Content uploaded by Iris Vilnai-Yavetz
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Iris Vilnai-Yavetz on Sep 23, 2021
Content may be subject to copyright.
Instrumentality, aesthetics and symbolism of physical artifacts as
triggers of emotion
Anat Rafaeli* and Iris Vilnai-Yavetz
Faculty of Industrial Engineering and Management, Technion Institute of Technology,
Haifa 32000, Israel
Keywords: Instrumentality; aesthetics; symbolism; emotion.
Building on qualitative data collected from three groups of professionals who
assessed the green colour of a public transportation bus, this paper develops a
model of the relationship between physical artifacts and emotions. The model
suggests that artifacts need to be analysed according to three conceptually distinct
aspects: instrumentality, aesthetics and symbolism. These three aspects are
suggested to arouse emotion through different mechanisms: a hygiene, a sensory
and an associative mechanism. The model opens an arena for extensive future
research on the role and influence of physical artifacts in general and on emotions
in particular.
1. Introduction
Within the broad focus of the present issue on theories and methods in affective
human factors design, we suggest that physical notions elicit emotional reactions.
We propose that these reactions are conceptually and empirically distinct from
reactions to the activity in which individuals are engaged and from the interpersonal
interactions in which they engage. Our overarching argument is that physical
artifacts of organizations translate into emotions.
We consider artifacts to be, as defined by the Oxford dictionary, ‘artificial prod-
ucts, something made by human beings and thus any element of a working environ-
ment’ (Hornby 1974: 43). We adopt Gagliardi’s (1992: 3) addition to this definition
that artifacts are always perceived by the senses and that they have certain inten-
tions, aiming to satisfy a need or a goal. Artifacts can include music (Bachorowski
1999, North et al. 1999), odour (Hirsch 1995), colour (Sassoon 1992), cartoons
(Scheiberg 1990), dress (Kluger and Rafaeli 2000) and furnishings (Davis 1984,
Baron 1994). Our effort here considers the emotional impact of artifacts.
2. A review of the influence of artifacts on behaviours, attitudes and emotion
Among organizational researchers, artifacts are regarded as a form of a message
from organizations to various constituents (Gagliardi 1992). Bitner (1992) discusses
the impact of such communication on service delivery. Others, including Stern
(1988), Yanow (1995), Hatch (1992) and Berg and Kreiner (1992), advance the
more general argument that building and office landscapes bear social and psycho-
logical consequences for people. However, a long stream of research in environmen-
tal psychology has identified a wide range of responses elicited by artifacts (Bateson
Theor. Issues in Ergon. Sci., 2004, vol. 5, no. 1, 91–112
Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science ISSN 1463–922X print/ISSN 1464–536X online #2004 Taylor & Francis Ltd
http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
DOI 10.1080/1463922031000086735
* Author for correspondence. e-mail: anatr@ie.technion.ac.il
1995). Both visual and acoustic elements produce reactions (Nasar 1994, Takahashi
1995, Bachorowski 1999), although such effects are not always direct: Characteristics
of the physical environment have been shown to influence emotion through infer-
ences made about human faces (Maslow and Mintz 1972, Mintz 1972) or about
social and personal characteristics of others (Vershure et al. 1977).
Multiple studies have documented the influence of physical aspects of organiza-
tions on the behaviours, attitudes and emotion of employees (Morrow and McElroy
1981, Marans and Spreckelmeyer 1982, Goodrich 1982, Davis 1984, Oldham 1988,
Baron 1994), customers (Donovan and Rossiter 1982, Babin and Darden 1995,
Hirsch 1995, North et al. 1999) and the interactions between them (Parsons 1976,
Altman and Vinsel 1977, Morrow and McElroy 1981, Scheiberg 1990, Baron 1994,
Oldham et al. 1995). These and other summaries of the effects of the physical envir-
onment provide the foundation for our assumption that one distinct effect of arti-
facts is emotion (see also Wohlwill 1976, Russell and Pratt 1980). We also have some
empirical support for this assumption. Russell and Pratt (1980) empirically described
the affective quality attributed to environments as maintaining two dimensions—
pleasantness and arousal, building on the multi-dimensional view of affect asserted
by Russell and Mehrabian (1977, 1978) and succinctly but solidly summarized by
Feldman-Barrett and Russell (1999). Nasar (1994) documented that descriptors of
the environment, including complexity and order, predict individual emotional
responses of arousal and pleasantness.
Regarding employees’ emotion, Parsons (1976) noted the physical environment
as influencing satisfaction or pleasure in addition to productivity, safety, motivation
or social interaction. Baron (1994) reviewed the workplace psychology literature and
proposed that environmental cues influence arousal and pleasantness of employees.
Scheiberg (1990) investigated the personal decoration of workspace, concluding that
employees design their space to express emotions. Goodrich (1982) suggested a
relationship between employee mental health and office environment. Similarly,
research supports the influence of physical environments on customer emotion
(Bitner 1992). Store design and atmosphere are represented psychologically in
terms of pleasantness and arousal (Donovan and Rossiter 1982, Sherman et al.
1997). Emotion mediates intended shopping behaviours within a store (Donovan
and Rossiter 1982, Babin and Darden 1995, Sherman et al. 1997) and employee and
customer dress elicit emotion (Kluger and Rafaeli 2000). Some patterns of dress
produce high pleasantness and low arousal, while others produce low pleasantness
and high arousal. Likewise, physical qualities of bars and restaurants elicit be-
havioural scripts that contain distinct affective tones (Wasserman et al. 2000).
However, the precise relationship between emotions and the physical environ-
ment appears to be complex and is insufficiently documented. It is on this relation-
ship that we seek to focus in the current study of artifacts. Since the nature of the
relationship may be due to qualities of the stimulus, we first discuss the issue of
analysing artifacts.
3. Analysing artifacts
How can artifacts be analysed? We propose here a model for analysing artifacts,
which integrates diverse perspectives of the academic literature. Such integration, we
have found, is essential for relating artifacts to emotions. Our model argues that
artifacts can and should be analysed on three independent dimensions—instrumen-
tality, aesthetics and symbolism. These three dimensions do not represent one dis-
92 A. Rafaeli and I. Vilnai-Yavetz
ciplinary focus on artifacts, but rather an integration of a diverse set of disciplines,
including human factors, psychology, sociology, philosophy and organizational
behaviour. This integration is briefly summarized next, to provide a foundation
for understanding what it is about an artifact that sets off emotions.
Wener (1985) offers the seeds of such integration, identifying three levels for
analysing artifacts. A first basic level according to Wener is the ergonomic level,
which entails the influence of aspects of the work environment on individual
performance. Howell (1994) and Oldham (1988) operated at this level in that they
related characteristics of the workplace to employee performance of job tasks. A
second level according to Wener (1985) is the social ecology level, where the design of
a work environment (i.e. the arrangement of desks, distance between workstations,
size) influences the development of interpersonal interactions. Empirical work at this
level was reported, for example, by Oldham et al. (1995) as well as by Altman and
Vinsel (1977). A third and most abstract level of analysing artifacts, according to
Wener (1985) is the symbolic level, which refers to the symbolic meaning concealed in
a set of physical properties. In this vein, Ornstein (1986) and Stern (1988) explore the
values represented by desks, chairs and logos.
A related set of theoretical efforts identified categories of artifacts. Bitner (1992),
for instance, suggested three categories: ambient conditions (music, smell), space and
function (equipment, arrangement) and symbols and style. Davis (1984) suggested a
similar but more complicated categorization system, proposing three types of arti-
facts—physical structure (space, location, arrangement), physical stimuli (noise,
reading material, incoming mail) and symbolic artifacts (signs, colours, carpets,
furniture). Baker et al. (1994) suggest yet another categorization theory, which
includes ambient factors (temperature, music), social factors and design factors.
