The ‘Most Advanced, Yet Acceptable’ (MAYA) principle has been widely recognized in design research, emphasizing that both typicality and novelty are key predictors of aesthetic preference and that people prefer a combination of both features in design. However, existing studies do not fully explain why one predictor may have a greater influence on aesthetic preference than the other. This study investigates the role of typicality and novelty in explaining aesthetic preferences across rich (with multiple sub-categories) and poor categories (with few sub-categories). Using furniture as stimuli, a questionnaire survey was conducted with 306 participants with non-design backgrounds. The results indicate that typicality is a stronger predictor for poor categories, while novelty has a greater influence on rich categories. These findings suggest that object category richness influences the weight of typicality and novelty in shaping aesthetic preference, offering further elaboration and nuanced interpretation of the MAYA principle that ‘Most Advanced, Yet Acceptable’ is suitable for rich categories while ‘Most Acceptable, Yet Advanced’ is for poor categories. The study also highlights the necessity of object categorization when integrating typicality and novelty into product designs. These results provide new insights into the cognitive mechanisms underlying aesthetic preference, with implications for both theoretical development and practical design applications.
AlterA. L.OppenheimerD. M. (2009). Uniting the tribes of fluency to form a metacognitive nation. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 13(3), 219–235. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868309341564
2.
AlthuizenN. (2021). Revisiting Berlyne’s inverted U-shape relationship between complexity and liking: The role of effort, arousal, and status in the appreciation of product design aesthetics. Psychology & Marketing, 38(3), 481–503. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.21449
3.
ArnheimR.MolesA. (1968). Information theory and esthetic perception. The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 26(4), 552. https://doi.org/10.2307/428335
4.
BakkerI.Van Der VoordtT.VinkP.De BoonJ. (2014). Pleasure, arousal, dominance: Mehrabian and Russell revisited. Current Psychology, 33(3), 405–421. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-014-9219-4
BlijlevensJ.GemserG.MuggeR. (2012). The importance of being ‘well-placed’: The influence of context on perceived typicality and esthetic appraisal of product appearance. Acta Psychologica, 139(1), 178–186. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2011.11.004
11.
BlijlevensJ.HekkertP.ThurgoodC. (2014). The joint effect of typicality and novelty on aesthetic pleasure for product designs: Influences of safety and risk: The 23rd biennial congress of the international association of empirical aesthetics, New York, USA. In Proceedings of the 23rd Biennial congress of the international association of empirical aesthetics (pp. 391–396).
12.
BlijlevensJ.ThurgoodC.HekkertP.ChenL.-L.LederH.WhitfieldT. W. A. (2017). 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
BlochP. H.BrunelF. F.ArnoldT. 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
15.
CeballosL. M.HodgesN. N.WatchravesringkanK. (2019). The MAYA principle as applied to apparel products: The effects of typicality and novelty on aesthetic preference. Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management: An International Journal, 23(4), 587–607. https://doi.org/10.1108/JFMM-09-2018-0116
16.
CoburnA.VartanianO.KenettY. N.NadalM.HartungF.Hayn-LeichsenringG., …, ChatterjeeA. (2020). Psychological and neural responses to architectural interiors. Cortex, 126, 217–241. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cortex.2020.01.009
17.
CrillyN.GoodD.MatraversD.ClarksonP. J. (2008). Design as communication: Exploring the validity and utility of relating intention to interpretation. Design Studies, 29(5), 425–457. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2008.05.002
18.
DeiningerM.DalyS. R.LeeJ. C.SeifertC. M.SienkoK. H. (2019). Prototyping for context: Exploring stakeholder feedback based on prototype type, stakeholder group and question type. Research in Engineering Design, 30(4), 453–471. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00163-019-00317-5
19.
FaulF.ErdfelderE.LangA.-G.BuchnerA. (2007). G*power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39(2), 175–191. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193146
FishbeinM.AjzenI. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior: An introduction to theory and research. Addison-Wesley.
