Beauty in Efficiency: An Experimental Enquiry Into the Principle of Maximum Effect for Minimum Means

Abstract

Theory and discourse suggest that the aesthetic appreciation of a wide range of
artifacts—including works of art and consumer products—is partially governed by the principle
of maximum effect for minimum means (MEMM). We conducted two studies to find
experimental evidence of this principle in the context of product design. In Study 1, we tested the
hypothesis that the aesthetic appreciation of a product would be positively affected by the
perception of the product as the minimum means achieving the maximum effect. Encouraged by
the results of this study, we conducted Study 2 to test again the principle of MEMM using a
more controlled experimental design. Our findings provide support for our hypothesis, indicating
that the aesthetic appreciation of a product depends, to some extent, on the perception that the
product achieves more than other products from its category by making an efficient use of
resources.

Full text

Research Article
Beauty in Efficiency: An
Experimental Enquiry
Into the Principle of
Maximum Effect for
Minimum Means
Odette da Silva
1
, Nathan Crilly
2
,
and Paul Hekkert
1
Abstract
Theory and discourse suggest that the aesthetic appreciation of a wide range of
artifacts—including works of art and consumer products—is partially governed by
the principle of maximum effect for minimum means. We conducted two studies to
find experimental evidence of this principle in the context of product design. In
Study 1, we tested the hypothesis that the aesthetic appreciation of a product
would be positively affected by the perception of the product as the minimum
means achieving the maximum effect. Encouraged by the results of this study, we
conducted Study 2 to test again the principle of maximum effect for minimum means
using a more controlled experimental design. Our findings provide support for our
hypothesis, indicating that the aesthetic appreciation of a product depends, to some
extent, on the perception that the product achieves more than other products from
its category by making an efficient use of resources.
Keywords
aesthetic appreciation, aesthetic principles, design aesthetics, efficiency, maximum
effect for minimum means, product experience
Empirical Studies of the Arts
2017, Vol. 35(1) 93–120
!The Author(s) 2016
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0276237416638488
art.sagepub.com
1
Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands
2
University of Cambridge, United Kingdom
Corresponding Author:
Odette da Silva, Faculty of Industrial Design Engineering, Delft University of Technology, Landbergstraat
15, 2628 CE Delft, The Netherlands.
Email: o.dasilva@tudelft.nl

The experience of beauty is undeniable, but it is also difficult to unravel. The
aesthetic appreciation of physical objects—ranging from art pieces to consumer
products—is often explained based on the objects’ appearance, that is, based on
aspects such as curvature (Silvia & Barona, 2009; Westerman et al., 2012), unity
(Post, Blijlevens, & Hekkert, 2016; Veryzer & Hutchinson, 1998), and symmetry
(Jacobsen & Hoefel, 2003; Locher & Nodine, 1989). The aesthetic appreciation
of Gauge, the flower vase presented in Figure 1, might thus be explained with
reference to qualities such as the roundness of its base, the unity of its shape and
its rotational symmetry. Although such use of the term aesthetic appreciation can
be ambiguous (Koren, 2010), we use it here—just as the word beauty—to refer to
an appreciation that emerges from perceiving an artifact for its own sake, rather
than from evaluating it based on some extrinsic interest. This definition is
grounded in the classic understanding of aesthetics (see Goldman, 2001; Kant,
2000).
The prevalence of aesthetic judgments based on appearance does not imply
that beauty can only be perceived in visual qualities or form. Many different
kinds of thing are aesthetically appreciated even though they do not exhibit any
conventional form or where it is not the form that is regarded as beautiful;
examples include literary metaphors (Kaplan & Kris, 1948; Ramachandran &
Hirstein, 1999), logical arguments (Walsh, 1979), scientific theories (Orrell,
2012), science experiments (Crease, 2004; Johnson, 2009), chess moves
(Margulies, 1977), mathematical demonstrations (Hardy, 1967), and even crim-
inal acts (Black, 1991). These very different things can all be regarded as artifacts
Figure 1. Gauge (2012) by Jim Rokos. As the water level drops, the center of gravity rises
and the instability of the vase (with flowers) causes it to tilt over.
94 Empirical Studies of the Arts 35(1)