However, in this typology the latter category (i.e. design factors) was further divided
into functional factors and aesthetic factors. Nasar (1994) proposed yet another
categorization system—formal stimuli,which can be measured (size, form, propor-
tion, colour) vs symbolic stimuli, which have more abstract and subjective meaning
(style).
Implicit to all these categorization schemes is the assertion that categories are
mutually exclusive, meaning that an artifact belongs to one discrete category or
another. Authors do not state this assumption explicitly, yet very few analyses of
artifacts avail multi-dimensionality. Also missing from available analyses is a coher-
ent theory of how artifacts operate. That is, once an artifact is categorized, what
happens then? Although artifacts have been linked to emotion, as our review of the
literature suggests, the mechanisms through which this link occurs remain unex-
plored. Toward remedy of these two shortcomings, we propose a different way of
analysing artifacts. We do not suggest another categorization scheme. Rather, we
argue that artifacts can and should be analysed on three independent dimensions—
instrumentality, aesthetics and symbolism.We also propose and illustrate that these
dimensions influence emotions through conceptually distinct mechanisms.
3.1. A model for analysing artifacts
There are some hints in current theory that artifacts can embody conceptually
distinct and independent qualities. Canter (1977) and Lang (1988), for example,
discuss both how people act and feel in different places. Markus (1987) suggests
three concepts for the characterization of buildings—form, space and function.
Hershberger and Cass (1988) identify multiple factors on which buildings can be
Instrumentality, aesthetics and symbolism 93
evaluated, including utility evaluative and aesthetic evaluative. Yet, these and similar
efforts analyse distinct aspects of a building as having distinct implications. In Mar-
kus’ (1987) analysis, for example, the form of a building is considered a design factor
rather than a function factor. In Goodrich’s (1982) analysis, an office environment is
considered an instrumental cue, not a symbolic cue. Thus, current models maintain
the implicit assumption that an artifact is to be categorized into one analytic
category.
One exception to this discrete approach is presented by Strati (1992), who
advances an ‘aesthetic approach’ to artifacts and argues that classifying artifacts
into aesthetic objects and functional objects is inaccurate and misleading because
any artifact is likely to load on both factors. Strati (1992: 571) illustrates that while a
picture is typically classified as ‘aesthetic’ and a chair is typically classified as ‘func-
tional’, chairs and desks have aesthetic properties and pictures have functional prop-
erties. A picture of a wheelchair, for example, has the important functional property
of informing drivers that a specific parking space is reserved for cars of handicapped
individuals. Strati (1992) explains:
I have described the physical aspect of the room—furniture embellishment, status sym-
bols, work technologies and the organizational communication of them, avoiding the
customary procedure of separating them according to their functions or hierarchies. I
have done this because it is fundamentally important in the aesthetic reading of organiza-
tional life to avoid any distinction between what is a piece of artwork and what is an object
of routine practice.
Strati (1992) further notes that an ideal industrial product is both useful and
beautiful. Thus, he suggests that the aesthetic dimension and the functional dimen-
sion, both of which he advances for analysing artifacts, are conceptually indepen-
dent, since a certain degree of functionality and a certain degree of aesthetics can
characterize any artifact. There is no obvious positive or negative correlation
between the functionality and aesthetics of an artifact.
This argument is the foundation of our model in which artifacts are to be
analysed on multiple dimensions, rather than be classified into a particular dimen-
sion. This argument provides a critical foundation for understanding emotions
because an artifact’s loading on each of the three dimensions in our model is
likely to have its own set of effects on emotions. We briefly describe each of the
dimensions for analysing artifacts next, as a prelude to describing an empirical study
that explores and documents their impact on emotions.
3.1.1. Instrumentality: The instrumentality of an artifact refers to the extent to
which the artifact contributes to performance or to promoting goals. People have
goals to accomplish, and artifacts can be evaluated according to whether they help
or hinder the accomplishment of these goals. Canter (1977, 1997) aptly illustrates
this feature of artifacts with respect to physical places or environments. Gibson’s
(1979) ecological approach suggests that what people perceive in the environment
are ‘affordances’, namely the extent the environment supports or hampers desired
activities. Nielsen (1994) referred to the ‘usability’ of artifacts as a critical feature.
Shumaker and Pequegnat (1989) suggest two models of the impact of the physical
environment on efficiency and productivity. A first model, entitled ‘direct influence’,
is where the environment supports or disturbs the performance due to bad location,
damaged equipment, etc. A second model, entitled ‘indirect influence’, is where the
94 A. Rafaeli and I. Vilnai-Yavetz
environment causes stress, which in turn hampers performance. Garling and
Golledge’s (1989) review of environmental psychology consistently emphasizes the
key role that individual perception of the impact of an environment on facilitating
performance plays in assessments of this environment. Thus, the importance of
instrumentality of an artifact as a dimension of assessing this artifact is indisputable.
However, this is not the only dimension relevant to such assessments. As elaborated
next, our review of the literature posits at least two other dimensions—aesthetics and
symbolism.
3.1.2. Aesthetics: A second essential dimension regards the aesthetics of an arti-
fact, which is the sensory experience it elicits, and the extent to which this experi-
ence fits individual goals and spirit. Lang (1988) notes that understanding an
aesthetic experience requires distinguishing between three types of environmental
experiences—sensory aesthetics (colours, odours), formal aesthetics (forms, com-
plexities) and symbolic aesthetics (associative meanings which cause pleasure).
Nasar’s (1994, 1997) typology of environmental cues also focuses on aesthetics.
According to Nasar, formal as well as symbolic stimuli have aesthetic implica-
tions. Strati (1992, 1999), who played a central role in rejuvenating the importance
of aesthetics to organizations, connects between architectonic aesthetics and
organizational experiences. Related efforts by Gagliardi (1992), Dean et al. (1997)
and Ramirez (1991) further position aesthetics as an essential, but independent,
dimension in assessments of artifacts.
3.1.3. Symbolism: A third dimension is the symbolism an artifact represents—the
meanings or associations it elicits. Csikszentmihalyi and Rochberg-Halton (1981)
illustrate that things, even simple or mundane such as chairs and tables, have
meanings. Schein (1990), Trice and Beyer (1993) and Stern (1988) position arti-
facts as symbols representing the values of organizational cultures. Ornstein (1986)
illustrates that the physical layout of an organization associates the organization
with certain qualities. Importantly, the attributions made to an artifact are not
necessarily those intended by the organization, because of the process of interpret-
ation made by the observer and the complexity of attribution and associative
process. Davis (1984) argues that artifacts are frequently subject to multiple inter-
pretations, and can have both intended and unintended symbolic consequences.
Raz (1997: 206), for example, describes a ‘communication failure story’ in Tokyo
Disneyland, where a sign for a toilet confuses park guests because the toilet has
an English sign saying ‘rest rooms’ and in Japanese ‘rest’ stands for ‘resuto’ (res-
taurant). According to Raz, park guests seeing the sign continue to bother park
employees because they do not realize it symbolizes toilets. Gagliardi (1992) fo-
cuses attention on views of corporations afforded by symbols and artifacts. Berg
and Kreiner (1992) discuss how physical settings of organizations are actually
‘symbolic resources’. Hatch (1992) reports how attitudinal and behavioural
responses to offices are products of the meanings that individuals attribute to the
work environment.
In short, three dimensions are suggested here as essential to capturing the influ-
ence of artifacts—an instrumental dimension, an aesthetic dimension and a symbolic
dimension. What is still unclear is whether or how each of these dimensions elicits
emotions, the topic on which we focus next.
