diseño emocional.pdf

8/14/2019 diseo emocional.pdf

1/15

The International Journal of

Designed Objects

DESIGNPRINCIPLESANDPRACTICES.COM

VOLUME 6

_________________________________________________________________________

Yeah, I Talk to My Car...So What?Roles and Levels of Closeness inPerson-product RelationshipRUBEN H. JACOB DAZAROLA AND MANUEL MARTNEZ TORN


2/15

THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF DESIGNED OBJECTSwww.designprinciplesandpractices.com

First published in 2013 in Champaign, Illinois, USA by Common Ground Publishing LLCwww.commongroundpublishing.com

ISSN: 2325-1379

2013 (individual papers), the author(s) 2013 (selection and editorial matter) Common Ground

All rights reserved. Apart from fair dealing for the purposesof study, research, criticism or review as permitted under theapplicable copyright legislation, no part of this work may bereproduced by any process without written permission from the

publisher. For permissions and other inquiries, please [email protected].

The International Journal of Designed Objectsis peer-reviewed, supported by rigorous processes of criterion-referenced article ranking and qualitative commentary,ensuring that only intellectual work of the greatest substance

and highest significance is published.


3/15

Yeah, I Talk to My Car...So What?: Roles andLevels of Closeness in Person-product

Relationship

Ruben H. Jacob Dazarola, Universidad Politcnica de Valencia, SpainManuel Martnez Torn, Universidad Politcnica de Valencia, Spain

Abstract: Often people refer to objects in similar terms as an interaction with people: I love this object, and I havegreat affection for this product because we spend so much time together" are recurring phrases, as if one is referring to a friend or family member. We give names to some objects and sometimes we even talk to them. We also expect similarbehavior from products as we expect from people with an "equivalent" degree of relationship; for example, a car that iskept for a long time can feel almost like a friend. We expect fidelity and support that "dont let us down. Such statementsassume the existence of real relationships with objects, similar to relationships established with people, validating andeven exceeding the concept of product attachment encountered in the design field research. This evident similaritybetween the way that we interact with people and objects suggests the possibility of raising a framework, defined in this paper, which allows the development of simple and understandable language for the different stakeholders in the processof product creation, design and development. This approach relates theories of design and psychology, with focus onrelationships, expectations and behaviors that we develop with the people with whom we interact. The application of thisto the relationship that we have with the products allows us to classify them, in order to reach a proper understanding ofwhat people expect from them, and determine the types of relationships that they can generate with users.

Keywords: Person-product Relationships, Product Anthropomorphization, Product Emotions and Feelings, Product Attachment, Product Design, Emotional Design

Introduction.00 am. John wakes to the sound of the music on his radio alarm clock and gets out of bed. In the kitchen, he checks the time on his watch, runs the coffee and puts two slices of bread

in the toaster. Then he goes to the bathroom and gets into the shower. When he returns tothe kitchen, coffee and toasts are ready. He carries his breakfast to the table, and remembers thatthis piece of furniture has been in his house long before he can remember. At that very own tablehe celebrated birthdays, Christmas parties, meetings with relatives and friends. Now the woodhas darkened but the table remains strong.

On the way down the steep road that leads to the city, close to the top of the hill, his carcomes to a griping stop making strange noises. Then John says: "Go, go, you can do it!" The carmanages to reach the top and the engine returns to its normal sound. John smiles and says "Iknew you wouldnt let me down! This is the car where he received his first driving lessons, theycrossed the country together, it has served as transportation and shelter and through the years itbecame Johns limousine and truck.

On its way to work, John stops at the ATM he always uses since it is placed on its way andnormally there are very few people using it. Then, at his desk, John turns on his computer, wherehe keeps his working documents, e-mails, etc. and although it belongs to the company, he hasalso copied some pictures of friends and family there.

We live side by side with objects, we interact with them, we are part of a world of objectsthat bring positive and negative emotions in us (Desmet, 2002; Norman, 2005). In many ways theobjects are the ones that define who we are and who we want to be (Belk, 1988; Kleine &Menzel Baker, 2004; Sartre, 1954) at the same time, we define them in human terms, givingthem character, intentions and personalities (DiSalvo & Gemperle, 2003; Epley, Waytz, Akalis,

The International Journal of Designed ObjectsVolume 6, 2013, www.designprinciplesandpractices.com, ISSN 2325-1581 Common Ground, Ruben H. Jacob Dazarola, Manuel Martnez Torn,All Rights Reserved, Permissions: [email protected]


4/15

THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF DESIGNED OBJECTS

& Cacioppo, 2008; Frayer, 2010; Govers & Mugge, 2004). Such lifelong cohabitation causes notonly a constant coexistence with objects, but a relation in terms that transcend the physical orutilitarian interaction, in other words, affective and emotional way.

