Visual–Tactual Incongruities in Products as Sources of Surprise

The perception of a product through vision creates expectations of what will be perceived through touch. However, the tactual information perceived may disconfirm the expectations formed, resulting in a surprise reaction. In two experiments, participants' reactions to products with visual—tactual incongruities were studied. Participants were 100 students enrolled in the Industrial Design Engineering department at the authors' university. Our main aim was to investigate differences in reactions to two groups of products (“Visible Novelty” and “Hidden Novelty”) that are hypothesized to evoke two different surprise reactions. A group of control products without visual—tactual incongruities was also tested. Furthermore, different measures of surprise, such as self-reports of the intensity of the surprise, observational measures of exploratory behavior, vocal expressions, and facial expressions were explored. Clear differences were found in participants' reactions toward products in the control group versus products with visual—tactual incongruities. Reactions toward products in the two groups of surprising products differed only slightly.

[1]  C. Spence.  Multisensory attention and tactile information-processing , 2002, Behavioural Brain Research.

[2]  S Millar,et al.  Symmetry in haptic and in visual shape perception , 1998, Perception & psychophysics.

[3]  Geke D. S. Ludden,et al.  Surprises Elicited by Products Incorporating Visual Tactual Incongruities , 2004 .

[4]  R. Reisenzein,et al.  Evidence for strong dissociation between emotion and facial displays: the case of surprise. , 2006, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[5]  M. Ernst,et al.  Humans integrate visual and haptic information in a statistically optimal fashion , 2002, Nature.

[6]  Geke D.S. Ludden,et al.  Surprise As a Design Strategy , 2008, Design Issues.

[7]  Joëlle Vanhamme,et al.  The Link Between Surprise and Satisfaction: An Exploratory Research on how best to Measure Surprise , 2000 .

[8]  Karen H. Smith,et al.  Some Effects of Schematic Processing on Consumer Expectations and Disconfirmation Judgments , 1992 .

[9]  M. Heller.  Visual and tactual texture perception: Intersensory cooperation , 1982, Perception & psychophysics.

[10]  Marsha L. Richins.  Measuring Emotions in the Consumption Experience , 1997 .

[11]  Michael Kipp,et al.  Designing Emotions , 2011, KI - Künstliche Intelligenz.

[12]  P. Hekkert,et al.  'Most advanced, yet acceptable': typicality and novelty as joint predictors of aesthetic preference in industrial design. , 2003, British journal of psychology.

[13]  C. Darwin.  The Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals , .

[14]  S. Lacey,et al.  Cross-Modal Interactions Between Vision and Touch , 2009 .

[15]  I ROCK,et al.  Vision and Touch: An Experimentally Created Conflict between the Two Senses , 1964, Science.

[16]  J. Russell,et al.  Facial and vocal expressions of emotion. , 2003, Annual review of psychology.

[17]  B. Jones,et al.  Combining vision and touch in texture perception , 1985, Perception & psychophysics.

[18]  W. Meyer,et al.  Toward a Process Analysis of Emotions: The Case of Surprise , 1997 .

[19]  Craig A. Smith,et al.  Patterns of cognitive appraisal in emotion. , 1985, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[20]  F. W. Irwin.  Purposive Behavior in Animals and Men , 1932, The Psychological Clinic.

[21]  S. Lederman,et al.  Perception of texture by vision and touch: multidimensionality and intersensory integration. , 1986, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[22]  D. Berlyne,et al.  Aesthetics and Psychobiology , 1975 .

[23]  Marc D. Lewis.  Bridging emotion theory and neurobiology through dynamic systems modeling , 2005, Behavioral and Brain Sciences.

[24]  Gilbert A. Churchill.  A Paradigm for Developing Better Measures of Marketing Constructs , 1979 .

[25]  S. Gepshtein,et al.  Viewing Geometry Determines How Vision and Haptics Combine in Size Perception , 2003, Current Biology.

[26]  Arvid Kappas,et al.  What Facial Activity Can and Cannot Tell us About Emotions , 2003 .

[27]  D. Berlyne.  Curiosity and exploration. , 1966, Science.

[28]  Klaus R. Scherer,et al.  Emotion as a process: Function, origin and regulation , 1982 .

[29]  P. Silvia.  What is interesting? Exploring the appraisal structure of interest. , 2005, Emotion.

[30]  R. Klatzky,et al.  Hand movements: A window into haptic object recognition , 1987, Cognitive Psychology.

[31]  L. Marks,et al.  Cross-Modal Interaction between Vision and Touch: The Role of Synesthetic Correspondence , 2000, Perception.

[32]  M. Heller.  Haptic Dominance in Form Perception: Vision versus Proprioception , 1992, Perception.

[33]  R. Oliver,et al.  A framework for the formation and structure of consumer expectations: Review and propositions , 1987 .

[34]  P. Ekman,et al.  Unmasking the face : a guide to recognizing emotions from facial clues , 1975 .