Instrumentality, aesthetics and symbolism 95
4. How do artifacts elicit emotion?
Students of emotion maintain an intellectual debate about the question of what
comes first, emotional responses or cognitive assessment. Schachter and Singer
(1962) documented that cognitive appraisals are often sufficient to determine the
quality of an emotional experience. They showed that, although there are physio-
logical bases to emotional experiences, attributions of a reason for the experience
influence perceptions of the quality of the experience. Lazarus (1984) supported this
notion with the argument on the primacy of cognition, claiming that cognitive
assessment is what produces emotional reactions. Cognitive appraisal of a situation,
according to Lazarus, determines the intensity of emotional experiences. Zajonc
(1980: 151, 1984) disagreed with Lazarus, arguing: ‘preferences need no inferences’.
Zajonc (1984) views emotion as independent of cognition and as immediate physio-
logical and psychological responses to stimuli.
Our analysis circumscribes this debate by assuming that both of these mechan-
isms are central to the impact of artifacts on emotions. We view these alternative
processes as related to the emotional impact of distinct dimensions of artifacts. To
substantiate this view and enhance the understanding of how artifacts relate to
emotions, we conducted a qualitative study of reactions to an artifact. The artifact
was the colour of buses of a public transportation organization in Israel. Although
colour may be viewed as a minor, technical artifact, our study, as described below,
reveals how it maintained the three dimensions of instrumentality, aesthetics and
symbolism. Moreover, these three dimensions all led to emotions.
5. Method
Our data are multiple reactions to the effort of a public transportation organization
in Israel to improve its image through bus design. Buses, which were previously
coloured red and white or violet and white, were painted a dark and homogeneous
green. The green colour was selected by various consulting firms and was declared
and bolstered in public relations efforts. However, the colour produced massive and
unexpected responses from multiple constituents: passengers, bus drivers and other
employees, other people on the road (drivers and pedestrians), competitors and
advertisers and special interest groups (e.g. environmental organizations, disabled
and senior citizens). Company management was genuinely surprised by the criticism
that the colour campaign received.
We saw the focus on colour as a powerful theoretical case study of the impact of
artifacts because of the relative simplicity with which it could be defined and sensed.
Colours are a central and dominant notion perceived by the senses. Yet, they also
communicate meanings and influence emotions and behaviours (cf. Sassoon 1992).
This made us expect that colour would be simple enough for people to notice and
discuss, yet rich enough to exemplify and help us elaborate our theory.
5.1. Data collection
Our focus here is on the analysis of the colour by a set of experts who were selected
because we assumed their expertise is in one of the three dimensions of our model for
analysing artifacts (see figure 1). We did not introduce the model to these experts, but
rather asked them for their open-ended assessments of and reactions to the colour
(see Appendix). We interviewed experts during a period of 3 months, starting the
week that the green colour was announced in the news.
96 A. Rafaeli and I. Vilnai-Yavetz
5.1.1. Instrumentality experts: These comprised individuals working with the arti-
fact, namely bus drivers and technical staff, who are involved in the day-to-day
operation of the buses and individuals trained in the engineering of such artifacts,
namely civil and industrial engineers involved in analyses of the utility and usabil-
ity of buses (cf. Nielsen 1994). First, we conducted semi-structured interviews with
company employees including bus drivers (n¼29) and technical support staff (i.e.
engineers and mechanics, n¼10). Secondly, we interviewed advanced students and
professors of transportation and industrial engineering (n¼35) (cf. Hakkert and
Katz 1991, Hakkert 1994).
5.1.2. Aesthetics experts: These were individuals whose area of expertise is in the
realm of artistic design or creation. Such individuals undergo training in both
creation and assessment of aesthetic properties of products and art pieces. We
conducted semi-structured interviews with such aesthetic experts (n¼12), including
product and industrial designers and visual communication experts. Half of this
group comprised advanced students in these areas and the other half comprised
professionals with more than 5 years experience in the area.
5.1.3. Symbolism experts: These were professionals who consider artifacts as a
means of communication. These are individuals whose expertise focuses on the
messages a product or its package can send to various target groups. The mandate
of such professionals is, for example, to design ads, packages, products and verbal
messages in a fashion that arouses the ‘right’ associations. We conducted in-depth
interviews with public relations consultants and advertisers (n¼15), all of whom
are educated in psychology and marketing. A third of this group comprised sym-
bolic professionals employed by the bus-company (i.e. company spokesperson,
marketing and public relations consultants). The others were individuals in similar
professions with no formal contact with the company.
These diverse samples serve the inductive goal of the study since they allowed us
to reach theoretical saturation (Strauss and Corbin 1990).
5.2. Data analysis
All interviews were tape-recorded and transcribed verbatim, yielding a large amount
of qualitative, narrative data that was analysed inductively. Following the iterative
process, recommended by Strauss and Corbin (1990) and Miles and Huberman
(1984), we used the data to construct an emerging structure theoretical argument.
Recurrent visits to the data helped us build and refine an increasingly coherent
conceptual framework that captures and explains the richness evident in the data
and also makes a sound theoretical contribution.
We began the inductive process with a theoretical framework that recognized the
three aspects of an artifact (instrumentality, aesthetics and symbolism). Our search
was for the relationship between these aspects and emotion. Initially, we scanned the
data in search of dominant themes. Examples of themes identified at this stage are
‘green symbolizes life and growth’, ‘green symbolizes hospitals’, ‘green is peaceful
and tranquil’, ‘green is not safe as a colour for a car’ and ‘this hue of green is really
ugly’. We identified more than 40 such themes, and, in support of our initial theor-
etical model, we confirmed that these themes could clearly be organized into three
main categories.
Instrumentality, aesthetics and symbolism 97
The first, instrumental category, comprised themes such as ‘you can’t see the
green colour at night’. The second, aesthetic category, comprised themes such as
‘this colour is dreadful, it is dull, uniform, and ugly’. The third, symbolic category,
comprised themes such as ‘green reminds me of garbage trucks’. The authors and
two graduate research assistants independently categorized the themes into the three
categories. Only minimal disagreements were noted in this categorization process
confirming that the conceptual structure of three dimensions, as represented in
figure 1, provides a parsimonious vehicle for capturing the data.
During this categorization process, we noticed, however, that although we
collected data from professionals who were selected according to and probed
about their expert opinion on the three distinct elements of our model, data from
all experts included all three elements. Thus, our data suggested that, although
experts were professionals who presumably focus on one specific aspect of an arti-
fact, they called up the other aspects in their analyses. In addition, we noticed that,
although our data collection tools did not mention emotion in any way (see
Appendix), our data contained a wealth of emotional reactions. Our original expec-
tation was that emotional reactions would be reported by the aesthetic experts,
because of the presumed link between aesthetics and emotion. However, our data
countered this expectation, since emotional reactions evident throughout the data
were noted by all three groups of experts and were elicited by each and every one of
the three qualities of the artifact.
We then brainstormed alternative conceptual structures that would make
sense of these data, to help us address our research question, namely—the
manner in which emotional reactions are related to the three dimensions of
artifacts. This brainstorming yielded the idea that there are multiple
mechanisms through which artifacts produce emotions. Moreover, the three
dimensions of the artifact could be identified as triggering three distinct mechanisms
in which the artifact produced emotions. We specifically noted that aesthetic
considerations of the artifact elicited a different emotional process than
instrumental and symbolic considerations. The link between aesthetics and emotions
in our data appeared to be direct and almost immediate (e.g. ‘This is a disgusting
and ugly colour, I hate it, I can’t understand why they chose it’). In contrast, the
link between a symbolic view and emotions involved a more complicated process,
of associative interpretations (e.g. ‘green reminds me of a hospital, which reminds
me of an emergency room, which reminds me of road accidents and makes me
feel bad’).
The results of this iterative process of data analysis are summarized in figure 1.
Once we agreed on this broad conceptual structure, which connects the physical
qualities of the artifact to the emotional reactions expressed by multiple constituents,
we classified the data into the multiple elements of the model. The classification
produced a set of data that is the foundation of our findings, which confirm and
illustrate the elements of our argument: (a) there are multiple expressions of emotion
in assessments of artifacts; (b) these emotions emanate from multiple aspects of the
artifact. Thus, as elaborated below, our analysis of the extensive set of qualitative
data led to the thesis we advance in this paper, that three dimensions of an artifact—
instrumentality, aesthetics and symbolism—elicit multiple emotions, through three
different mechanisms.