In the short story at the beginning of this work, we could notice the variety of relationshipsdeveloped by John with the objects with which he interacts. For example, there are products thatare practically a part of him (the watch), others only fulfill a practical function at home (thetoaster), some have been part of his life (the table), others are a true friend (the car) or are seen just like a colleague (the computer). John has a different relationship with each of these products.Feeling closer to some of them and more distant to others, thereby he has different expectationsof what each objectshould or can do for him. In other words, John expects his car to accomplishsome implied duties that are shown in a friend to friend relationship, such as trust and loyalty(Annis, 1987; Aristotle, 2004). If the ATM does not work, John will look for another. If thetoaster fails, he will replace it, but if the car comes to a griping stop, he will feel betrayed because John considers his vehicle as a friend.

The aim of this paper is to establish the type of relationships users have with the objectsaround them and how these relationships are remarkably similar to those developed among people. In addition, some of the main theories that explain both types of relationships and howthey can be useful to the design practice by proposing a model based on the roles that the products meet in their relationship with people and the expectations that users generate based onthese roles.

Dangerous Liaisons

The phenomenon of the relationships established between people and their possessions have beenextensively reviewed from the perspectives of disciplines such as Social Psychology,Anthropology, Design (Belk, 1988; Ekerdt, 2009; Mugge, 2007; Russo, 2010) and alsoMarketing, the latter focusing on the study of consumer-brand relationships rather than specific

objects (Ball & Tasaki, 1992; Lastovicka & Sirianni, 2011). Despite the diversity of views withwhich these relations have been observed, the industrial design has generated few practicalapplications from the ideas, with the concepts of product personality(Dumitrescu, 2007; Govers& Schoormans, 2005) and product attachment(Mugge, 2007; Schifferstein & Zwartkruis-Pelgrim, 2008) those with a greater development in the practice of discipline, framed in theEmotional Design research.

It is necessary to establish that these significant affective relationships with products are not pathologies. These behaviors, when they are not extreme, tend to be a way to overcome lack ofaffection in relationships with people (Epley et al., 2008; Frayer, 2010; Guthrie, 1995) and acommon resource in contemporary society (Epley, Monteleone, Gao, & Cacioppo, 2010;Wetmore, 1999). They may even contribute to consumer welfare,especially when consideredrelative to less desirable alternative responses to loneliness, which include alcohol abuse,delinquency, and the side effects of antidepressant medications(Lastovicka & Sirianni, 2011).

In today's consumer culture it is common to try to meet social needs through theestablishment of secure relationships, where the rejection ratio is less likely (Lastovicka &Sirianni, 2011; Shenk, Kuwahara, & Zablotsky, 2004). On the other hand, it is normal thatindividuals who reported not to be attached to material things also present a lack of enrichinghuman relationships, while those who have strong ties with other people also have these bondswith certain material objects (Csikszentmihalyi & Rochberg-Halton, 1981).

Understanding the phenomenon of relationships with objects is persistent in current societyone must distinguish then abnormal situations, and use their scope for achieving greater wellbeing and development of nurturing relationships to users.


5/15

JACOB DAZAROLA & MARTNEZ TORN: YEAH, I TALK TO MY CARSO WHAT?

Theories about Interpersonal RelationshipsMany of the concepts associated with human-product relationships arise from otherdisciplines. The notion of product attachmentrelates to the concept ofattachment proposed byBowlby (1982) on mother-child relationship and how it determines subsequent forms of adultrelationships. Bowlby's theory has been a key in the quest to explain the dynamics ofrelationships between people. Nonetheless, nowadays there are other proposals: The so-called"social network theory" says that relations between people are not only about attachment. Thereare also symmetric and reciprocal relationships, and notices other significant relational figures inaddition to mother figure (Takahashi, 2005).

With a different approach, theexchange theory applied to relationships (Homans, 1958;Simmel, 2002) states that, there is also a relational pursuit of profit and equity as in the exchangeof consumer goods. Similarly, Kenrick, Neuberg, & Cialdini (2009) indicate that social behavioris driven by internal goals or motivations.