22.
GieseJ. L.MalkewitzK.OrthU. R.HendersonP. W. (2014). Advancing the aesthetic middle principle: Trade-offs in design attractiveness and strength. Journal of Business Research, 67(6), 1154–1161. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2013.05.018
23.
GrafL. K. M.LandwehrJ. R. (2015). A dual-process perspective on fluency-based aesthetics: The pleasure-interest model of aesthetic liking. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 19(4), 395–410. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868315574978
24.
Guitart-MasipM.BunzeckN.StephanK. E.DolanR. J.DüzelE. (2010). Contextual novelty changes reward representations in the striatum. The Journal of Neuroscience: The Official Journal of the Society for Neuroscience, 30(5), 1721–1726. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.5331-09.2010
25.
HagtvedtH.PatrickV. M. (2008). Art infusion: The influence of visual art on the perception and evaluation of consumer products. Journal of Marketing Research, 45(3), 379–389. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkr.45.3.379
26.
HeinzeH.-J.MuenteT.-F.KutasM. (1998). Context effects in a category verification task as assessed by event-related brain potential (ERP) measures. Biological Psychology, 47(2), 121–135. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0301-0511(97)00024-0
27.
HekkertP.SneldersD.Van WieringenP. 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
HungW.-K.ChenL.-L. (2012). Effects of novelty and its dimensions on aesthetic preference in product design. International Journal of Design, 6(2), 81–90.
30.
LandwehrJ. R.LabrooA. A.HerrmannA. (2011). Gut liking for the ordinary: Incorporating design fluency improves automobile sales forecasts. Marketing Science, 30(3), 416–429. https://doi.org/10.1287/mksc.1110.0633
31.
LindgaardG.FernandesG.DudekC.BrownJ. (2006). Attention web designers: You have 50 milliseconds to make a good first impression!. Behaviour & Information Technology, 25(2), 115–126. https://doi.org/10.1080/01449290500330448
32.
LoewyR. (1951). Never Leave Well Enough Alone: The Personal Record of an Industrial Design
33.
MartindaleC.MooreK. (1988). Priming, prototypicality, and preference. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 14(4), 661–670. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.14.4.661
34.
MartindaleC.MooreK.BorkumJ. (1990). Aesthetic preference: Anomalous findings for Berlyne’s psychobiological theory. The American Journal of Psychology, 103(1), 53. https://doi.org/10.2307/1423259
MuggeR.SchoormansJ. P. L. (2012). Product design and apparent usability. The influence of novelty in product appearance. Applied Ergonomics, 43(6), 1081–1088. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2012.03.009
38.
MurphyG. (2004). The big book of concepts. MIT Press.
OrneM. T. (1962). On the social psychology of the psychological experiment: With particular reference to demand characteristics and their implications. American Psychologist, 17(11), 776–783. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0043424
41.
PegorsT. K.KableJ. W.ChatterjeeA.EpsteinR. A. (2015). Common and unique representations in pFC for face and place attractiveness. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 27(5), 959–973. https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn_a_00777
42.
PosnerM. I.KeeleS. W. (1968). On the genesis of abstract ideas. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 77(3, Pt.1), 353–363. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0025953
43.
PostR. A. G.BlijlevensJ.HekkertP.SaakesD.ArangoL. (2023). Why we like to touch: Consumers’ tactile esthetic appreciation explained by a balanced combination of unity and variety in product designs. Psychology & Marketing, 40(6), 1249–1262. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.21798
44.
RadfordS. K.BlochP. H. (2011). Linking innovation to design: Consumer responses to visual product newness. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 28(s1), 208–220. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5885.2011.00871.x
45.
ReberR.SchwarzN.WinkielmanP. (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
46.
RoschE. (1978). Principles of categorization. In A. Collins & E. E. Smith (Eds.), Readings in cognitive science: A perspective from psychology and artificial intelligence (pp. 312–322). Morgan Kaufmann Publishers. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-1-4832-1446-7.50028-5
47.