98 A. Rafaeli and I. Vilnai-Yavetz
6. Findings
6.1. Overview
Our data comprised experts’ assessments of and reactions to the green colour of a
public transportation bus and included distinct references to three aspects of the
green colour as well as a rich set of emotions. Although we expected and explicitly
asked experts about distinct interpretations of the colour (e.g. functionality, sym-
bolism and aesthetics), their responses consistently referred to more than one and
typically to all three aspects. Thus, even experts who are trained to use one profes-
sional lens for analysing the green colour implicitly recognize the multiple implica-
tions of this colour. Classifying this simple artifact—the green colour of a bus—into
one category (e.g. aesthetics), which is what previous analyses of artifacts implicitly
endorsed, would have missed a big part of the impact of the artifact. Indeed, perhaps
this was the pitfall that led the studied organization to overlook the public relations
havoc that the new colour would create. Regarding emotion, our data were even
more diverse. We found the three dimensions of the artifact to elicit emotion through
conceptually distinct processes, as summarized in figure 1.
As figure 1 summarizes, instrumentality of the green colour produced emotion
primarily through a disruptive process of bringing about unpleasant emotions when
it was judged as dysfunctional. Our data suggest that proper functionality of an
artifact (e.g. the green colour) may at best produce neutral emotion, but is not
likely to be noticed or to produce positive emotions. Thus, instrumentality of an
artifact is suggested to have emotional effects similar to those of hygiene factors of a
job on employee motivation (Hertzberg 1966). In sharp contrast, aesthetic aspects of
the colour are suggested by our data to produce emotion through a non-mediated,
sensory process of direct impact on the senses. Here, the artifact itself is sensed as
pleasant, arousing, boring or annoying, with no mediation involved. Emotion is also
elicited by symbolic aspects of an artifact, through the associations the artifact
elicits. When the green colour drew positive associations, pleasant emotions were
reported. When associations were undesirable, emotions such as disgust, anger or
anxiety were reported.
In describing our findings, we first document the three dimensions of the artifact
in our data. Then, we illustrate the existence of emotional reactions and the mechan-
isms underlying the relationship between each of the three dimensions and emotions.
Instrumentality, aesthetics and symbolism 99
Instrumentality
Aesthetics
Symbolism
Dimension of artifact Mechanism
Hygienic Process
Sensory Process
Associative Process
Toward the physical
Artifact
E
motional Response
Figure 1. A model of the impact of physical artifacts on emotions.
6.2. Evidence of three dimensions of artifacts
Experts discussing the green colour used their professional tools or language in their
analyses. To illustrate, a transportation engineer described the bus colour in terms of
its safety (or lack thereof). Note how he uses technical terms from his field of
expertise:
The green colour is relatively dark. The colour is clearly damaging to the passenger, the
drivers on the road and the other users of the road, because the dark green is not visible.
An important element in visibility is contrast. Contrast is accomplished by a difference
between an object and the background. So, when you pass a junction in the dark and
a large black object 12 m long passes by, it is not good. . . . In general, white would be
more different, contrasting, from most areas in this country, which are brown, yellow and
green.
In contrast, an aesthetics expert (a designer) described the same artifact using lan-
guage and concepts from her field of expertise:
In a country such as ours with colourful vividness, to impose such a full colour on a bus,
on a complex such as a bus, on such a big complex such as a bus, and such a green, it is
simply appalling. . . . why not colours that communicate movement, transportation . . .
blue, red, purple. Not green.
A symbolism expert provided yet a third professional perspective of the artifact. This
perspective called up symbolic features of the colour:
Green symbolizes nature, symbolizes environmental friendliness, greenery, shrubbery, this
is what the advertisers wanted to communicate because they wanted to change the image
from an image of an environmental polluter to an image of a body that is environmentally
friendly.
However, experts in all three groups also referred to the other dimensions of the
artifact. Such references were much shorter than when experts were talking about
their area of expertise but, as illustrated by tables 1–3, all types of experts clearly
turned to all of the aspects of the artifact. Thus, the data in tables 1–3 support our
first argument—that an analysis of an artifact, even if it is merely the colour of a bus,
necessitates simultaneous reference to three dimensions, rather than categorizing the
artifact into one of these dimensions.
6.3. Emotional reactions to the artifact
Our data collection intentionally did not mention or emphasize emotion in any way,
because we wanted to see whether and how emotion would arise naturally. Indeed,
our data contained a wealth of emotional reactions. To illustrate, one of the drivers
noted: ‘This colour is a real shame. It is repulsive and disgusting’. Similarly, a
designer noted:
This green colour is awful. It does not create a relaxed or safe atmosphere of tranquility,
but rather a stressful and irritating and noisy atmosphere.
And an advertiser stated:
We don’t want a colour that creates fear and anxiety. This is a bus and a transportation
company should convey power and security.
The emotions elicited were not necessarily negative. Nor was there a clear rela-
tionship between the informants’ area of expertise and their affective assessments.
100 A. Rafaeli and I. Vilnai-Yavetz
Thus, a different designer described the new colour as ‘communicating movement
and flow. It invites participation, less subordination and is not imposing’. Two
engineers saw the colour as conveying an atmosphere that is ‘tranquil and relaxed’
and ‘gay and friendly’.
Emotions also surfaced in the context of instrumental and associative analyses.
To illustrate, two engineers noted emotions produced by the association between the
green colour and hospitals:
The green colour is identified with a hospital emergency room, which creates unpleasant
associations with road accidents.
The green colour elicits negative connotations like a visit to a hospital.
Instrumentality, aesthetics and symbolism 101
Table 1. References to instrumentality of artifact by multiple experts.
Category of expertise
that expert represents Source of data Data
Instrumentality Bus driver The colour is not really safe. Green buses cannot
be seen at night.
Engineer The heat inside a bus is a function of its colour.
The lighter the colour the more light it reflects,
the darker it is the more light it absorbs. The
green causes an elevation of up to 48. This will
undoubtedly cause a loss of energy in the summer.
Engineer The green makes it difficult to see in the dark for
drivers and pedestrians. This can lead to road
accidents.
Aesthetics Designer Buses cannot be seen and cannot be identified at
night. The colour is recognizable when it is light
out, not when it is dark.
Symbolism Company
spokesperson
We have been criticized that the green is not safe
at night. That it cannot be seen. This is nonsense.
Red cannot be seen any better at night.
Advertiser The green is problematic because it does not stand
out at night. In the dark, the bus seems to be
black.
Table 2. References to aesthetics of artifact by multiple experts.
Category of expertise
that expert represents Source of data Data
Aesthetics Designer The colour is ugly and unnecessary. They should
have left some parts white or in different shades of
green to avoid the total effect which is unpleasant
and stifling.
Designer The colour, bluish green, is connected to the
environment and local scenery. To the artificial
scenery of signs, and to the natural scenery of the
sky, the grass and the trees.
Instrumentality Bus driver The colour is simply ugly.
Engineer For me, the green hue is too dark.
Symbolism Advertiser There is a very dark green and a light green.I
prefer the lighter. It is nicer.
The emotions evident in our data did maintain a consistent pattern, with each of
the three aspects eliciting emotion through a distinct mechanism. As summarized in
figure 1, our inductive analysis leads us to propose three different mechanisms
through which artifacts influence emotions. Two mechanisms are cognitive in
nature. The third is sensory in nature, implying an emotional response that is not
mediated by a cognitive assessment process, but rather reflects the direct impact of
the artifact on one or more of the senses.