(Fiske & Haslam (1996) propose four broad categories according to the role that could be played by people in social relationships.Community exchanges relationships suggest that incertain aspects, people are fully equivalent, focusing on the commonalities and distinguishingindividual identities. Theranking of authority relationships involve asymmetry, for example-military relations.Equal pairings relationships are reciprocal, people look for mutual benefit inthese relationships. Finally, the price-market relationshipsare the typical exchange value, suchas labor relations.

Is it Love, Friendship, Liking, Caring, Affection?

Loveis one of the most studied issues in the context of interpersonal relations. But people mayexperience other feelings, like friendship or caring (Berscheid, 1994; Bowlby, 1982; Sternberg,1987) and these feelings can vary throughout life (Fingerman & Lang, 2004; Levitt, 2000;Takahashi, 2005), as well as changing the role that people play in the lives of others. Friendsoften become romantic partners, or colleagues become friends, also involving a change in mutualfeelings.

Sternberg (1987) presents a review of the theories about Loveand Liking concluding thatfeelings are qualitatively different (Lee, 1977; Rubin, 1970; Sternberg, 1987) i.e., every feeling,though similar in some aspects, are different in nature and although it intensity may fluctuate, itcannot be directly converted into the other. Friendship implies a kind of love, and yet it isexperienced different by a romantic partner or by members of a family. However, all the varietiesof love require mutual attraction(Annis, 1987).

Explaining Love

There are several theories to explain the phenomenon of love and similar feelings. One of thefirst modern theories, by C.S. Lewis, proposes four main varieties: Affection, Friendship, Eros,Charity (Lewis, 1960). Similarly, Lee (1977) establishes three primary forms:Eros whichcorresponds to a romantic and passionate love, Ludus, reviewed as a playful and permissive love,without exclusivity or commitment andStorge, "love-fellowship" similar to a friend based onaffinity and long-term commitment. If these three archetypes were colors and we combined them,they will generate three secondary colorations: Mania (Storge and Eros) possessive andobsessive love, extremely romantic. Agape (Eros and Ludus) giving, sacrifice and selfless, likematernal love, andPragma (Ludus and Storge) which corresponds to a love that consciouslyseeks in the other certain convenient characteristics for the relationship.

Sternberg (1987) uses similar categories and terms to propose the so-calledtriangular lovetheory, with three main components, intimacy, passion and commitment , which are symbolically placed on the vertices of an equilateral triangle and from the combination of these, arise seven


6/15


varieties of feelings: Affection, feeling of deep friendships, where there is a deep bond with theother, based on intimacy, but no sexual passion and commitment to long term is not present. Infatuation is an intense love that may come and go quickly, composed only by passion.Empty love, is commitment without intimacy or passion. Romantic love is composed by passion and intimacy, which create emotional and physical union respectively.Companionatelove often appears in marriages that have lost their passion, or among life partners with intimacyand commitment.Fatuous love, where commitment is based solely on the passion that isgenerated by the desire to be together, there is no intimacy between the parties. Finally,Consummate love, the most complete kind of love, where the three components are balanced.

More recently, Regan (2003) made a proposal called the Hierarchy of Love.Love isconsidered a secondary concept, which is part of a higher category calledEmotions, to whichalso belong other emotions such as joy or anger. There are also tertiary concepts aroundlove, orvarieties of it, as thematernal, the romantic and the fatuous love.

Relationships with Products

Product Attachment

Product attachment can be defined as the emotional bond that a consumer experiences with aspecial and significant object (Govers & Mugge, 2004; Schifferstein, Mugge, & Hekkert, 2004).

Mugge (2007) presents different conditions for attachment to occur. It notes that in the first place, a product may become special for a person due to the role it plays in expressing its ownidentity. A product can also be considered special because it represents affiliation with a groupwith common values and interests. The authoress points out the intrinsic qualities of product canencourage the attachment, this includes meanings related to the material properties of the object,as its style, design or exclusivity, but it can also be evaluated for its usefulness and functionalattributes. Besides, the products may have cultural, spiritual and religious significances. Itconcludes that a product can be considered as if it were a living creature with human qualities. Inthis role the product gets its meaning from the personification(Review Mugge (2007) chaptertwo for more details).

Its Alive! Anthropomorphism and Design

The notion of considering appreciated objects as living creatures is studied by several authors,including Jordan (2000) for whom the products should be"living objects" with which peoplerelate, and Battarbee & Mattelmki (2004) that define these products as companions, perceived by people as owners of soul and character, often with a personal story of how theywere acquired and how they have survived. For example, in the narrative at beginning this work,

the protagonist speaks to his old car as if it were a person, makes a request to it and then thanks itfor not failing him."Although the term personification is valid, if we assign to objects intentions, a personality

and a character, the termanthropomorphism is more accurate. This name has been widely usedfrom a psychological perspective (Epley et al., 2008; Guthrie, 1995), it is also possible to findstudies that use the prism of Design, Art and Marketing (DiSalvo & Gemperle, 2003; Frayer,2010).