because they realize certain intended effects (Dipert, 1993; Hilpinen, 1992), and
they can all be aesthetically appreciated for how they realize those effects. In this
article, we examine this kind of aesthetic appreciation, which is conceptually
independent from the appreciation of any form that the artifact might possess,
and also from the appreciation of the artifact’s effect in itself (for instance, when
someone talks of “a beautiful murder”; see Black, 1991).
The intended effect of Gauge (Figure 1) is not simply to exhibit flowers, but
also—and ultimately—to remind people to water those flowers when needed.
Like many other vases, Gauge realizes this effect by exploiting the inherent
transparency of glass and letting people see the dropping water level. But it
does so even more effectively by exploiting the instability intrinsic to its shape
(when holding flowers) and the gravitational field, which together cause the vase
to tilt as the water level drops. Once people understand this about Gauge, either
from explicit statements made about the design (Rokos, 2013) or through infer-
ence (Crilly, 2011a, 2011b), they are able to appreciate the vase not just for how
it looks, but also for how it achieves its purpose. This appreciation is aesthetic
because, as we previously argued, it emerges from perceiving the vase for its own
sake, for the way it achieves the effect that it is intended to achieve. This aes-
thetic appreciation thus arises from having not just any sort of understanding of
the artifact (for instance, an insight into its Gestalt, as reported by Muth &
Carbon, 2013), but an understanding of the artifact in the light of its designer’s
intention (as suggested by Hekkert, 2014).
Philosophy on the aesthetics of everyday objects offers some theoretical
insights into the type of aesthetic appreciation just described. For instance,
Forsey (2013) builds on Kant’s notion of dependent beauty to argue that the
aesthetic judgment of an artifact is conceptually rich because it involves having
knowledge of the artifact’s purpose. Parsons and Carlson (2008) also provide
philosophical grounds and a conceptualization of functional beauty, that is, a
perception of beauty that involves understanding what the function of an
artifact is, as well as how the artifact performs this function. Saito (2007) dis-
tinguishes an artifact’s capacity to function from the way in which it functions,
arguing—in line with the previous authors—that an artifact can be aesthetically
appreciated for how it performs a function.
Discourse on the aesthetics of a wide range of artifacts further suggests that
the appreciation of the way in which an artifact achieves an intended effect is
governed by an essential principle. For example, Hardy (1967) sees beauty in the
theorem by which Euclid demonstrates that there are infinite prime numbers
through only a couple of statements. Crease (2004) sees it in the experiment by
which Eratosthenes measures the large circumference of the Earth with a small
shadow. Kaplan and Kris (1948) consider Eliot’s metaphor “the shrunken seas”
to be beautiful because it allows for multiple and nonexclusory interpretations: a
mere state of the tides, a prolonged draught season and death by extension
(the connection between ambiguity and aesthetic appreciation has recently
da Silva et al. 95

been studied by Jakesch & Leder, 2009, 2015; Muth, Hesslinger, & Carbon,
2015). The theorem, the experiment, and the metaphor might be generally
taken as examples of cleverness and creativity. But, more specifically, these
are instances where cleverness and creativity have been applied to achieve “the
maximum effect” (a proof of infinitude, a measure of immensity, a multiplicity of
interpretations) with “the minimum means” (a few statements, a small shadow, a
single verbal expression). The same can be said about the theories, checkmates,
and crimes discussed by Orrell (2012), Margulies (1977), and Black (1991).
The principle of maximum effect for minimum means (MEMM) is thought to
govern the aesthetic appreciation of a wide variety of things (as stated by Boselie
& Leeuwenberg, 1985). Yet, we lack experimental evidence that an artifact is
aesthetically appreciated when perceived as the minimum means to achieve the
maximum effect. Our goal is to find such evidence in the context of product
design, where MEMM has been identified as a fundamental aesthetic principle
(Hekkert, 2006; Hekkert & Leder, 2008), and where it is also referred to as econ-
omy (Zelanski & Fisher, 1984), efficiency (Macnab, 2012), and Occam’s razor
(Lidwell, Holden, & Butler, 2010). In this context, a product can be taken as
the means by which a designer achieves an intended effect, and it can be appre-
ciated for how efficiently it realizes this effect (even if the effect is considered
unpleasant in its own right, as in the cases presented by Savic
´& Savic
ˇic
´,2013).
Our investigation builds on two previous pieces of research. The first (Da
Silva, Crilly, & Hekkert, 2015) applied a mixed-methods approach to examining
if and how people’s appreciation of a product is influenced by their knowledge of
the designer’s intention. Although this research did not focus on MEMM, it
provided interview data suggesting that a product can be appreciated for how it
achieves a purpose. The second (Da Silva, Crilly, & Hekkert, 2016) applied a
purely conceptual approach to examining MEMM in the field of product design.
It offered a theoretical basis for understanding the aesthetic appreciation of a
product through this principle. The second piece of research provided the
grounds to prepare the present investigation; for this reason, we will summarize
its main points and illustrate them with the Gauge example (while acknowled-
ging this example could be interpreted in other ways if other perspectives were
being emphasized).
MEMM suggests that a means–effect relationship can be established between
a product (the means) and the effect that the product is intended to have, and
that this relationship is aesthetically appreciated when the product is judged to
be the minimum means and its effect is judged to be the maximum effect.Any
purpose that a designer aims at achieving through a product can be considered
the intended effect of the product; this includes ordinary practical functions as
well as human-centered effects (like those described by Crilly, Moultrie, &
Clarkson, 2009; Fokkinga, Hekkert, Desmet, & O
¨zcan, 2014). For Gauge,we
have identified reminding people to water the flowers (in addition to displaying
flowers) as the effect. Also, any resource that a product exploits to achieve a
96 Empirical Studies of the Arts 35(1)

