This research reviews two aesthetic theory models – the Unified Model of Aesthetics (UMA) and the Categorical-Motivation (CM) model – and proposes an integrated theoretical framework for understanding aesthetic product preferences based on preference safety. The UMA model from evolutionary psychology views aesthetic choices as risk-averse motivations, where people favor stimuli that are familiar, typical, and consistent. The CM model from cognitive psychology sees aesthetic judgments as serving needs for stability and efficiency based on category knowledge structures. This paper puts forth a framework combining UMA's multidimensional exploration of aesthetics with CM’s focus on category effects. The model has three levels – perceptual, cognitive, and social – each involving trade-offs between safety and risk. It also examines product categories as a moderator, proposing that rich vs. poor categories affect tolerance for aesthetic variables. Hypotheses are advanced, including that rich categories better promote preferences for diversity, novelty and autonomy. The integrated view of cognitive and motivational drivers shaping category-based aesthetic responses provides a comprehensive lens to advance practical design guidelines and consumer insights.
Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (2017). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Interpersonal Development, 57–89. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351153683-3
Berlyne, D. E. (1973). Interrelations of verbal and nonverbal measures used in experimental aesthetics. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 14(1), 177–184.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9450.1973.tb00107.x
Blijlevens, J., & Hekkert, P. (2019). “Autonomous, yet Connected”: An esthetic principle explaining our appreciation of product designs. Psychology & Marketing, 36(5), 530–546. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.21195
Blijlevens, J., & Hekkert, P. P. M. (2015). “ Autonomous, yet connected”: A social design principle explaining consumers’ aesthetic appreciation of products. 2015 Academy of Marketing Conference-the Magic in Marketing, 1–8.
https://researchrepository.rmit.edu.au/esploro/outputs/conferenceProceeding/Autonomous-yet-connected-A-social-design/9921862866501341
Bloch, P. H., Brunel, F. F., & Arnold, T. J. (2003). Individual differences in the centrality of visual product aesthetics: Concept and measurement. Journal of Consumer Research, 29(4), 551–565. https://doi.org/10.1086/346250
Brewer, M. B. (1991). The Social Self: On Being the Same and Different at the Same Time. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 17(5), 475–482.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167291175001
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The “What” and “Why” of Goal Pursuits: Human Needs and the Self-Determination of Behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227–268. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327965PLI1104_01
Hekkert, P. (2006). Design aesthetics: Principles of pleasure in design. Psychology Science, 48(2), 157.
Hekkert, P. (2014). 12 Aesthetic responses to design: A battle of impulses".
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Paul-Hekkert/publication/289986796_Aesthetic_responses_to_design_A_battle_of_impulses/links/58ae04b7a6fdcc6f03f0088d/Aesthetic-responses-to-design-A-battle-of-impulses.pdf
Hekkert, P., Snelders, D., & 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, 94(1), 111–124.
https://doi.org/10.1348/000712603762842147
Leder, H., Belke, B., Oeberst, A., & Augustin, D. (2004). A model of aesthetic appreciation and aesthetic judgments. British Journal of Psychology, 95(4), 489–508. https://doi.org/10.1348/0007126042369811
Leder, H., & Nadal, M. (2014). Ten years of a model of aesthetic appreciation and aesthetic judgments: The aesthetic episode – Developments and challenges in empirical aesthetics. British Journal of Psychology, 105(4), 443–464.
https://doi.org/10.1111/bjop.12084
Lee, S., & Koubek, R. J. (2010). Understanding user preferences based on usability and aesthetics before and after actual use. Interacting with Computers, 22(6), 530–543. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intcom.2010.05.002
Loos, S., Wolk, S. V. D., Graaf, N. D., Hekkert, P., & Wu, J. (2022). Towards intentional aesthetics within topology optimization by applying the principle of unity-in-variety. Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization, 65(7), 185.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00158-022-03288-9
Martindale, C. (1984). The pleasures of thought: A theory of cognitive hedonics. The Journal of Mind and Behavior, 49–80.