Anthropomorphism is explained by several reasons, among them are the lack of control bythe person on objects, such as when in the short narration above John speaks to his car due to thethreat it stops (Barrett & Hankes Johnson, 2003). Another common motivation is tosimplifycomplex technology by giving its own will in order to enable communication with it in human

terms (Wetmore, 1999).The lack of social relationshipscan also be a motivator of anthropomorphism (Epley et al.,2008; Guthrie, 1995). In spite of the negative connotation that may be assumed to this


7/15


motivation, there are perspectives that suggest it may be a positive condition. In fact it wasestablished that these types of relationships with pets reduces depression in the elderly (Garrity,Stallones, Marx, & Johnson, 1989) coincidentally, it has been reported that attachment to robotic pets, such as robotic AIBO dogs (Sony) also increases the welfare of the residents in a hospital ornursing (M. Banks, Willoughby, & Banks, 2008). Serpell (2007) claims that"the positive effectsof social relationships can be applied to any relationship where the person believes to be loved,appreciated and that is part of a network of mutual obligations".

Some products like cars, musical instruments, weapons and robots will tend to stimulateanthropomorphize because the functions that cannot be carried out without "participation" of the product. You cannot make music without an instrument, or driving without a vehicle, it isimperative that the product is fully involved in the activity making a team with the user(Wetmore, 1999). Aggarwal & McGill (2007) state that the efforts of the manufacturers can gofurther than suggesting that their products are human, they can also propose a specific type of person such as a chatty person, a friendly one, a romantic partner, etc., thus facilitating thedevelopment of feelings toward the products, as if these were people.

It is particularly important in the process of anthropomorphism, assigning a specific genre,as it conditions the type of relationship with the product that may be established later. Thecommon practice of naming certain objects require immediate determination of the type of product; often highlighting certain stereotypes of gender and class (Forlizzi, 2007; Wallendorf &Arnould, 1988).

Social Networks between People and Products

Love and Other Feelings for the Products

In spite of frequency with which people mention their love for certain products, this usually onlyapplies to a colloquial form of expression. However, several studies (Lastovicka & Sirianni,

2011; Russo, 2010; Sava, 2008; Whang, Allen, Sahoury, & Zhang, 2004) found clearmanifestation that in fact what many people experience to their products are fully consistent withthe definitions and characteristics of love referred above.

Lastovicka & Sirianni (2011) report that relationships with possessions areinherentlyasymmetricand quoting Shimp & Madden (1988) claim that many of the interpersonalrelationships are also asymmetric, for example the love of parents to children is in some periods totally asymmetric and unrequited and love for pets is reciprocal only from the human perspective. Pets also act as transitional objects, such as surrogate parents for children andchildren surrogates for adults (Belk, 1988). This feature, also asymmetrical, can manifest itselfequally in relationships with products.

Although objects do not correspond to the love received in active, they users understand the

feedback through superior performance and an attractive appearance. Even the concept of"physical intimacy" is present in person-object relations. This is the case of users who wash andwax their car with extreme frequency and dedication, or who perform mechanical maintenance totheir own vehicles, rejecting the idea that other people have this contact with the product(Lastovicka & Sirianni, 2011).

Measuring the Love for Objects

Whang et al. (2004) conducted a study on the sentiment that motorcycle riders of Harley-Davidson have for their machines, based on the classification of love proposed by Lee (1977).The outcomes disclosed arehighly consistentwith some forms of love found in interpersonal

love relationships, defining the categoriesEros, Mania and Agape as the greatest impact on thedevelopment of a "successful romantic relationship driver-motorcycle." These results confirmthat this relationship is truly a romantic relationship and show some differences on interpersonal


8/15


relations: Bikers manifest possessive love style ( Mania) and selfless love ( Agape), which do notcoexist in the love between people.

Russo (2010) examines the love that people feel for shoes and cars through the application oftheory and scales proposed by Sternberg (1988) and she describes the person-product loveexperiences as enduring and as changing over time.