given effect characterizes the product as a means; this includes the product’s
properties, the mechanisms by which it works, and the interactions it establishes
with people. For Gauge, we have identified the instability of the vase and the
gravitational field as salient resources.
The effect of a product can be judged maximal when it exceeds a merely
practical function, while the product can be judged minimal as a means when
it exploits resources that are inherent or already available—in particular, simple
properties or mechanisms and intuitive or effortless interactions—to achieve a
given effect. The product and its effect can be judged to be the minimum and the
maximum based on artifact categories such as flower vase, which people develop
intuitively (see Barrett, Laurence, & Margolis, 2008; Bloom, 1996; Matan &
Carey, 2001) through experience and imagination (see Lakoff, 1990). A given
effect can be judged to be the maximum relative to other known or imagined
effects achievable by artifacts in the same category (or similar categories).
Reminding people to water the flowers (in addition to displaying flowers) can
thus be judged the maximum effect relative to just displaying flowers, which
can be taken as the most immediate function of a flower vase. Similarly, a
given means can be judged to be the minimum relative to other known or
imagined means by which the same (or a similar) effect can be achieved.
Gauge can, therefore, be judged the minimum means relative to, for example,
a regular flower pot fitted with a sensor that assesses a plant’s needs and sends
notifications to the plant’s owner through a smartphone application (see
“Parrot: Flower power”, 2012). In sum, MEMM implies that people’s aesthetic
appreciation of the relationship between a means and an effect is grounded in a
set of assumed alternatives in comparison to which the means is perceived to be
the minimum and the effect the maximum (Figure 2).
We acknowledge that the aesthetic appreciation of a means–effect relation-
ship might be explained by factors other than MEMM. The literature providing
illustrations of this principle also suggests unexpectedness and inevitability as
alternatives, which makes us question the relationship among these three factors.
Unexpectedness involves perceiving the means as an unanticipated or unpre-
dicted way of attaining the effect, or the effect as being surprising or unforeseen
given the means. Inevitability involves perceiving the means as a predetermined
or unequivocal way of attaining the effect, or the effect as being unavoidable or
necessary given the means. Both factors are thought to describe the beauty of
mathematical demonstrations and architecture (Hardy, 1967; Parsons &
Carlson, 2008), unexpectedness also explains the beauty of ballet leaps and
rhymes (Boselie & Leeuwenberg, 1985; Poe, 1846), and inevitability that of
music and scientific theories too (Howard, 1923; Orrell, 2012). The literature
further suggests that these factors are not mutually exclusive. On the one hand,
something inevitable is not necessarily obvious and can very well be unexpected
or surprising (Howard, 1923). On the other hand, something unexpected is not
necessarily arbitrary or optional and thus can still be inevitable, the result of
da Silva et al. 97

necessity (Cain, 2010). While the relationship between these two factors has been
discussed, their relationship with MEMM remains uncertain.
To complement our nonexperimental findings regarding MEMM (Da Silva
et al., 2015, 2016) and thus deepen the understanding of this principle, we con-
ducted two studies. In Study 1, we tested the hypothesis that the aesthetic appre-
ciation of a product would be positively affected by the perception of the product
as the minimum means achieving the maximum effect, while controlling for the
influence of unexpectedness and inevitability. For this study, we selected a range
of products that naturally varied in their effects and the resources they used as
means. Encouraged by the results of this first study, we conducted Study 2 to find
further evidence of the principle of MEMM while controlling for the influence of
visual appearance by employing a more controlled experimental design.
Study 1
Method
Participants. Sixty students from Delft University of Technology took part in
Study 1 in return for 10 Euros each. There were 43 males and 17 females,
Figure 2. Aesthetic appreciation according to the principle of MEMM. Of a number of
different effects and means (here we only represent two of each), people aesthetically
prefer the maximum effect (Emax) that results from the minimum means (Mmin).
98 Empirical Studies of the Arts 35(1)

