Design evaluation by combination of repeated evaluation technique and measurement of electrodermal activity
Design evaluation by combination of repeated evaluation technique and measurement of electrodermal activity
复制标题
DOI：
10.1007/s00163-008-0045-2
复制
发表时间：
2008-11-01
影响因子：
3.2
通讯作者：
Leder, Helmut
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Carbon, Claus-Christian;Michael, Lars;Leder, Helmut
消费产品设计需要设计评价，以获取消费者的喜好信息，优化市场成功。这种评估通常是在简单的单次研究中进行的，消费者只需要评估一次，例如，一个设计的吸引力。然而，创新的设计往往通过将或多或少熟悉的部分组合成一个新的概念来打破常见的视觉习惯（Carbon and Leder in apple con Psychol 19:587-601, 2005）。因此，当设计创新以过于先进的方式实现时，由于熟悉度不高，预计这种设计会被感知者第一眼拒绝。然而，从日常经验来看，我们知道消费者对产品的喜爱往往是一个动态的过程，这是无法通过简单的一次性研究来捕捉的。Carbon和Leder （applied Cogn Psychol 19:587-601, 2005）提出了重复评估技术（RET）来测量这种动态效应，我们在这里将其与皮肤电活动（EDA）的测量相结合。EDA数据表明，RET捕获了动态效应，因为EDA仅在RET进行后才显示出对高度创新材料的特定敏感性；对同一材料进行交叉检查，分析特定项目的无聊感，结果显示，随着时间的推移，低创新材料比高创新材料更让参与者感到无聊。因此，RET似乎是设计评估的相关启示的有价值的工具，特别是在必须评估创新设计时。
Consumer product design needs design evaluation for obtaining information about consumers' preferences and liking to optimize market success. Such evaluations are usually conducted in simple single-shot studies where consumers only once have to evaluate, for instance, the attractiveness of a design. However, innovative designs often break common visual habits by combining more or less familiar parts into a new concept (Carbon and Leder in Appl Cogn Psychol 19:587-601, 2005). Thus, when design innovation is realized in a too advanced way, such designs are expected to be rejected by perceivers at first glance due to low familiarity. However, from everyday experience, we know that consumers' liking of products often is a dynamic process, which cannot be captured by simple single-shot studies. Carbon and Leder (Appl Cogn Psychol 19:587-601, 2005) have proposed the repeated evaluation technique (RET) for measuring such dynamic effects, which we have combined here with the measurement of electrodermal activity (EDA). The EDA data demonstrated that the RET captured dynamic effects, as the EDA showed specific sensitivity for highly innovative material only after the RET had been conducted; a cross-check with the same material analyzing item-specific boredom revealed that participants were much more bored by low innovative material over time than by highly innovative material. Thus RET seems to be a valuable tool for relevant affordances of design evaluation, particularly when innovative designs have to be evaluated.