Also using Sternbergs proposal, Lastovicka & Sirianni (2011) found the presence of severaltypes of love triangular theory's own relationships of users with cars, bicycles, computers andfirearms. The authors report in all categories of products the presence ofromantic, fatuousand companionate love. According to Lastovicka & Sirianni while social deprivation based on couplerelationships can be partially compensated on the development of romantic relationships with products, the gaps from other relationships may be partly offset by establishing relationships withother products, such as friendship or love based on fellowship, acknowledging the existence of adifferent strain in relations between people and objects.

The Expectations of Users and the Roles of Products

A model has been developed specifically to be taken into consideration in the pursuit ofdefinitions of the "roles of products". It has been created providing a wide range of feelings andemotions, the diversity of relationships that can be established between people and also between people and objects, and the different roles that play the products in every persons life at thatlevel.

Roles of Product Model (RPM).

Figure 1: Roles of Product Model (RPM)

The expectations that an individual deposits in their close friends and relatives arise mostlyon the specific role they play in his life. If we add that to the notion established above that the personobject relations have in many ways similar dynamics than interpersonal relationships,one can conclude that having a greater understanding of the roles that the products play in the people's lives will also allow a better definition of the expectations that individuals put into their products.

For that purpose, the model starts from the determination of the feelings experienced by people in relation to the products, and using a simple analogy based on terms from interpersonal

relationships (such as family, friend, pet, neighbor, etc.), it will configure one or more roles thatthe product will occupy in the life of the users.


9/15


As stated, often the products fulfill different roles to different people. Therefore it isimportant to establish more of a role for some objects, according to the nature of the interactionwith them, for example, a medical device like an EMR machine can be a kind of "co-worker" forthe practitioner, but another user, as the patient on the stretcher will see it very differently.

These defined roles will contribute directly to the definition of user expectations andindirectly to the process of conceptualizing and defining product requirements. Furthermore, thedefinition of specific roles for the products can contribute to the investigation of the nature of theinteraction between user and product, because depending on the degree of closeness with the product, this interaction may vary. Thus, in a product that probably plays a distant role anintimate interaction or likely to have plenty of physical contact is not adequate, as it can with a product within a close relation, when this kind of contact can be even value.

Using the defined categories of feelings (table in Figure 2) we present a first proposal for theroles that often play the products in the lives of people, the expectations they generate, andfeatures examples of each.

Figure 2. Table Roles of Products and Expectations of the Users

Conclusions

Applications for Industrial Design Practices

The Roles of Product Model (RPM) should continue its development to generate a structured protocol that allows its application as a concrete tool that meets three key objectives in the design process. (1) It encourages interdisciplinary dialogue among members of the teams involved in product development, often from diverse areas such as Marketing, Engineering and Design,


10/15


through a language based on analogies and metaphors but also easy to understand regardless ofthe professional training, and can also be used in processes involving users of these products. (2)The tool should facilitate understanding of user desires and roles that objects play in their lives,and (3), to guide the direction to take during the requirements definition process and thesubsequent establishment of specific features in the products.

The RPM can be carried out both in design education and practice in product development incompanies or design teams. Because of their simplicity, cross-language codes and the idea ofearly insertion in the design process is presented as a useful tool to assist in the understanding ofthe design cycle and the process of conversion of the needs of users product features. Althoughthe practical methodology for using this model in a real design project is still being defined, preliminary experiments have already been made using cards with roles, as a "serious game"where small groups defend two or three roles and gives reasons why the product would play thatrole. In a subsequent process the ideas are analyzed interactively using a table and post-it,discussing which product attributes are represented and how. Factors such as social, cultural andeconomic context as well as the idiosyncrasies of people (users) should be considered for anytool that may arise from this model show practical use in the design process.

Future Research

The objective of this research is to lay the theoretical groundwork for further investigation of thetreated area and the development of practical tools for the design process. Therefore, from thisfirst version of the RPM, the process should continue through qualitative and quantitativevalidation of the various roles and expectations that exist for them, particularly to confirmunderstanding and assimilation of roles for the users, and set demonstrably representativeexpectations of the user perceptions. Yet it should always be provided space for discussion on theexpectations of each role. It is precisely the definition of these expectations which is expected to be generated an enriching exchange between product development teams. Thereby when facing

certain roles, users and types of products, these expectations may vary.In the context of emotional design research has been proposed the use of negative emotionsto encourage interaction and usability of products (Fokkinga, Desmet, & Hoonhout, 2010).Similarly, in the exploration of feelings and roles of products it is possible to find out negativedimensions, which could also be used in the proposed model. Recognizing the implicit negativityin some roles, such as an alarm clock, can also help define the expectations users have of thistype of product. Of an alarm clock the user can simply wait to be effective and minimallyirritating as possible. Aware of those expectations, this feature can be implemented after anumber of ways. The variation of negative to positive roles, for example through physicalinteraction with the products, can be a valuable resource in product design field, that encouragesthe user and generate positive emotions and wellbeing in this transition process. The scope of this"role play" can lead, as part of the dialogue, to consider other similarities between interpersonalrelationships and person-object relationships, and integrate the language created.