with an average age of 23.53 years (SD ¼2.72). To prevent results being affected
by specialized design knowledge, students from the faculties of Industrial Design
and Architecture were not included.
Design. This study used a within-subject experimental design and employed a
questionnaire for data collection. In the questionnaire, products were rated on
four 7-point scales corresponding to the dependent variable Aesthetic
Appreciation, and the three independent variables MEMM, Unexpectedness,
and Inevitability.
Materials. Existing consumer products were used as stimulus materials. We rep-
resented the products with full-color photographs and written statements
describing their intended effects (the real purposes for which they were
designed), as well as the resources (properties, mechanisms, or interactions)
that they employed as means to achieve these effects; the texts also indicated
the categories to which the products belonged. For instance, one of the products
preselected as stimulus was the Gauge flower vase. We represented this product
with the image shown in Figure 1 and the following text: This flower vase exploits
the laws of physics to tilt as it runs out of water to remind people to water flowers.
We used these texts in an attempt to control for the various inferences that the
participants might make about means and effects based on the product images,
as well as for the different categorizations on which they would spontaneously
base their MEMM judgments. Also, to prevent the participants from making
comparisons among the stimuli, we made sure that the products used in the
study belonged to different categories.
To make a final selection of 15 products that represented a range of variation
in MEMM, we submitted a total of 25 products to a pretest. We conducted this
pretest with two professional designers, considering that their professional
experience qualified them as experts in the assessment of consumer products
and the means–effect relationships that they represent. The designers were
asked if they agreed or disagreed with the following four items regarding each
product: (a) “This [product (e.g., flower vase)] uses unnecessary means for its
purpose” (phrased to avoid double negative, answer reversed for analysis),
(b) “This [product and effect (e.g., flower vase reminds people to water flowers)]
in an efficient way,” (c) “This [product] does more than [products from the same
category (e.g., flower vases)] normally do,” and (d) “Compared with other [prod-
ucts from the same category], this one has an additional purpose.” We assigned
one point to each agreement and calculated sum scores for each product, with
the highest possible score being 8 (four agreements by two designers). We
took sum scores of between 0 to 2, 3 to 5, and 6 to 8 points as corresponding
indicators of low, medium, and high degrees of MEMM. On a first round,
15 products were pretested with the expectation that five of them would be
rated as low, five as medium, and five as high in MEMM. Only 10 products
da Silva et al. 99

were rated according to this prediction and thus selected as stimuli (they repre-
sented high and medium degrees of MEMM only). On a second round, 10 more
products were pretested with the expectation that at least five of them would be
rated as low in MEMM. Only four were rated accordingly, so we completed our
final selection of 15 products with one that obtained a sum rating of 3. The final
selection of products is presented in Appendix 1.
Four scales were prepared for this study, each comprising a number of items
on which the participants would rate the products from 1 (disagree)to7(agree).
The scale measuring the dependent variable Aesthetic Appreciation was based
on an existing scale (developed by Blijlevens, Thurgood, Hekkert, Leder, &
Whitfield, 2014). To reduce the likelihood that the participants gave aesthetic
ratings mainly based on the products’ visual appearance, we rephrased the items
of this scale so as to explicitly require the participants to take the products’
effects into account. The items were phrased as follows: (a) “Given that it is
designed to [effect],this is a beautiful [product],” (b) “Taking into account its
purpose, this is an attractive [product],” and (c) “I like to look at this [product]
knowing what it is for.”
For each of the three independent variables, we developed a scale based on
the theory that a product can be judged relative to a fixed effect or purpose, and
that an effect can be judged relative to a fixed product or product category
(as explained by Da Silva et al., 2016). Half of the items of each scale accounted
for each of these possibilities. The MEMM scale comprised the four items
already used in the pretest. The Unexpectedness scale included the following
two items: (a) “I would expect a [product] to [effect]” (phrased to avoid negative,
score reversed for analysis), and (b) “For a [product], this has a surprising pur-
pose.” The Inevitability scale comprised the following two items: (a) “Because of
the way it is designed, this [product] will certainly [effect],” and (b) “[Effect] is an
unavoidable outcome of using this [product].” (The fragments of the stimulus
texts inserted between brackets in the scale items are italicized in Appendix 1.)
Procedure. The study was conducted in groups of up to four participants in a
private well-lit meeting room of the Faculty of Industrial Design Engineering at
Delft University of Technology. After being taken through a standard procedure
to establish their informed consent, each participant sat in front of a 17 29 cm
computer screen and completed the questionnaire in silence. The questionnaire
was introduced as part of a research project on general product perception so as
to prevent results being affected by the participants’ awareness of the aesthetic
focus of the study. As we already explained, the products were presented
through images and texts; the images were displayed at a uniform 5 cm high
and ranged between 3 and 8 cm in width according to their shape. The applica-
tion that was used to develop the questionnaire presented one product at a time
and required the participants to rate each product before presenting the next. It
also required them to rate all the products on all the scale items to avoid having
100 Empirical Studies of the Arts 35(1)