6.4. Instrumentality of an artifact and emotion
Instrumentality of an artifact is the extent to which it helps advance designated
organizational or individual goals. In the case of a bus, respondents recognized
the goal as safe travel between two points. Some respondents saw this goal as the
only relevant criterion for evaluating the new colour. A bus driver, for example,
noted:
The colour really does not matter to you as a passenger. You should not care. What is
important is that the driver is polite and professional and drives safely.
Similarly, a designer noted:
The function of the bus is to transport passengers comfortably. From a functional per-
spective, the colour doesn’t matter.
102 A. Rafaeli and I. Vilnai-Yavetz
Table 3. References to symbolism of artifact by multiple experts.
Category of expertise
that expert represents Source of data Data
Symbolism Advertiser The decision of green was because of the image of
environmental awareness. This is very popular
today.
Instrumentality Bus driver The green is not connected to the People of Israel
who are identified by the colours of blue and
white.
Engineer The green has a positive connotation connected to
environmental awareness. It is a lively colour,
which creates identification with nature and with
caring for the environment.
Engineering
student
Green has different meanings. For example a
green car means a garbage truck in certain
countries, green sportswear represent certain
sports teams, and green symbolizes jealousy in
some countries.
Aesthetics Designer I assume that their intention is to communicate to
people that they keep things clean and do not
pollute like they have been accused of doing. That
is why the colour is green.
Designer If the intent was to connect to the Greens and to
environmental awareness there was a big miss
here. The green should be lighter and not metallic
which is connected to iron and synthetic materials
and not to natural and recycled materials.
Designer In this country the immediate connotation of a
vehicle that is coloured completely green is the
military. A camouflage colour.
However, a focus on the extent to which an artifact accomplishes a goal does not
necessarily preclude emotional reactions. What our data suggest is that when an
artifact is assumed to promote goal accomplishment, little if any emotion is
expressed. However, if or when the artifact is viewed as hampering goal accomplish-
ment, extremely negative emotional reactions emerge. In this vein is the following,
non-affective response of a designer, who saw the artifact as positive and functional:
The logo on the bus is white on green, affording the highest degree of readability. The
green is in green hues with blue elements. The script is in white. On the road, the colour of
signs is white on green and white on blue. The colour of the buses combines these two
hues. It is green with blue elements. You can’t miss the buses and it blends in with the
traffic and the colour of traffic . . . I don’t see any problems.
However, intense and negative emotions were reported by those who perceived
the green colour as not facilitating or as damaging the accomplishment of organ-
izational goals. The company spokesman reported, for example, very negative
sentiments expressed by constituents assessing the green colour as maladaptive:
The responses to the green criticize the colour. We received many furious emotional
reactions from different bodies and from the general public about the safety hazards of
the new colour and that it is difficult for semi-blind people to see it.
Similarly, a bus driver described the colour as ‘Catastrophic from a safety stand-
point’. An advertiser noted: ‘The green colour is problematic. It does not stand out
at night. In the dark the bus appears to be black, sort of a huge monstrous block’.
This pattern leads us to suggest that instrumental aspects of an artifact impact
emotion in a fashion similar to the impact of ‘hygienic’ factors on employee motiva-
tion. Hygiene factors were defined by Hertzberg (1966) as factors such as super-
vision, salary and working conditions, that when adequate in a job placate workers,
but do not necessarily lead to greater satisfaction. When these factors were inade-
quate, Hertzberg argued, people would be dissatisfied. When there is no inadequacy,
according to Hertzberg, dissatisfaction will be reduced but satisfaction will not be
elevated. A different set of factors, including responsibility, recognition and growth,
were suggested by Hertzberg as allowing for increased satisfaction. We suggest a
similar dynamic with goal-promoting or instrumental properties of an artifact: Their
presence does not promote positive emotion, but some inadequacy or the presence of
inappropriate properties or of properties that somehow hamper performance, elicits
extreme negative emotion. Hence, a hygiene mechanism as noted in figure 1.
6.5. Aesthetics of an artifact and emotion
Aesthetic aspects of an artifact are the direct impacts of the artifact on one or more
of the senses (Nasar 1994) or the direct impact of the green colour on constituents.
What our analyses suggest here is that emotion is evoked directly by the sensual
impact of the artifact, with no cognitive mediation. The sensual experience that an
artifact elicits is, thus, suggested to directly produce an emotional reaction of, for
example, pleasantness, tranquility or fear.
Producing emotion through aesthetics is complicated by the potential gap
between the intended sensual effect of an artifact and the actual emotional effects.
This was a critical issue in the case of the green colour. The company spokesman and
several consultants described the choice of the dark green colour as motivated by a
quest for evoking aesthetic pleasantness. Indeed, an engineering student noted the
Instrumentality, aesthetics and symbolism 103
pleasantness of the hue and saw it as a trigger of positive emotions; He stated: ‘The
public now feels more pleasant riding in a bus that looks good’. However, not all
respondents saw the green hue as positive or pleasant. Our data includes other far
less positive emotions, suggesting what may be labelled ‘an aesthetic mistake’,
wherein the design of an artifact produces unexpectedly negative emotions. An
advertiser (who was approached as a symbolism expert) described this mistake:
I consider the dark green a mistake. I thought they intended to use a lively, brighter, grassy
green, a green with more yellow in it. This impoverished green, cypress green, it was a
mistake.
An aesthetics expert elaborated on the nature of this ‘aesthetic mistake’:
From the aesthetics of it, there is something depressing about it. The green is clearly a
most silent colour as far as the eye is concerned. This is why green boards are used in
schools. It is not a rich green but rather an overall very monotonous green, so the eye does
not have the pleasant emotions that were intended. Overall, non-positive energy is con-
tinuously produced by the colour.
Note that the aesthetic mistake does not refer to the design itself, but rather to
the emotions brought about by the design. When the evaluation of the design is
turned to the emotions it produces, the gap between what was intended and what
actually happened with the artifact becomes apparent.
Similar negative emotions were evident in the responses of all types of experts.
Our data included references such as ‘ugly, dull and unpleasant’ and ‘awful, lacks
any design logic, appalling’. A particularly vivid emotional reaction, from an
aesthetics expert, was as follows:
This green is not happy. It is a bit melancholic, too dark, too heavy, too serious and not
appropriate for the vividness we have here on our roads. I would go to something light,
bright, happier. Unpleasant uniformity is not a matter of artistic style. It is simply a huge
mass, uniform, dark, riding the road and it does not add happiness to our gray and yellow
roads.
Similarly, an engineering student, presumably an instrumentality expert, reported
negative emotions that he linked to aesthetics: ‘The colour is very loud and domi-
nant, it can turn people off’. And a bus driver stated: ‘The colour is disgusting,
repulsive, ugly, dark . . . I totally can’t understand how they could come up with
such a colour’.
In short, multiple informants linked aesthetic qualities of the artifact with emo-
tions. Although multiple and different emotions were noted by different informants,
the emotion noted in relation to aesthetic properties was always directly linked to the
impact of the artifact on the senses, with no mediating cognitive process.
6.6. Symbolic aspects of the artifact and emotion
Symbolic aspects of an artifact are the set of meanings that it can be viewed as
representing. Our data confirmed that even the simple notion of the colour of a
bus can trigger multiple, and at times contradictory, associations. Regardless of
the specific meanings, however, we propose that the symbolism of an artifact arouses
emotion through an indirect mediating process, wherein the associations with the
artifact (e.g. what the artifact is seen as representing) produce emotion. Consider,
for example, the following responses, one from each group of experts:
104 A. Rafaeli and I. Vilnai-Yavetz
Now it is fun to get on these buses. This colour communicates cleanliness and freedom
(Instrumentality expert: Engineering student).
The colour is crude, appears warlike and military, communicating bad vibes (Aesthetics
expert: Designer).
Green represents the delight of spring and flowers and blooming (Symbolism expert:
Advertiser).