11/15


REFERENCESAggarwal, P., & McGill, A. L. (2007). Is That Car Smiling at Me? Schema Congruity as a Basis

for Evaluating Anthropomorphized Products. Journal of Consumer Research, 34(4),468-479. doi:10.1086/518544

Annis, D. B. (1987). The Meaning, Value, and Duties of Friendship. American PhilosophicalQuarterly, 24(4), 349-356.

Aristteles. (2004). Libro VIII Cap. 2.tica Nicomquea. Ciudad de Mxico D.F., Mxico:Porra.

Ball, A. D., & Tasaki, L. H. (1992). The Role and Measurement of Attachment in ConsumerBehavior. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 1(2), 155-172. doi:10.1207/s15327663 jcp0102_04

Banks, M., Willoughby, L., & Banks, W. (2008). Animal-assisted therapy and loneliness innursing homes: use of robotic versus living dogs. Journal of the American Medical Directors Association, 9(3), 173-7. doi:10.1016/j.jamda.2007.11.007

Barrett, J. L., & Hankes Johnson, A. (2003). The Role of Control in Attributing IntentionalAgency to Inanimate Objects. Journal of Cognition and Culture, 3(3), 208-217.doi:10.1163/156853703322336634

Battarbee, K., & Mattelmki, T. (2004). Meaningful product relationships. In D. McDonagh, P.Hekkert, J. V. Erp, & D. Gyi (Eds.), Design and Emotion. The experience of everydaysthings (Kindle Ed.). New York, NY, USA: Taylor & Francis.

Belk, R. W. (1988). Possessions and the extended self.The Journal of Consumer Research,15(2), 139-168.

Berscheid, E. (1994). Interpersonal Relationships. Annual Review Psychology, 45, 79-129.Bowlby, J. (1982). Attachment and loss. Vol. 1: Attachment (2nd ed.). New York, NY, USA:

Basic Books.Csikszentmihalyi, M., & Rochberg-Halton, E. (1981).The Meaning of Things. Domestic symbols

and the self (1st ed.). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Desmet, P. M. A. (2002). Designing Emotions. (Tesis Doctoral No publicada). Delft University

of Technology, Delft, Holanda.DiSalvo, C., & Gemperle, F. (2003). From seduction to fulfillment.international conference on

Designing pleasurable products and interfaces - DPPI 03 Proceedings (p. 67). NewYork, New York, USA: ACM Press. doi:10.1145/782896.782913

Dumitrescu, A. (2007). Experiment for testing the concept of product personality.UniversitateaPolitehnica din Bucharest, Scientific Bulletin, 69(3), 55-62.

Ekerdt, D. J. (2009). Dispossession: The Tenacity of Things. In I. R. Jones, P. Higgs, & D. J.Ekerdt (Eds.),Consumtion and generational change. The rise of consumer lifestyles (1sted., pp. 63-78). Londres, UK: Transaction Publishers.

Epley, N., Monteleone, G., Gao, J.-H., & Cacioppo, J. T. (2010). Making sense by makingsentient: effectance motivation increases anthropomorphism. Journal of personality andsocial psychology, 99(3), 410-35. doi:10.1037/a0020240

Epley, N., Waytz, A., Akalis, S., & Cacioppo, J. T. (2008). When we need a human:Motivational determinants of anthropomorphism.Social Cognition, 26 (2), 143-155.

Fingerman, K. L., & Lang, F. R. (2004). Coming Together: A Perspective on Relationshipsacross the Life Span. In K. L. Fingerman & F. R. Lang (Eds.),Growing Together.Personal Relationships across the Life Span (1st ed., pp. 1-23). New York, NY, USA:Cambridge University Press.

Fiske, A. P., & Haslam, N. (1996). Social Cognition is Thinking About Relationships.Current Directions in Psychological Science, 5(5), 143-148. SAGE.

Fokkinga, S., Desmet, P. M. A., & Hoonhout, J. (2010). The Dark Side of Enjoyment. Usingnegative emotions to design for rich user experiences. In K. Sato, P. M. A. Desmet, P.


