Gender Differences in Preference for Product Design

Gender Differences in Preference for Product Design

By

Ellie Taylor

2008-2009

A PSYC3170 Major Project Supervised by

Dr Steve Westerman and Dr Ed Sutherland

A dissertation submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements of the degree of

BSc (International) Psychology

And in agreement with the University of Leeds’
Declaration of Academic Integrity

[pic]

Institute of Psychological Sciences
University of Leeds

CONTENTS
Title Page…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….1
Acknowledgements……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………...2
Contents Page……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..3
Abstract…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….…..4
1. Introduction………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..5 1. How are Aesthetic Preferences Formed………………………………………………………………………….……………6 1. Previous Experience…………………………………………………………………………………………….……………..6 2. Physiological Feelings and Threat Perception……..……………………………………………………….………..6 3. Evolution…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….…….7 4. Processing…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….…..7 2. Aesthetic Preferences………………………………….…………………………………………………………………….………8 1. Contour…………………………………………………………………………………………………………….……………..9 2. Graphic………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….…………9 3. Complexity…………………………………………………………………………………………………………..…………10 4. Symmetry…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….…10 5. Attention Grabbing………………………………………………………………………………………………….……….11 6. Typicality………………………………………………..……………………………………………………………….……..11 3. Gender Differences In Aesthetic Preference………..…………………………………………………………….………12 1. Shape Preference……………………………………………………………………………………………………..……..12 2. Difference in Designing…………………………………………………………………………………………………….12 3. Physiological Responses and Threat Perception…………………………………………………………..………13
1.4 Aims and

References: 1.1 How are Aesthetic Preferences Formed? Bargh (1982) suggests that although one is aware of the properties of an object, they are not actually aware how these properties influence their preferences for the object 1.1.1 Previous Experience Liu (2003) highlights that it is not simply the features of the objects which influence judgments, but also the objects symbolic meaning which sways preference 1.2.1 Contour Bar and Neta (2006) looked at preferences for contour 1.2.3 Complexity The complexity of a design can also enhance or reduce liking, Osborne and Farley (1970) presented famous paintings varying in complexity to participants 1.2.4 Symmetry There is vast previous research which has found that symmetry is a very important factor when rating aesthetic preference for faces, with symmetrical faces being rated as more attractive than asymmetrical (Jone and Little 2003) 1.3.1 Shape Preference Moss (1995) reviewed a number of papers looking into gender difference and found that there are gender differences for design preference