Post, R. A. G., Blijlevens, J., & Hekkert, P. (2016). ‘To preserve unity while almost allowing for chaos’: Testing the aesthetic principle of unity-in-variety in product design. Acta Psychologica, 163, 142–152. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2015.11.013
Reber, R., Schwarz, N., & Winkielman, P. (2004). Processing Fluency and Aesthetic Pleasure: Is Beauty in the Perceiver’s Processing Experience? Personality and Social Psychology Review, 8(4), 364–382. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327957pspr0804_3
Reimann, M., Zaichkowsky, J., Neuhaus, C., Bender, T., & Weber, B. (2010). Aesthetic package design: A behavioral, neural, and psychological investigation. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 20(4), 431–441. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcps.2010.06.009
Rosch, E. (1975). Cognitive representations of semantic categories. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 104(3), 192. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.104.3.192
Rosch, E., & Lloyd, B. B. (1978). Principles of categorization.
https://www.google.com/books?hl=zh-CN&lr=&id=zw5REAAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PA91&dq=Rosch,+E.+(1988).+Principles+of+categorization.+Readings+in+Cognitive+Science,+312-322.+https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-1-4832-1446-7.50028-5&ots=PKxImusfs1&sig=lymRmGI_rNJ5EpWDChahHGNFhyc
Suhaimi, S. N. (n.d.). Investigating the Significance of Typicality and Novelty in the Aesthetic Preference of Industrial Products. Retrieved December 30, 2023, from https://researchbank.swinburne.edu.au/items/e069be04-9dbc-4da9-b01f-2b2f1334992d/1/Safia_Suhaimi_Thesis.pdf
Suher, J., Szocs, C., & Van Ittersum, K. (2021). When imperfect is preferred: The differential effect of aesthetic imperfections on choice of processed and unprocessed foods. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 49(5), 903–924. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-021-00783-1
Thurgood, C., Hekkert, P., & Blijlevens, J. (2014). The joint effect of typicality and novelty on aesthetic pleasure for product designs: Influences of safety and risk. Congress of the International Association of Empirical Aesthetics. https://opus.lib.uts.edu.au/bitstream/10453/36796/4/The%20joint%20effect%20of%20typicality%20and%20novelty%20on%20aesthetic%20pleasure%20for%20product%20designs.pdf
Tversky, A. (1977). Features of similarity. Psychological Review, 84(4), 327. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.84.4.327
Tyagi, S., Thurgood, C., & Whitfield, T. A. (2013). Unravelling Novelty. Consilience and Innovation in Design: Proc of the 5th IASDR Conf. Tokyo. http://design-cu.jp/iasdr2013/papers/1808-1b.pdf
Veryzer Jr, R. W., & Hutchinson, J. W. (1998). The influence of unity and prototypicality on aesthetic responses to new product designs. Journal of Consumer Research, 24(4), 374–394. https://doi.org/10.1086/209516
Whitfield, T. W. A. (2000). Beyond Prototypicality: Toward a Categorical-Motivation Model of Aesthetics. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 18(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.2190/KM3A-G1NV-Y5ER-MR2V
Whitfield, T. W. A. (2009). Theory Confrontation: Testing the Categorical-Motivation Model. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 27(1), 43–59. https://doi.org/10.2190/EM.27.1.c
Whitfield, T. W. A., & Slatter, P. E. (1979). The effects of categorization and prototypicality on aesthetic choice in a furniture selection task. British Journal of Psychology, 70(1), 65–75. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8295.1979.tb02144.x
Yahaya, M. F. (2017). Investigating typicality and novelty through visual and tactile stimuli [PhD Thesis, Swinburne University of Technology Melbourne].
https://researchbank.swinburne.edu.au/items/daaa042a-f94b-4d59-845b-dacbdb6fb349/1/mohd_yahaya_thesis.pdf
Zajonc, R. B. (2001). Mere Exposure: A Gateway to the Subliminal. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 10(6), 224–228. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8721.00154
