Dear Francesca!

Your questions are very important and I am not surprised that you are confused. Most importantly: emotions are not one but at least three: what you show outwards, feelings (inward) and affection: what becomes embedded. The first are immediate and the two latter  to some extend reflected.

Some people take for example pride in not showing any reaction which of course does not mean that they are not "emotional"!

Norman has done important work on design and emotion but generally I think design literature theorises emotions much too one-dimensional. 

To understand these issues better, you should read neuroscience and cognitive science. Antonio Damasio has done seminal work on brain, mind, self, decision making, emotions and feelings. There are of course others as well: Daniel Dennet, Vilaynaur Ramachandran and more.

My own PhD thesis: "Affective Sustainability of Objects", would also be of interest to you: www.borjesson-mk.se

Generally and with help of Damasio: when we perceive our senses and emotions are stimulated and in turn they activate other parts of the brain to help making sense of the object or situation by using stored information: "maps" stored as dispositions, which helps us to recall and recognise.

I would say that meaning is everything. If something does not make sense it is discarded by the brain.

Best

Kristina

CSM, UAL, UK

Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device



-----Original Message-----

From:         francesca zampollo <[log in to unmask]>

Sender:       PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhD studies and related research in Design <[log in to unmask]>

Date:         Mon, 7 May 2012 12:05:23 

To: <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:     PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhD studies and              related research in Design <[log in to unmask]>

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.