Aesthetic preferences for artefacts are affected by many factors, such as perceptual factors, cognitive factors, and social factors. Currently, there are two models (the UMA model and the CM model) that provide theoretical support for aesthetic preferences for artefacts. However, most previous studies have focused on testing the cognitive level of the UMA model, and there is still a lack of complete testing of the three levels of the UMA model. Furthermore, categorization motivation models divide artefacts into “rich” and “poor” categories, with different categories having different impacts at the perceptual, cognitive, and social levels. This study aims to examine people's aesthetic preferences for clothing products in mainland China, using the UMA model and CM model as the theoretical basis to study the aesthetic preferences of different categories of clothing products in terms of perception, cognition and society. This study is the first to completely test the three-level relationship of the UMA model through clothing products and combines the product classification of the CM model to test people's aesthetic preferences from the perceptual, cognitive and social levels.
Ainsworth, M. D. S. (1989). Attachments beyond infancy. American Psychologist, 44(4), 709–716. https://doi.org/10.1037//0003-066x.44.4.709
Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The Need to Belong: Desire for Interpersonal Attachments as a Fundamental Human Motivation. Interpersonal Development, 117(3), 497–529. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351153683-3
Belk, R. W. (1988). Possessions and the extended self. Journal of Consumer Research, 15(2), 139–168.
Berghman, M., & Hekkert, P. (2017). Towards a unified model of aesthetic pleasure in design. New Ideas in Psychology, 47, 136–144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.newideapsych.2017.03.004
Blijlevens, J. (2015). “ Autonomous , yet connected ”: A social design principle explaining consumers ’ aesthetic appreciation of products. 2015 Academy of Marketing Conference-the Magic in Marketing, 7–9, 1–8.
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. (2014). Influence of Social Connectedness and Autonomy on Aesthetic Pleasure for Product Designs. IAEA, 95–99.
Blijlevens, J., Thurgood, C., Hekkert, P., & Chen, L. (2017). The Aesthetic Pleasure in Design Scale?: The development of a scale to measure aesthetic pleasure for designed artifacts . The Aesthetic Pleasure in Design Scale?: The Development of a Scale to Measure Aesthetic Pleasure for Designed Artifacts. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 11(1), 86–98. https://doi.org/10.1037/aca0000098
Brewer, M. B. (1991). The social self:On being the same and different at the same time.pdf. Personality Ans Social Psychology Bulletin, 17(5), 475–482.
Carbon, C. (2010). The cycle of preference?: Long-term dynamics of aesthetic appreciation. Acta Psychologica, 134(2), 233–244. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2010.02.004
Ceballos, L. M., Hodges, N. N., & Watchravesringkan, K. (2019). The MAYA principle as applied to apparel products The effects of typicality and novelty on aesthetic preference. Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management, 23(4), 587–607. https://doi.org/10.1108/JFMM-09-2018-0116
Clementine Thurgood, Paul Hekkert, J. B. (2003). The joint effect of typicality and novelty on aesthetic pleasure for product designs:Influences of Safety and Risk. 391–396. https://opus.lib.uts.edu.au/bitstream/10453/36796/4/The joint effect of typicality and novelty on aesthetic pleasure for product designs.pdf
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
Gallace, A., & Spence, C. (2011). To What Extent Do Gestalt Grouping Principles Influence Tactile Perception?? 137(4), 538–561. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022335
Hamilton, R. A. and W. D. (1981). The evolution of cooperation. Scientist, 211, 1390–1396. https://doi.org/10.5433/2178-8189.2021v25n2p208
Hekkert, P. (2008). Product aesthetics. Product Experience, 259–285.
Hekkert, P. (2014). Aesthetic responses to design?: a battle of impulses. The Cambridge Handbook of the Psychology of Aesthetics and the Arts, February, 277–299. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139207058.015
Hekkert, P., Snelders, D., & Wieringen, P. C. W. Van. (2003). ‘ Most advanced , yet acceptable ’: Typicality and novelty as joint predictors of aesthetic preference in industrial design. British Journal of Psychology, 111–124.
HEKKERT1, P. (2006). Design aesthetics: principles of pleasure in design. Psychology Science, 48(2), 157–172.
Lina Maria Ceballos Ochoa. (2017). examing the effects of typicality and novelty on aesthetic and positive emotions using the MAYA principle: the moderating role of usage situation (Issue December).
Paulsen, M. T., Rognså, G. H., & Hersleth, M. (2015). Consumer perception of food–beverage pairings: The influence of unity in variety and balance. International Journal of Gastronomy and Food Science, 2(2), 83–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijgfs.2014.12.003
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
Post, R., Nguyen, T., & Hekkert, P. (2017). Unity in Variety in website aesthetics: A systematic inquiry. International Journal of Human Computer Studies, 103(January), 48–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2017.02.003
Ragposttudelftnl, R. A. G. P. (2014). Aesthetic Appreciation of Tactile Unity - in - Variety in Product Designs. Academic, 358–360.
Rips, L. J., Shoben, E. J., & Smith, E. E. (1973). Semantic distance and the verification of semantic relations. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 12(1), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5371(73)80056-8
Rosch, E. (1975). Cognitive_representations_of_semantic_categories.pdf. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 104(3), 192–233.
Rosch, E., & Mervis, C. B. (1975). Family resemblances: Studies in the internal structure of categories. Cognitive Psychology, 7(4), 573–605. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(75)90024-9
Snyder, C. R., & Fromkin, H. L. (1977). Abnormality as a positive characteristic: The development and validation of a scale measuring need for uniqueness. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 86(5), 518–527. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-843X.86.5.518
Suhaimi, S. N. (2021). Investigating the Significance of Typicality and Novelty in the Aesthetic Preference of Industrial Products.
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. (1983). Predicting preference for familiar, everday objects: an experimental confrontation between two theories of aesthetic behaviour. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 3, 221–237.
Whitfield, T. W. A., & Allan, I. W. (2005). Aesthetics as Pre-linguistic Knowledge?: A Psychological Perspective. Design Issues, 21(1), 3–17.
Yahaya, M. F. (2017). Investigating Typicality and Novelty through Visual and Tactile Stimuli. https://researchbank.swinburne.edu.au/file/daaa042a-f94b-4d59-845b-dacbdb6fb349/1/mohd_yahaya_thesis.pdf