missing values in the data collected. The order of presentation of both products
and scale items was randomized between participants to prevent order effects. It
took approximately 30 minutes for the participants to complete the
questionnaire.
Results
In preparation for the statistical analyses, we reversed the ratings for the first
items of both the MEMM and the Unexpectedness scales, which had been
phrased to avoid possibly confusing (double) negatives. We then submitted
the four scales to a reliability test (Cronbach’s alpha). The internal consistency
was good for Aesthetic Appreciation (a¼.78), MEMM (a¼.70), and
Unexpectedness (a¼.78), and relatively poor—but still acceptable—for
Inevitability (a¼.54). Next, we calculated ratings for Aesthetic Appreciation,
MEMM, Unexpectedness, and Inevitability by averaging the ratings each par-
ticipant gave to each product on the items of each scale. We conducted our main
analysis with the ratings thus obtained.
To examine if Aesthetic Appreciation was influenced by MEMM,
Unexpectedness, and Inevitability, we conducted a stepwise multiple regression
analysis. At step one of the analysis, we only introduced MEMM as independent
variable to test the hypothesis that the aesthetic appreciation of a product would
be positively affected by the perception of the product as the minimum means
achieving the maximum effect. The results supported our hypothesis, indicating
that a significant proportion of the variance in Aesthetic Appreciation was
explained by MEMM (¼.54, p<.001); R
2
¼.30, F(1, 898) ¼381.97, p<.001.
MEMM had, as expected, a positive influence on Aesthetic Appreciation. The
more a product was perceived to comply with MEMM, the more it was aesthet-
ically appreciated. This linear relationship is illustrated in Figure 3.
At step two of the analysis, we added Unexpectedness and Inevitability as
independent variables to examine if the aesthetic appreciation of a product
would also be influenced by the perception of the product as an unexpected or
inevitable means to achieve an effect, or as a means achieving an unexpected or
inevitable effect. The results indicated that a significant proportion of the vari-
ance in Aesthetic Appreciation was explained not just by MEMM (¼.45,
p<.001), but also by Unexpectedness (¼.09, p¼.003) and Inevitability
(¼.06, p¼.044); R
2
¼.31, F(3, 896) ¼131.85, p<.001. Similarly to MEMM,
Unexpectedness and Inevitability had a positive influence on Aesthetic
Appreciation. But, as compared with MEMM, these variables explained a
much smaller proportion of the variance in Aesthetic Appreciation.
The explanatory power of MEMM slightly decreased when we included
Unexpectedness and Inevitability as independent variables in the previously
reported regression analysis. This suggested that MEMM shared a fraction of
its explanatory power with them. To explore the relationship of MEMM with
da Silva et al. 101

Unexpectedness and Inevitability, we conducted additional regression analyses.
For these analyses, we averaged the ratings of the MEMM scale items a and b,
on the one hand, and c and d, on the other, and took them as measures of
Minimum Means and Maximum Effect respectively. We treated the ratings
of the Unexpectedness scale items a and b as measures of Unexpected Means
and Unexpected Effect correspondingly. We also treated the ratings of the
Inevitability scale items a and b as measures of Inevitable Means and
Inevitable Effect correspondingly. In the rest of our analyses, we tested the
measures thus identified as predictors of Aesthetic Appreciation.
To explore the relationships among Minimum Means, Maximum Effect,
Unexpected Means, Unexpected Effect, Inevitable Means, and Inevitable
Effect as predictors of Aesthetic Appreciation, we initially conducted a stepwise
Figure 3. Relationship between mean Aesthetic Appreciation and MEMM ratings of
products.
102 Empirical Studies of the Arts 35(1)

multiple regression analysis. At step one of the analysis, we only introduced
Minimum Means and Maximum Effect as predictors. The results indicated
that a significant proportion of the variance in Aesthetic Appreciation was
explained by both Minimum Means (¼.20, p<.001) and Maximum
Effect (¼.31, p<.001); R
2
¼.31; F(2,897) ¼196.41, p<.001. At step two of
the analysis, we added Unexpected Means, Unexpected Effect, Inevitable
Means, and Inevitable Effect as predictors. The results indicated that a signifi-
cant proportion of the variance in Aesthetic Appreciation was explained not just
by Minimum Means (¼.16, p<.001) and Maximum Effect (¼.24, p<.001),
but also by Inevitable Means (¼.09, p¼.004) and Unexpected Effect (¼.11,
p¼.001); R
2
¼.32; F(6,893) ¼69.96, p<.001. They also showed that the
explanatory power of both Minimum Means and Maximum Effect slightly
decreased when Inevitable Means and Unexpected Effect were introduced in
the regression analysis. By conducting a series of stepwise regressions
where we controlled for each predictor at a time, we found that the explana-
tory power of Minimum Means decreased with the introduction of Inevitable
Means, and the explanatory power of Maximum Effect decreased with the intro-
duction of Unexpected Effect. We will discuss this finding in the following
section.
Discussion
Study 1 provided evidence that the aesthetic appreciation of a product is par-
tially governed by the principle of MEMM. In support of our hypothesis, it
showed that the aesthetic appreciation of a product is positively affected by the
perception of the product as the minimum means achieving the maximum effect.
For the way these concepts were operationalized, this implies that a product is
aesthetically appreciated when it achieves more than other products from its
category by making an efficient use of resources such as properties, mechanisms,
and interactions. Of the stimuli tested, the flower vase received the highest aes-
thetic appreciation and MEMM ratings. Just like a normal glass vase, it displays
flowers and allows the water level to be seen, but it additionally reminds people
to water the flowers by exploiting the inherent instability of its shape rather than
by using supplementary, external resources.
Study 1 also indicated that unexpectedness and inevitability influence aes-
thetic appreciation positively, although to a much smaller extent than
MEMM. Our findings further suggested that there is a relationship between
these two factors and MEMM; in particular, a relationship between an unex-
pected effect and the maximum effect, on the one hand, and an inevitable means
and the minimum means, on the other. We interpret this finding as follows: An
effect might be perceived to be the maximum when it exceeds the effect that is
normally expected from a product of a given category, hence, when it is unex-
pected; also, a means might be perceived to be the minimum when it uses only
da Silva et al. 103

