wheels. Similarly, it suggests
answering your initial query well requires a more fundamental understanding
of human functioning and how it underpins how humans perceive their
emotion, judge value, create meaning - and behave as a result. Reasoning
about designs and design outcomes then follows naturally.
Best wishes,
Terry
==
Dr Terence Love, FDRS, AMIMechE, PMACM, MISI
Love Design and Research
PO Box 226, Quinns Rocks
Western Australia 6030
[log in to unmask]
+61 (0)4 3497 5848
=
-----Original Message-----
From: PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhD studies and related
research in Design [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of francesca
zampollo
Sent: Monday, 7 May 2012 7:05 PM
To: Dr Terence Love
Subject: designing for emotions, for values or for meanings?
Dear All,
I am reflecting on the difference (if any) between designing for emotions,
for values or for meanings. I would really appreciate your view on this
'triangle'.
Briefly: Emotional design says that designers should understand how
products/services are experienced in order to understand the importance of
emotions. Designers should therefore design in order to elicit certain
emotions.
There is also research on the importance of a product's value. For example
there is who thinks that the producer adds value to the product through the
different stages of the design process, manufacturing and distribution
(Porter, 1985). Boztepe (2007) argues that relating value to design one
should consider the use of the product because, as Heskett (2002) notes, it
is difficult to consider utility/use and significance/meaning of an object
separately. An experientialist approach in fact considers value as being
created at the interface of the product and the user (Frondizi, 1971)because
'value resides not in the product purchased, not in the brand chosen, not in
the object possessed but rather in the consumption experience derived
therefrom' (from Boztepe, 2007; Holbrook, 1999, p. 8).
And finally Verganti shows how radical innovation is driven by meaning
change (Verganti, 2009). (This is for me the core of Verganti's
contribution, so I won't expand on this third point, hoping the reader will
be familiar with it)
(note: I have not included designing for experiences because I consider the
experience the process that transforms interactions into an outcome:
emotions, knowledge, memories)
What I'm trying to understand, and what I would like your opinion on, is
this: do these three 'design goals' actually exist? Or are we talking about
the same thing (designing 'beyond the object' (Redstorm, 2006))?
Is there a difference between designing for (focusing the design on) values
or meanings? Or are these two different words for the same concept?
Also: considering Norman's (Norman, 2004; Ortony, Norman, & Revelle,
2005)analysis of the affective system (divided into reactive (or
visceral)
level, routine (or behavioural) level, and reflective level), where emotions
are the final outcome of the human-product interaction, when are meanings
attributed to the product? When are meanings created? Just after emotions
have been elicited, or simultaneously?
If designing for meanings is the contemporary design 'trend', why is it so?
I understand why a radical change in meaning can produce radical innovation,
so I do understand why one should choose to pursue that. But my question is
related to the way we experience a product that presents a radical change in
meaning. What happens in the affective system? When does the radical meaning
'affect' the experience of the product? Is there a psychological/cognitive
reason why designers should design for meanings?
(as there was for designing for emotions?)
I really hope the extensive knowledge and expertise of many you could help
me tackle this point.
Thank you!
Boztepe, S. (2007). User Value: Competing Theories and Models.
*International Journal of Design, 1*(2), 55-63.
Frondizi, R. (1971). *What is value?* LaSelle, IL: Open Court.
Heskett, J. (2002). *Toothpicks and Logos: Design in Everyday Life.* New
York: Oxford University Press.
Holbrook, M. B. (Ed.). (1999). *Consumer Value: A Framework for Analysis and
Research.* New York Routledge.
Norman, D. A. (2004). *Emotional Design. Why We Love (or Hate) Everyday
Things*. New York: Basic Books.
Ortony, A., Norman, D. A., & Revelle, W. (2005). The role of affect and
proto-affect in effective functioning. In J. M. Fellous & M. A. Arbib
(Eds.), *Who needs emotions? The brain meets the machine.* New York: Oxford
University Press.
Porter, M. E. (1985). *Competitive Advantage: Creating and Sustaining
Superior Performance.* New York: Free Press.
Redstorm, J. (2006). Towards user design? On the shift from object to user
as the subject of design. *Design Studies, 27*(2), 123-137.
Verganti, R. (2009). *Design-Driven Innovation. Changing the rules of
competition by radically innovating what things mean.* Boston,
Massachusetts: Harvard Business Press.
Sincerely
Francesca
*Francesca Zampollo*
PhD Student - London Metropolitan University
Organizer and Chair of International Conference on Designing Food and
Designing for Food.
|