The artifact appears here to be an encoded message, an intended meaning trans-
lated into a specific content. However, the message gleamed by a target audience
depends on the decoding process, which may produce a different message from what
was intended (Davis 1984). The choice of green by the company we studied was not
random, since it reflected an attempt to convey environmental friendliness, joining a
popular trend of ‘Organizational Greening’ (Bansal and Roth 2000). The company
spokesman explicitly positioned this association as the reason why the green was
selected:
We began the process with the intent of conveying commitment to quality of life and
quality of service. The green represents environmental friendliness.
However, here again an error occurred, since environmental values are only one
set of associations that the green colour elicits. There are other associations to the
colour and each of these associations brought about a different set of emotions.
From the company’s perspective, the other associations to the artifact are a form
of communication gaps or errors. The failure to recognize these alternative associa-
tions or the communication errors produced unexpected emotions. Extreme evidence
of the error was the negative reactions of respondents who associated the colour with
the colour favoured by a local terrorist group. Conflicts are a constant background
to our respondents, since they all live in Israel, and the colour green is often used as a
symbol of local terrorist groups. Informants who made this association saw the
colour as offensive. For example, one engineering student noted:
The bus is in a dreadful [name of the terrorism group] colour, simply disgusting . . .
disgusting! It’s an awful colour.
The strong emotions in this statement are clear and illustrate how an artifact can
trigger powerful and dangerous emotions through unintended associations.
In sum, the symbolism of an artifact regards the multiple associations the artifact
can represent, not only the associations formally intended by an organization.
Emotions can and are likely to be evoked by any association, and emotional pitfalls
lay in failures to recognize this.
7. Implications
Our analysis illustrates that artifacts are more than mere instruments with functional
implications, since they can be symbolic and are also likely to be assessed aestheti-
cally. Our theoretical framework further suggests that instrumental, symbolic and
aesthetic aspects of artifacts bear significant emotional consequences for multiple
constituents. We see this analysis as advancing three key points: (1) To fully under-
stand the impact of an artifact it should be assessed on three dimensions. (2) A focus
on only one of the dimensions can lead to an impoverished understanding of the
artifact. (3) Each of the three dimensions provokes emotions. These three points are
of critical importance to ergonomics professionals who are trained to focus primarily
on usability or instrumentality of an artifact.
Instrumentality, aesthetics and symbolism 105
The design of an artifact can be motivated by one primary aspect. Although
human factors professionals tend to focus on ergonomics, in the case we studied
the motivation was symbolism: The colour green was chosen because of manage-
ment’s desire to improve organizational image and the association between the
colour green and the environment. The assumption was that this association
would improve the organizational image, because it would associate the organization
with the pleasant and positive notions of environmentalism. We suggest that the
focus only on symbolism was a mistake as it led to overseeing of instrumental and
aesthetic issues. The other dimensions of the artifact became transparent when any
expert was consulted, even if the dimension was not in his or her area of expertise.
These other dimensions are likely to be what brought about unexpected reactions
when the artifact was put to use.
At least two dimensions of our model were not sufficiently recognized in the
choice of the green. Instrumentality was essentially ignored. The dark green was
described by engineers and drivers as unsafe, because it blends in with the colour
of the road and cannot be seen at night. Symbolism was also not sufficiently recog-
nized. The colour was selected because of symbolic properties, but it embodies
additional symbolic aspects beyond the assumed environmental friendliness associa-
tions sought out by management. Thus, maintaining only one lens brought about
artifact havoc, which could have been avoided had multiple dimensions been recog-
nized and assessed. The analysis we conducted could have been conducted before the
artifact was selected. Had the three aspects of the artifact been considered, instru-
mental implications such as problems of safety and temperature, and alternative
symbolic associations, such as hospitals, garbage trucks and terrorist groups could
have been foreseen.
This is an important and highly applicable message to any professional group.
Any view through only one lens (or dimension) can be misleading. Yet, professional
training often assumes one dimension as the most important or the only important
lens. Ergonomics favours instrumentality considerations. Marketing is a profession
that tends to emphasize symbolism, at the cost of overlooking instrumentality and
aesthetics issues. Designers, on the other hand, favour aesthetics and creativity over
functionality, potentially supporting pretty but useless artifacts. As Forty (1986)
notes, designs do not work well if they do not embody ideas that potential users
share. Yet, Lloyd and Snelders (2001: 246) describe a lemon squeezer designed by an
acclaimed designer, Phillipe Starck, as follows:
Phillippe [Starck] likes it, it’s what he intended. But people begin to criticize it. They say it
doesn’t work. It doesn’t fulfil the function of a lemon squeezer, they argue. ‘Look! The
pips get squeezed out with the juice, who wants to chew on a lemon pip?’
Between the colour of a bus and a lemon squeezer lie all artifacts and their
design, which should combine considerations of usability and functionality, symbo-
lism and aesthetics. To the human factors audience of this journal, the message is
that features other than functionality can be critical determinants of reactions to an
artifact. The historical case of the Edsel car, which was manufactured and marketed
by the Ford auto company in 1958, is considered a benchmark of design failure, yet
the car ran properly. Its failure has been attributed to aesthetics and symbolism.
Some people argue that the Edsel car manifests universal standards of ugliness.
Others argued that it had a grille that looked like a female vagina. The bottom
106 A. Rafaeli and I. Vilnai-Yavetz
line is that the Edsel was a car that did not sell in the US, although as far as
engineering and human factors were concerned it could run just fine. Thus, from a
disciplinary perspective, one dimension may appear to be more important than
others. However, the impact of an artifact on users can evolve from any one of
the three dimensions.
Our analysis cannot provide insight about what to do with problematic artifacts.
Rather, it is suggested as a tool for pre-empting problematic designs through recog-
nizing multiple aspects of an artifact and foreseeing how each might impact users.
Thus, it is critical to consider all three dimensions during the process of planning,
designing and evaluating an artifact. Even when various professional consulting
agencies are drawn in to facilitate decisions regarding an artifact, the decisions
should not overlook the perspectives of other disciplines. Artifacts cannot and
should not be considered according to any one aspect but rather should simul-
taneously consider task performance, aesthetic properties and symbolic associations.
Each of these dimensions is important, especially because it can help unravel
emotions toward the artifact. The study of artifacts must recognize that emotions
toward the artifact and evoked by the artifact can emanate from multiple aspects of
the artifact: whether it promotes the functions it is intended to help accomplish (and
especially when it doesn’t), the sensory experience it ignites (and the immediate
emotions these sensations set off) and the meanings it represents (and the emotions
they trigger). Researchers tend to suggest that artifacts can be classified into cate-
gories. In the case of the colour of buses, such classification is what led the company
to see the new colour as symbolic. What our analysis documents is how this narrow
view is risky, because it overlooks multiple emotions evoked by alternative views of
the same artifact. A human factors approach might overlook the impact of aesthetic
qualities of a design as well as the impact of symbolism afforded by a design. Yet,
both of these avenues can provoke powerful emotions.
However, as Golden-Biddle and Locke (1997) eloquently argued, qualitative
studies tell a story and the story we have told is that of a relatively simple artifact.
Additional research is essential to corroborate and extend this story. We hope future
research will examine the versatility of our model to other artifacts and other cul-
tures. Such research should also examine the temporal stability of the relative impact
of the three dimensions, since this may change over time. Because our study was
qualitative and inductive, we could not document the relative importance of the
different dimensions or whether the balance of impacts changes over time. Our
data were collected when the colour was first introduced, yet we feel confident
that some of the impact of the artifact will remain. The symbolic associations
cannot go anywhere and the dysfunctional elements necessarily continue to
hamper performance. However, some parameters may change. For example, the
pleasantness of the greening association may penetrate and people may come to
like the mellow dark green.
In sum, in this work we attempted to provide a model for analyses of artifacts
and for understanding how they impact emotions. We hope future research and
practice will find our model useful.