those resources that cannot be avoided in the search for a certain effect, hence,
when it is inevitable.
In Study 1, we used a set of existing products that naturally varied in the
effects they were intended to achieve and the resources they exploited as means,
which contributed to the ecological validity of our findings. Although we thus
demonstrated that MEMM positively affects the aesthetic appreciation of a
product, it cannot be ruled out that the visual appearance of the products we
used as stimuli played a confounding role. We mentioned the effects of these
products in the scale items measuring aesthetic appreciation in an attempt to
prevent participants from rating the products aesthetically mainly based on
visual appearance. But this adaptation of the scale might have also biased the
aesthetic appreciation ratings.
To put the principle of MEMM to a more rigorous test, which would allow us
to control for the influence of visual appearance experimentally without requir-
ing any adaptation of the aesthetic appreciation scale, we conducted a second
study. In Study 2, we aimed at keeping the visual appearance of a product
constant while varying the means–effect relationship that the product repre-
sented. Since Study 1 revealed that unexpectedness and inevitability only had
a minor influence on aesthetic appreciation, we did not include these factors in
Study 2.
Study 2
Method
Participants. Ninety students from Delft University of Technology took part in
Study 2 in return for five Euros each. There were 75 males and 15 females, with
an average age of 24.06 years (SD ¼2.35). To prevent results being affected by
specialized design knowledge, students from the faculties of Industrial Design
and Architecture were not included.
Design. This study used a between-subject experimental design and employed a
questionnaire for data collection. In the questionnaire, products were rated on
two 7-point scales corresponding to the dependent variable Aesthetic
Appreciation and the independent variable MEMM. The experimental design
entailed manipulating stimulus materials to create two conditions: low-MEMM
and high-MEMM.
Materials. With the aim of creating low-MEMM and high-MEMM conditions,
we first selected a subset of the products used as stimuli in Study 1. This selection
was based on the mean MEMM ratings calculated for the products with
data from that study (where the average MEMM rating was 4.45, SD ¼1.27).
Five products had ratings above one standard deviation from the mean.
104 Empirical Studies of the Arts 35(1)

We selected these products and those five with the lowest ratings (two of which
were below 1 SD from the mean). In Table 1, we present our selection of 10
products along with the mean MEMM ratings they obtained in Study 1.
Again, we represented the selected products with images and texts. To keep
visual appearance constant, we represented each product with a single image,
which was taken from Study 1. To vary the means-effect relationship each
product represented and thus create the low-MEMM and high-MEMM condi-
tions, we paired the product image with different texts. For this, we took the
10 texts already used in Study 1 and additionally developed new ones. We
developed the new texts with attention to product attributes that could be dir-
ectly perceived or imagined based on the images, regardless of whether these
attributes really described the products or not. Like the old texts, the new ones
referred to each product instance (e.g., “This”) as a member of a product cat-
egory (e.g., “flower vase”), so the same practical functions associated with that
category (e.g., displaying flowers) could be assumed in both conditions. They
also indicated the intended effects of the products and the resources the products
used as means, so the same kind of information would be provided in both
conditions. For the five products with the lowest MEMM ratings in Study 1,
the new texts aimed at triggering the perception of a “high-MEMM” relation-
ship. For the products with the highest MEMM ratings in Study 1, they aimed at
triggering the perception of a “low-MEMM” relationship. For instance, a new
description of the flower vase stimulus read as follows: This flower vase is made
of heavy glass, but can be inclined towards the sink tap so as to facilitate the
Table 1. Subset of Products Selected as Stimulus Materials.
Product
MEMM ratings obtained in Study 1
Highest Lowest
Backpack 6.11
Ceiling lamp 3.45
Door handle 5.95
Flower vase 6.28
Light switch 5.99
Mountain bike 2.57
Umbrella 5.96
USB stick 2.76
Washing machine 3.62
Watch 3.65
Note. MEMM ¼maximum effect for minimum means.
da Silva et al. 105