12/15


Hekkert, G. D. S. Ludden, & A. Mathew (Eds.),7th International Design & EmotionConference Proceedings (pp. 1-12). Chicago, IL, USA.

Forlizzi, J. (2007). How Robotic Products Become Social Products: An Ethnographic Study ofRobotic Products in the Home. HRI 07 Proceedings of the ACM/IEEE internationalconference on Human-robot interaction (pp. 129-136). Washington, D.C., USA: ACM New York, NY, USA.Frayer, M. (2010).Giving the Toaster Eyes: Applied Anthropomorphism and its Influences onUser-Object Relations with Everyday Objects (Tesis de Mster). Building. LundUniversity, Lund, Suecia.

Garrity, T. F., Stallones, L., Marx, M. B., & Johnson, T. P. (1989). Pet Ownership AndAttachment As Supportive Factors In The Health Of The Elderly. Anthrozoos, 3(1), 35-44.

Govers, P. C. M., & Mugge, R. (2004). I Love My Jeep , Because Its Tough Like Me. TheEffect of Product-Personality Congruence on Product Attachment.4th InternationalConference on Design and Emotion Proceedings (pp. 1-14). Ankara, Turqua.

Govers, P. C. M., & Schoormans, J. P. L. (2005). Product personality and its influence onconsumer preference. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 22(4), 189-197.doi:10.1108/07363760510605308

Guthrie, S. E. (1995).Faces in the Clouds. A new theory of religion (1st ed.). New York, NY,USA: Oxford University Press.

Homans, G. C. (1958). Social behaviour as exchange.The American Journal of Sociology, 597-606. University of Chicago Press.

Jordan, P. W. (2000). Designing Pleasurable Products. An introduction to the new human factors (1st ed.). New York, NY, USA: Taylor & Francis.

Kenrick, D. T., Neuberg, S. L., & Cialdini, R. B. (2009). Introduction to Social Psychology.Social Psychology: Goals in Interaction (5th ed., pp. 2-35). Boston MA, USA: Allynand Bacon.

Kleine, S. S., & Menzel Baker, S. (2004). An Integrative Review of Material PossessionAttachment. Academy of Marketing Science Review, 2004(1).

Lastovicka, J. L., & Sirianni, N. J. (2011). Truly, Madly, Deeply: Consumers in the Throes ofMaterial Possession Love. Journal of Consumer Research, 38(2), 323-342.doi:10.1086/658338

Lee, J. A. (1977). A Typology of Styles of Loving.Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,3(2), 173-182. doi:10.1177/014616727700300204

Levitt, M. J. (2000). Social relations across the life span: in search of unified models. International journal of aging & human development , 51(1), 71-84. BaywoodPublishing Co., Inc.

Lewis, C. S. (1960).The Four Loves (1st ed.). Orlando, FL, USA: Harvest Books.Mugge, R. (2007).Product Attachment. (Tesis Doctoral). Delft University of Technology, Delft,

Holanda. Norman, D. A. (2005).El Diseo Emocional. Por qu nos gustan (o no) los objetos cotidianos

(1st ed.). Barcelona, Espaa: Ediciones Paids Ibrica.Regan, P. (2003). General Theories of Love.The mating game: a primer on love, sex, and

marriage (1st ed., pp. 3-19). Thousand Oaks, CA, USA: SAGE.Rubin, Z. (1970). Measurement of romantic love. Journal of personality and social psychology,

16 (2), 265-73.Russo, B. (2010).Shoes, cars and other love stories: Investigating the experience of love for

products (Tesis Doctoral). Design. Delft University of Technology, Delft, Holanda.Sartre, J. P. (1954).El Ser y La Nada. Ensayo de Ontologa Fenomenolgica (2nd ed.). Buenos

Aires, Argentina: Ibero-Americana.


13/15


Sava, . (2008). Emotions for the necessary. METU Journal of Faculty of Architecture, 25(1),163-175. Middle East Technical University, Turqua.

Schifferstein, H. N. J., & Zwartkruis-Pelgrim, E. P. H. (2008). Consumer-Product Attachment:Measurement and Design Implications. International Journal, 2(3), 1-13.

Schifferstein, H. N. J., Mugge, R., & Hekkert, P. (2004). Designing consumer - productattachment. In D. McDonagh, P. Hekkert, & J. V. Erp (Eds.), Design and Emotion. Theexperience of everydays things (Kindle Ed.). New York, NY, USA: Taylor & Francis.