RoschE.MervisC. 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
RussellJ. A.MehrabianA. (1977). Evidence for a three-factor theory of emotions. Journal of Research in Personality, 11(3), 273–294. https://doi.org/10.1016/0092-6566(77)90037-X
50.
SchleibsD. (2020). The effects of incongruent and congruent conceptual novelty on aesthetic preference of everyday objects. [Doctoral Dissertation]. Swinburne University of Technology.
ShivaniT.ClementineT.WhitfieldT. W. A. (2013). Unravelling novelty. In Consilience and innovation in design: Proc of the 5th IASDR conf. Tokyo. 2013., Tokyo.
53.
ShroutP. E.FleissJ. L. (1979). Intraclass correlations: Uses in assessing rater reliability. Psychological Bulletin, 86(2), 420–428. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.86.2.420
54.
SilvennoinenJ.MononenL. (2023). Multisensory MAYA – A design thinking method to enhance predictability of experience design. In MarcusA.RosenzweigE.SoaresM. M. (Eds.), Design, user experience, and usability (pp. 308–323). Springer Nature Switzerland. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-35699-5_23
55.
SmithE. E.ShobenE. J.RipsL. J. (1974). Structure and process in semantic memory: A featural model for semantic decisions. Psychological Review, 81(3), 214–241. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0036351
56.
SuhaimiS. N.KuysB.BarronD.LiN.RahmanZ.WhitfieldA. (2023). Probing the extremes of aesthetics: The role of typicality and novelty in the aesthetic preference of industrial boilers. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 41(1), 216–230. https://doi.org/10.1177/02762374221094137
57.
ThaiC. (2019). Electrophysiological measures of aesthetic processing [Doctoral Dissertation]. Swinburne University of Technology.
TuchA. N.Bargas-AvilaJ. A.OpwisK.WilhelmF. H. (2009). Visual complexity of websites: Effects on users’ experience, physiology, performance, and memory. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 67(9), 703–715. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2009.04.002
60.
TyagiS. (2017). The influence of individual elements on the aesthetic pleasure of furniture designs [Doctoral Dissertation, Thesis]. School of Design, Swinburne University of Technology.
61.
Van de CruysS.WagemansJ. (2011). Putting reward in art: A tentative prediction error account of visual art. I-Perception, 2(9), 1035–1062. https://doi.org/10.1068/i0466aap
62.
WassiliwizkyE.MenninghausW. (2021). Why and how should cognitive science care about aesthetics?Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 25(6), 437–449. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2021.03.008
63.
WhitfieldT. W. A. (1983). Predicting preference for familiar, everyday objects: An experimental confrontation between two theories of aesthetic behaviour. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 3(3), 221–237. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0272-4944(83)80002-4
64.
WhitfieldT. 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
65.
WhitfieldT. W. A. (2005). Aesthetics as pre-linguistic knowledge: A psychological perspective. Design Issues, 21(1), 3–17. https://doi.org/10.1162/0747936053103002
66.
WhitfieldT. W. A. (2009). Theory confrontation: Testing the categorical-motivation model. Empirical Studies of the Arts27(1), 43–59. https://doi.org/10.2190/EM.27.1.c
67.
WhitfieldT. W. A.SlatterP. 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
68.
WinkielmanP.HalberstadtJ.FazendeiroT.CattyS. (2006). Prototypes are attractive because they are easy on the mind. Psychological Science, 17(9), 799–806. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01785.x
69.
WittmannB. C.BunzeckN.DolanR. J.DüzelE. (2007). Anticipation of novelty recruits reward system and hippocampus while promoting recollection. NeuroImage, 38(1), 194–202. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2007.06.038
70.
YahayaM. (2017). Investigating typicality and novelty through visual and tactile stimuli [Doctoral Dissertation]. Swinburne University of Technology.
71.
ZajoncR. B. (1968). Attitudinal effects of mere exposure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 9(2, Pt.2), 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0025848
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