process of watering flowers. We generated a total of 30 new texts, three for each
of the 10 selected products.
To make a final selection of 10 texts that would serve as alternative descriptions
of the products, we pretested the 30 new texts against the 10 old ones. We con-
ducted this pretest with 12 professional designers, considering again that their
professional experience qualified them as experts in the assessment of the means–
effect relationships that consumer products represent. In this pretest, each
designer rated a single set of 10 texts presented with the corresponding product
images using the 7-point MEMM scale from Study 1. Since the new texts did not
necessarily describe the products’ real attributes, we also asked the designers to
rate these texts from 1 (disagree)to7(agree) on the following three items: (a) “The
explanation makes sense,” (b) “It is possible that this [product] was designed to
work as described in the explanation,” and (c) “It is possible that this [product]
was designed to [effect].” We considered these three items as joint indicators of
Plausibility. For both the old and the new texts, we calculated mean MEMM
scores; for the new texts, we also calculated mean Plausibility scores.
On the basis of the results of the pretest, we selected 10 new texts following
two criteria. First, their Plausibility scores had to be above average (M¼4.63,
SD ¼1.07). Second, if the new text was required to trigger the perception of a
high-MEMM relationship, then its MEMM score had to be higher than that of
the old text describing the same product; if it was required to trigger the per-
ception of a low-MEMM relationship, then its MEMM score had to be lower
than that of the old text describing the same product. Table 2 presents the mean
MEMM scores the old texts obtained in the pretest, as well as the mean MEMM
and Plausibility scores of the new texts selected as stimuli.
Our final selection of stimulus materials, including the two sets of texts that
allowed for the creation of the high-MEMM and low-MEMM conditions, is
presented in Appendix 2.
Two scales were used in this study, each comprising a number of items on
which the participants would rate the products from 1 (disagree)to7(agree).
The scale measuring the dependent variable Aesthetic Appreciation in Study 1
was brought back to its original form (as presented by Blijlevens et al., 2014) for
Study 2. This means that the scale items did not explicitly establish a relationship
between the product being judged and its effect. Instead, the items read as fol-
lows: (a) “This is a beautiful [product],” (b) “This is an attractive [product],” and
(c) “I like to look at this [product].” As we mentioned earlier, we had adapted
the scale items for Study 1 to reduce the likelihood that the participants mainly
based their aesthetic ratings on the products’ visual appearance. The experimen-
tal design of Study 2 provided a strong control for the influence of visual appear-
ance and, therefore, did not require any such adaptation of the scale. The scale
used to measure the independent variable MEMM was exactly the same as in
Study 1. (The fragments of the stimulus texts inserted between brackets in the
scale items are italicized in Appendix 2.)
106 Empirical Studies of the Arts 35(1)

Procedure. Study 2 was conducted similarly to Study 1. The participants com-
pleted a questionnaire presenting each product through the corresponding image
and a text describing either a low-MEMM or a high-MEMM relationship. No
participant was shown the same product (image) twice, as one description of the
product could affect the rating of the product when shown with the alternative
description. Also, no participant was provided with a combination of both low-
MEMM and high-MEMM texts. The low-MEMM texts mentioned the most
immediate practical functions of the products as effects, that is, effects that could
easily be inferred from how the products were explicitly categorized. By contrast,
the high-MEMM texts revealed effects additional to those functions, more max-
imal effects that would be more difficult to infer because they were not so closely
related to the way the products were explicitly categorized. If we provided the
same participant with high-MEMM and low-MEMM texts, the high-MEMM
texts could prompt inferences of additional (more maximal) effects in the low-
MEMM condition, which would suggest that the low-MEMM products were
high-MEMM instead. To avoid this, we randomly allocated each participant to
either the low-MEMM or the high-MEMM condition while balancing gender
between the conditions. It took approximately 30 minutes for the participants to
complete the questionnaire.
Results
In preparation for the statistical analyses, we reversed the ratings for the first
item of the MEMM scale, which had been phrased so as to avoid a possibly
confusing double negative. We then calculated ratings for both Aesthetic
Table 2. Pretest Scores of the Selected Stimulus Materials.
Product
MEMM Plausibility
Old text New text New text
Backpack 5.08 2.17 5.11
Ceiling lamp 3.25 5.75 6.67
Door handle 6.42 2.92 4.89
Flower vase 5.83 4.17 5.44
Light switch 6.17 4.25 4.67
Mountain bike 1.75 5.42 5.67
Umbrella 5.83 5.08 6.00
USB stick 2.42 4.58 5.00
Washing machine 3.67 6.08 6.11
Watch 3.58 5.33 5.78
Note. MEMM ¼maximum effect for minimum means.
da Silva et al. 107