Serpell, J. (2007). People in Disguise: Anthropomorphism and the Human-Pet Relationship. In L.Daston & G. Mitman (Eds.), Thinking with Animals: New Perspectives on Anthropomorphism (1st ed., p. 126). New York, NY, USA: Columbia University Press.

Shenk, D., Kuwahara, K., & Zablotsky, D. (2004). Older womens attachments to their home and possessions. Journal of Aging Studies, 18(2), 157-169. Elsevier.doi:10.1016/j.jaging.2004.01.006

Shimp, T. A., & Madden, T. J. (1988). Consumer-object relations: A conceptual framework based analogously on Sternbergs triangular theory of love. Advances in Consumer Research, 15, 163-168.

Simmel, G. (2002).Cuestiones Fundamentales de Sociologa. (A. Ackermann Pilri, Trans.) (1sted.). Barcelona, Espaa: Gedisa.

Sternberg, R. J. (1987). Liking Versus Loving: A Comparative Evaluation of Theories.Psychological Bulletin, (3), 331-343. American Psychological Association Inc.

Sternberg, R. J. (1988).The Triangle of Love: Intimacy, Passion, Commitment . New York, NY,USA: Basic Books.

Takahashi, K. (2005). Toward a Life Span Theory of Close Relationships: The AffectiveRelationships Model. Human Development , 48(1-2), 48-66. Karger.doi:10.1159/000083215

Wallendorf, M., & Arnould, E. J. (1988). My Favorite Things: A cross-cultural inquiry intoobject attachment, possessiveness, and social linkage. Journal of Consumer Research,14, 531-547. doi:10.1300/J136v02n01_11

Wetmore, J. M. (1999). Moving Relationships. Befriending the Automobile to Relieve Anxiety.Retrieved November 7, 2011, from http://www.drdriving.org/misc/anthropomorph.html

Whang, Y., Allen, J., Sahoury, N., & Zhang, H. (2004). Falling in Love with a Product: TheStructure of a Romantic Consumer-Product Relationship. Advances in Consumer Research, 31(1989), 320-327.

ABOUT THE AUTHORS

Ruben H. Jacob Dazarola: Ruben H. Jacob D., Industrial Designer from the University ofValparaiso, Chile (1999), is a founding partner and owner at the design office "Taller Zero" inChile, since 1997, developing projects of industrial and graphic design for various clients. He hasa masters degrees in Design, Management and New Product Development (2003) and CADCAM CIM (2010) from the Universidad Politcnica de Valencia, Spain, institution where he iscurrently working on his doctoral thesis "Perception, Sensation, and Emotion in the Process ofProduct Design and Development. Proposals for Integration in SME in Ph.D. program Design,Manufacture and Management Industrial Projects. He is also part time professor at the schoolsof industrial design, University of Santiago de Chile (USACH) and Technological University ofChile (INACAP).

Manuel Martnez Torn: Manuel Martnez Torn received his Ph.D in the design program at thePolytechnic University of Valencia (1998). He has been Professor of Industrial Design at theSchool of Design Engineering since 1995, where he teaches undergraduates and Masters


14/15


students of Design and Computer Aided Manufacturing. He has been the Design and ProductDevelopment Group Manager since 2009 and the Institute of Design and ManufacturingAssistant Manager since 2012. Additionally, he has been a Jury Member of Design in Spain since2011. Since 1994, he has been a member of the Association of Designers of the ValencianCommunity. For fifteen years, he has taught in the Masters of Engineering Design program atCardenal Herrera CEU University. For five years, he has been Head of Design TechnologyCenter of REDIT (1995-99). He has been the FabLab Valencia Director since 2012. He has participated in the organization of Design International Congress INDITEC, and has been a principal research of two European and 25 R&D projects of desig. He has published five books,two books shared, twelve book chapters, fourteen contributions at conferences and has publisheda patent recognized. He has been a visiting teacher in Argentina (2002), Mexico (2006 and2007), and Chile (2011 and 2012).


15/15

The International Journal of Designed Objects isone of six thematically focused journals in the collectionof journals that support the Design Principles andPractices knowledge communityits journals, bookseries, conference and online community.

The journal examines the nature and form of theobjects of design, including industrial design, fashion,interior design, and other design practices.

As well as papers of a traditional scholarly type, this journal invites presentations of practiceincludingdocumentation of designed objects together withexegeses analyzing design purposes, purposes andeffects.The International Journal of Designed Objects is a peer-reviewed scholarly journal.

ISSN 2325-1379

diseño emocional.pdf

Documents