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.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BallesterosS.MillarS., & RealesJ. M. (1998). Symmetry in haptic and in visual shape perception. Perception & Psychophysics, 60, 389–404.
2.
BerlyneD. E. (1966). Curiosity and exploration. Science, 153, 25–33.
3.
BerlyneD. E. (1971). Aesthetics and psychobiology. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
4.
ChenP. Y., & PopovichP. M. (2002). Correlation. Parametric and nonparametric measures (Vol. 07-139). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
5.
ChurchillG. A. (1979). A paradigm for developing better measures of marketing constructs. Journal of Marketing Research, 16, 64–73.
6.
DarwinC. (1873). The expression of the emotions in man and animals. New York: D. Appleton & Co.
7.
DesmetP. M. A. (2002). Designing emotions. Unpublished PhD dissertation, Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands.
8.
EkmanP., & FriesenW. V. (1975). Unmasking the face: a guide to recognizing emotions from facial clues. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
9.
ErnstM. O., & BanksM. S. (2002). Humans integrate visual and haptic information in a statistically optimal fashion. Nature, 415, 429–433.
10.
GepshteinS., & BanksM. S. (2003). Viewing geometry determines how vision and haptics combine in size perception. Current Biology, 13, 483–488.
11.
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, 111–124.
12.
HellerM. A. (1982). Visual and tactual texture perception: intersensory cooperation. Perception & Psychophysics, 31, 339–344.
13.
HellerM. A. (1992). Haptic dominance in form perception: vision versus proprioception. Perception, 21, 655–660.
14.
JonesB., & O'NeilS. (1985). Combining vision and touch in texture perception. Perception & Psychophysics, 37, 66–72.
15.
KappasA. (2002). What facial activity can and cannot tell us about emotions. In KatsikitisM. & NorwellM. A. (Eds.), The human face: measurement and meaning (pp. 215–234). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
16.
LedermanS. J., & KlatzkyR. L. (1987). Hand movements: a window into haptic object recognition. Cognitive Psychology, 19, 342–368.
17.
LedermanS. J.ThorneG., & JonesB. (1986). Perception of texture by vision and touch: multidimensionality and intersensory integration. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 12, 169–180.
18.
LewisM. D. (2005). Bridging emotion theory and neurobiology through dynamic systems modeling. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 28, 169–194.
19.
LuddenG. D. S.HekkertP., & SchiffersteinH. N. J. (2006, September 27-29). Surprise & emotion. Paper presented at the 5th conference on Design & Emotion, Chalmers University, Göteborg, Sweden.
20.
LuddenG. D. S.SchiffersteinH. N. J., & HekkertP. (2004, 12-14 July). Surprises elicited by products incorporating visual - tactual incongruities. Paper presented at the 4th International Conference on Design and Emotion, Middle East Technical University, Ankara, Turkey.
21.
LuddenG. D. S.SchiffersteinH. N. J., & HekkertP. (2008). Surprise as a design strategy. Design Issues, 24(2), 20–30.
22.
MartinoG., & MarksL. E. (2000). Cross-modal interaction between vision and touch: The role of synesthetic correspondence. Perception, 29, 745–754.
23.
MeyerW. U.ReisenzeinR., & SchutzwohlA. (1997). Toward a process analysis of emotions: The case of surprise. Motivation and Emotion, 21, 251–274.
24.
OliverR. L., & WinerR. S. (1987). A framework for the formation and structure of consumer expectations - review and propositions. Journal of Economic Psychology, 8, 469–49.
25.
ReisenzeinR.BördgenS., & HoltberndT. (2000). Evidence for strong dissociation between emotion and facial display: the case of surprise. Unpublished manuscript, Germany: University of Bielefeld.
26.
RichinsM. L. (1997). Measuring emotions in the consumption experience. Journal of Consumer Research, 24, 127–146.
27.
RockI., & VictorJ. (1964). Vision and touch: an experimentally created conflict between the two senses. Science, 143, 594–596.
28.
RussellJ. A.BachorowskiJ. A., & Fernandez-DolsJ. M. (2003). Facial and vocal expressions of emotions. Annual Review of Psychology, 54, 329–349.
29.
SchererK. R. (1982). Emotion as process: Function, origin and regulation. Social Science Information, 21, 555–570.
30.
SilviaP. J. (2005). What is interesting? Exploring the appraisal structure of interest. Emotion, 5, 89–102.
31.
SmithC. A., & EllsworthP. C. (1985). Patterns of cognitive appraisal in emotions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48, 813–838.
StaymanD. M.AldenD. L., & SmithK. H. (1992). Some effects of schematic processing on consumer expectations and disconfirmation judgments. Journal of Consumer Research, 19, 240–255.
34.
TolmanE. C. (1932). Purposive behavior in animals and men.New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
35.
VanhammeJ. (2000). The link between surprise and satisfaction: an exploratory research on how best to measure surprise. Journal of Marketing Management, 16, 565–582.