Acknowledgements
This research was supported by the fund for the promotion of research at the
Technion. The authors would like to thank Techiya Ramati for assistance with
Instrumentality, aesthetics and symbolism 107
data collection, and Taly Feigenbaum as well as three anonymous reviewers for their
comments on earlier drafts of the paper.
References
Altman, I. and Vinsel,A.M.1977, Personal space: an analysis of E. T. Hall’s proxemics
framework, in I. Altman and J. F. Wohlwill (eds), Human Behavior and Environment:
Advances in Theory and Research, Vol. 2 (New York: Plenum Press), 181–259.
Babin, B. J. and Darden,W.R.1995, Consumer self-regulation in a retail environment,
Journal of Retailing,71, 47–70.
Bachorowski, J. A. 1999, Vocal expression and perception of emotion, Current Directions in
Psychological Science,8, 53–56.
Baker, J., Grewal, D. and Parasuraman, A. 1994, The influence of store environment
on quality inferences and store image, Journal of Academy of Marketing Science,22,
328–339.
Bansal, P. and Roth, K. 2000, Why companies go green: a model of ecological responsive-
ness, Academy of Management Journal,43, 717–736.
Baron, R. A. 1994, The physical environment of work setting: effects on task performance,
interpersonal relations, and job satisfaction, Research in Organizational Behavior,16,
1–46.
Bateson, J. E. G. 1995, Managing Services Marketing, 3rd edn (London: Dryden Press).
Berg, P. O. and Kreiner, K. 1992, Corporate architecture: turning physical setting into
symbolic resources, in P. Gagliardi (ed.), Symbols and Artifacts: View from the
Corporate Landscape (New York: Aldine de Gruyter), 41–67.
Bitner,M.J.1992, Servicecapes: The impact of physical surroundings on customers and
employees, Journal of Marketing,56, 57–71.
Canter, D. 1977, The Psychology of Place, 1st edn (London: The Architectural Press).
Canter, D. 1997, The facets of place, in E. H. Zube and G. T. Moore (eds), Advances in
Environment, Behavior, and Design, Vol. 4 (New York: Plenum Press), 109–147.
Csikszenthihalyi, M. and Rochberg-Halton, E. 1981, The Meaning of Things: Domestic
Symbols and the Self (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
Davis, T. R. V. 1984, The influence of the physical environment in offices, Academy of
Management Review,9, 271–283.
Dean,J.W.J.,Ramirez,R. and Ottensmeyer, E. 1997, An aesthetic perspective on orga-
nizations, in C. L. Cooper and S. E. Jackson (eds), Creating Tomorrow’s Organization
(New York: Wiley), 419–437.
Donovan, R. J. and Rossiter, J. R. 1982, Store atmosphere: an environmental psychology
approach, Journal of Retailing,58, 34–57.
Feldman Barrett, L. and Russell, J. A. 1999, The structure of current affect: controversies
and emerging consensus, Current Directions in Psychological Science,8, 10–14.
Forty, A. 1986, Objects of Desire (London: Moffat).
Gagliardi, P. (ed.) 1992, Symbols and Artifacts: View from the Corporate Landscape (New
York: Aldine de Gruyter).
Garling, T. and Golledge, R. G. 1989, Environmental perception and cognition, in E. H.
Zube and G. T. Moore (eds), Advances in Environment, Behavior, and Design, Vol. 2
(New York: Plenum Press), 203–236.
Gibson,J.J.1979, The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception (Boston: Houghton Mifflin).
Golden-Biddle, K. and Locke, K. D. 1997, Composing Qualitative Research (Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage).
Goodrich, R. 1982, Seven office evaluations: a review, Environment and Behavior,14, 353–
378.
Hakkert,A.S.1994, Safety and the environment in the 21st century, Presented at the 3rd
International Conference on Transportation Safety, Tel Aviv, Israel.
Hakkert,A.S. and Katz, A. E. 1991, New ways and means for improved safety, Presented
at the 2nd International Conference on Transportation Safety, Haifa, Israel.
Hatch, M. J. 1992, The symbolics of office design: an empirical exploration, in P. Gagliardi
(ed.), Symbols and Artifacts: View from the Corporate Landscape (New York: Aldine de
Gruyter), 129–146.
108 A. Rafaeli and I. Vilnai-Yavetz
Hershberger, R. G. and Cass, R. C. 1988, Predicting user responses to buildings, in J. L.
Nasar (ed.), Environmental Aesthetics: Theory, Research and Applications, 1st edn
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), 195–211.
Hertzberg, E. 1966, Work and the Nature of Man (Cleveland, OH: World Publishing).
Hirsch, A. R. 1995, Effects of ambient odors on slot machine usage in a Las Vegas casino,
Psychology and Marketing,12, 585–594.
Hornby, A. S. 1974, Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary of Current English, 43.
Howell, W. C. 1994, Human factors in the workplace, Handbook of I/O Psychology, 209–
269.
Kluger, A. and Rafaeli, A. 2000, The three dimensions of affective reactions to physical
appearance, in N. Ashkenasy, C. Hartel and W. Zerbe (eds), Emotions in the Workplace:
Theory, Research and Practice (Westport: Quorum Books), 141–156.
Lang, J. 1988, Symbolic aesthetics in architecture: toward a research agenda, in J. L. Nasar
(ed.), Environmental Aesthetics: Theory, Research and Applications,1
st
edn (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press), 11–26.
Lazarus, R. S. 1984, On the primacy of cognition, American Psychologist,39, 124–129.
Lloyd, P. and Snelders, D. 2001, What was Philippe Starck thinking of? in P. Lloyd and
H. Christiaans (eds), Designing in Context (Delft: Delft University Press), 241–257.
Marans,R.W. and Spreckelmeyer, K. F. 1982, Evaluating open and conventional office
design, Environment and Behavior,14, 333–351.
Markus,T.A.1987, Buildings as classifying devices, Environment and Planning B,Planning
and Design,14, 467–484.
Maslow,A.H. and Mintz, N. L. 1972, Effects of esthetic surrounding: 1. initial short-term
effects of three esthetic conditions upon perceiving ‘energy’ and ‘well being’ in faces, in
R. Gutman (ed.), People and Buildings (New York: Basic Books), 212–219.
Miles, M. A. and Huberman, M. A. 1984, Qualitative Data Analysis (Beverly Hills, CA:
Sage).
Mintz, N. L. 1972, Effects of aesthetic surrounding, in R. Gutman (ed.), People and Buildings
(New York: Basic Books), 220–228.
Morrow, P. C. and McElroy, J. C. 1981, Interior office design and visitor response: a
constructive replication, Journal of Applied Psychology,66, 646–650.
Nasar, J. L. 1994, Urban design aesthetics: the evaluative qualities of building exteriors,
Environment and Behavior,26, 377–401.
Nasar, J. L. 1997, New developments in aesthetics for urban design, in E. H. Zube and G. T.
Moore (eds), Advances in Environment, Behavior, and Design, Vol. 4 (New York and
London: Plenum Press), 149–193.
Nielsen, J. 1994, Usability Engineering (San Francisco: Morgan Kaufman).
North, A. C., Hargreaves, D. J. and McKendrick, J. 1999, The influence of in-store
music on wine selection, Journal of Applied Psychology,84, 271–276.
Oldham, G. R. 1988, Effects of changes in workspace partitions and spatial density on
employee reactions, Journal of Applied Psychology,73, 253–258.
Oldham, G. R., Cummings, A. and Zhou, J. 1995, The spatial configuration of organizations:
a review of the literature and some new research directions, Research in Personnel and
Human Resources Management,13, 1–37.
Ornstein, S. 1986, Organizational symbols: a study of their meanings and influences on
perceived psychological climate, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes,38, 207–229.
Parsons, H. M. 1976, Work environments, in I. Altman and J. F. Wohlwill (eds), Human
Behavior and Environment: Advances in Theory and Research, Vol. 1 (New York: Plenum
Press), 163–209.
Ramirez, R. 1991, The Beauty of Social Organization (Munich: Accedo).
Raz, E. A. 1997, The slanted smile factory: emotion management in Tokyo Disneyland,
Studies in Symbolic Interaction,21, 201–217.
Russell, J. A. and Mehrabian, A. 1977, Evidence for a three-factor theory of emotions,
Journal of Research in Personality,11, 273–294.
Russell, J. A. and Mehrabian, A. 1978, Approach-avoidance and affiliation as functions of
the emotion-eliciting quality of an environment, Environment and Behavior,10, 355–387.
Instrumentality, aesthetics and symbolism 109
Russell, J. A. and Pratt, G. 1980, A description of the affective quality attributed to
environments, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,38, 311–322.
Sassoon, J. 1992, Colors, artifacts, and ideologies, in P. Gagliardi (ed.), Symbols and
Artifacts: View from the Corporate Landscape (New York: Aldine de Gruyter), 169–183.
Schachter, S. and Singer, J. E. 1962, Cognitive, social and physiological determinants of
emotional state, Psychological Review,69, 379–.
Scheiberg, S. L. 1990, Emotions on display: The personal decoration of work space,
American Behavioral Scientist,33, 330–338.
Schein, E. 1990, Organizational culture, American Psychologist,45, 109–119.
Sherman, E., Mathur, A. and Smith, R.B. 1997, Store environment and consumer purchase
behavior: mediating role of consumer emotions, Psychology & Marketing,14, 361–378.
Shumaker,S.A. and Pequegnat, W. 1989, Hospital design, health providers, and the deliv-
ery of effective health care, in E. H. Zube and G. T. Moore (eds), Advances in
Environment, Behavior, and Design, Vol. 2 (New York: Plenum Press), 161–199.
Stern, S. 1988, Symbolic representation of organizational identity: the role of emblem at the
Garrett corporation, in M. O. Jones, M. D. Moore and R. C. Snyder (eds), Inside
Organizations: Understanding the Human Dimension (London: Sage), 281–295.
Strati, A. 1992, Aesthetic understanding of organizational life, Academy of Management
Review,17, 568–581.
Strati, A. 1999, Organization and Aesthetics, 1st edn (London: Sage).
Strauss, A. and Corbin, J . 1990, Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory Procedures
and Techniques (Newbury Park, CA: Sage).
Takahashi, S. 1995, Aesthetic properties of pictorial perception, Psychological Review,102,
671–683.
Trice, H. M. and Beyer, J. M. 1993, The Cultures of Work Organizations (Englewood Cliffs,
NJ: Prentice-Hall).
Vershure, B., Magel, S. and Sadalla, E. K. 1977, House form and social identity, in
P. Shedfeld, J. A. Russell, L. M. Ward, F. Szigeti and G. Davis (eds), The Behavioral
Basis of Design, 7
th
International Conference of the Environmental Design Research
Association (Dowden, Hutchington & Ross), 273–278.
Wasserman, V., Rafaeli, A. and Kluger, A. 2000, Aesthetic symbols as emotional cues, in
S. Fineman (ed.), Emotion in Organization, 2nd edn (London: Sage), 140–166.
Wener, R. E. 1985, The environmental psychology of service encounters, in J. A. Czepiel,
M. R. Solomon and C. F. Surprenant (eds), The Service Encounter (New York:
Lexington Books), 101–112.
Wohlwill, J. F. 1976, Environmental aesthetics: the environment as a source of affect, in
I. Altman and J. F. Wohlwill (eds), Human Behavior and Environment: Advances in
Theory and Research, Vol. 1 (New York: Plenum Press), 37–86.
Yanow, D. 1995, Built space as story: the policy stories that buildings tell, Policy Studies
Journal,23, 407–422.
Zajonc,R.B.1980, Feeling and thinking: Preferences need no inferences, American
Psychologist,35, 151–175.
Zajonc, R. B. 1984, On the primacy of affect, American Psychologist,39, 117–123.
About the authors
Anat Rafaeli received her BA from Haifa University, and MA and PhD in Industrial and
Organizational Psychology from the Ohio State University. She was, until recently, the chair
of the Organizational Behaviour programme in the school of business administration of the
Hebrew University of Jerusalem. She is currently the chair of the social sciences in the manage-
ment programme of the Faculty of Industrial Engineering and Management of the Technion.
She has also spent time at Stanford University, the University of Michigan and INSEAD. She
has conducted and published research on emotions of employees and customers of organiza-
tions and on interactions between service employees and their customers. She also studies the
meaning and impact of various organizational symbols such as organizational dress, organi-
zational advertising, organizational physical layout and organizational artifacts. Before her
academic career, she worked in managerial positions at the Wells-Fargo Bank in San Fran-
cisco and at the management development centre of IBM at Armonk, NY.
110 A. Rafaeli and I. Vilnai-Yavetz
Iris Vilnai-Yavetz received her PhD from the Faculty of Industrial Engineering and Manage-
ment of the Technion, Haifa. She received her BA in Psychology from the Hebrew University
of Jerusalem and her MBA from the School of Business Administration of the Hebrew Uni-
versity of Jerusalem. She studies the impact of various aspects of the physical environment on
the behaviour and emotions of customers and service providers. She is especially interested in
the influence of the physical environment on the interactions between employees and custo-
mers, as part of the dynamics of service delivery. Before her PhD studies, she held a manage-
rial position in a marketing research and consulting firm in Israel.
Appendix: Interview protocols
Instrumentality experts
A. Engineers
(1) Have you seen the green buses? Please describe in detail what you saw and
what you think about this colour.
(2) What can you see in the new design in comparison to the old design? Please
elaborate.
(3) Based on your academic and professional knowledge, what do you think
about the functionality of the green bus colour?
(4) What functions does the green colour serve? Why?
(5) If you were asked to redesign the buses, what would you suggest? Why?
(6) Is there anything else you would like to tell us about the colour?
(7) To what extent do you use public transportation? Do you ride buses?
B. Bus drivers
(1) What do you know about the colour of the buses? Please elaborate.
(2) Why do you think the colour was selected?
(3) What do you think about this colour?
(4) Have you observed reactions to the green colour? Of passengers? Of drivers?
(5) Do you have any other comments about the colour?
Aesthetics experts
(1) Have you seen the green buses? Please describe in detail what you saw and
what you think about this colour.
(2) What can you see in the new design in comparison to the old design? Do you
see a change in artistic style? Please elaborate.
(3) Based on your academic and professional knowledge, what do you think
about the green colour?
(4) What do you think the green colour symbolizes? Please explain.
(5) What do you think about the functionality of the green bus colour? What
functions does the green colour serve? Why?
(6) If you were asked to redesign the buses, what would you suggest? Why?
(7) Is there anything else that you’d like to tell us about the colour?
(8) To what extent do you use public transportation? Do you use buses?
Symbolism experts
(1) Have you seen the green buses? Please describe in detail what you saw and
what you think about this colour.
(2) What can you see in the design? Please elaborate.
(3) Based on your academic and professional knowledge, what do you think
about the symbolism of the green bus colour?
Instrumentality, aesthetics and symbolism 111
(4) What do you think that the green colour symbolizes? Please analyse the
message it should transmit and explain your analysis.
(5) What do you think about the functionality of the green bus colour? What
functions does the green colour serve? Why?
(6) Have you seen any examples of bus designs in other countries? Please
elaborate. What do you think of these examples?
(7) If you were asked to redesign the buses, what would you suggest? Why?
(8) Do you have any other comments about the colour?
(9) To what extent do you use public transportation? Do you use buses?
112 A. Rafaeli and I. Vilnai-Yavetz