Appreciation and MEMM by averaging the ratings each participant gave to
each product on the items of each scale. We conducted all our analyses with
the ratings thus obtained.
To first validate our stimulus manipulation, we performed an independent-
samples ttest to compare MEMM ratings in high-MEMM and low-MEMM
conditions. This test revealed that the ratings were significantly higher in the
high-MEMM condition (M¼5.33, SD ¼1.27) than in the low-MEMM condi-
tion (M¼3.90, SD ¼1.61); t(851.57) ¼14.83, p<.001. In line with the pretest
we had conducted, this confirmed that our stimulus manipulation was success-
ful. Altogether, the products selected as stimuli were perceived as the minimum
means achieving the maximum effects in the high-MEMM condition more so
than in the low-MEMM condition. The effect size for this analysis (d¼.97) was
found to exceed Cohen’s (1998) convention for a large effect (d¼.80).
To check the stimulus manipulation at the product level, we conducted a total
of 10 independent-samples ttests to compare the MEMM ratings of each prod-
uct in high-MEMM and low-MEMM conditions. The results of these tests are
presented in Table 3. They showed that the ratings of all products were signifi-
cantly higher in the high-MEMM condition than in the low-MEMM condition,
except in the case of the light switch stimulus (for which the difference was not
significant). On the basis of this finding, we omitted the ratings of this product
stimulus from the rest of our analyses.
To again test the hypothesis that the aesthetic appreciation of a product
would be positively affected by the perception of the product as the minimum
means achieving the maximum effect, we conducted an independent-samples
Table 3. MEMM Ratings of Products in High-MEMM and Low-MEMM Conditions.
Product
High-MEMM Low-MEMM Difference Effect size
MSDMSD t df pCohen’s d
Backpack 5.86 .74 3.71 1.46 8.80 65.00 <.001 1.85
Ceiling lamp 5.84 .90 4.04 1.26 7.76 88.00 <.001 1.64
Door handle 5.57 1.12 4.89 1.38 2.56 88.00 .012 0.54
Flower vase 5.55 1.01 4.94 1.23 2.57 88.00 .012 0.54
Light switch 5.78 .83 5.57 1.37 .91 72.24 .367 0.19
Mountain bike 5.59 1.29 2.42 1.27 11.76 88.00 <.001 2.48
Umbrella 5.61 .95 3.92 1.44 6.56 76.23 <.001 1.39
USB stick 3.86 1.71 2.46 .98 4.77 69.95 <.001 1.00
Washing machine 4.70 1.09 3.61 1.46 4.02 81.43 <.001 0.85
Watch 4.97 1.30 3.42 1.02 6.29 83.07 <.001 1.33
Note. MEMM ¼maximum effect for minimum means.
108 Empirical Studies of the Arts 35(1)

ttest to compare Aesthetic Appreciation ratings in high-MEMM and low-
MEMM conditions. These results also supported our hypothesis, showing that
the ratings were significantly higher in the high-MEMM condition (M¼4.80,
SD ¼1.46) than in the low-MEMM condition (M¼4.35, SD ¼1.73); t
(785.64) ¼4.10, p<.001. They provided further evidence that a product is
more aesthetically appreciated the more it is perceived to comply with
MEMM. The effect size for this analysis (d¼.28) was found to exceed
Cohen’s (1998) convention for a small effect (d¼.20).
To further examine the influence of MEMM on Aesthetic Appreciation, we
conducted a simple regression analysis entering MEMM ratings (from both low-
MEMM and high-MEMM conditions) as predictors of Aesthetic Appreciation
ratings (from both low-MEMM and high-MEMM conditions). In line with
our previous findings, this analysis indicated that a significant proportion of
the variance in Aesthetic Appreciation was explained by MEMM (¼.43,
p<.001); R
2
¼.18, F(1,808) ¼180.83, p<.001. The results confirmed that the
more a product is perceived to comply with MEMM, the more it is aesthetically
appreciated. This linear relationship is illustrated in Figure 4.
Finally, to examine the influence of MEMM on Aesthetic Appreciation at the
product level, we conducted a total of nine independent-samples ttests to com-
pare the Aesthetic Appreciation ratings of each product in high-MEMM and
low-MEMM conditions. The results of these tests are presented in Table 4. They
showed that Aesthetic Appreciation was generally higher in the high-MEMM
condition than in the low-MEMM condition, but that it only differed signifi-
cantly for four of the nine tested products. We will reflect on this finding in the
coming section.
Discussion
Study 2 provided further evidence that the aesthetic appreciation of a product is
partially governed by the principle of MEMM. In line with Study 1, it showed
that the perception of a product as the minimum means achieving the maximum
effect has a positive influence on the aesthetic appreciation of the product.
Unlike Study 1, Study 2 involved a manipulation of stimulus materials, which
did not exactly reflect the world of existing products, but increased the internal
validity of our findings. This manipulation allowed us to experimentally assess
the influence of MEMM independently of visual appearance.
Study 2 revealed that a product can be aesthetically appreciated based on
MEMM irrespective of how it looks. This suggests that, when comparing two
similar looking products, people would aesthetically prefer the one that they
perceive to better comply with MEMM. For example, they would prefer the
vase that reminds them to water the flowers by exploiting the instability intrinsic
to its shape over the pot that accomplishes the same effect by using a sensor and
a smartphone app, even if these artifacts looked alike. This is not to deny that
da Silva et al. 109

MEMM and visual appearance can jointly contribute to the aesthetic appreci-
ation of a product. The resources that a product uses to achieve an effect might
be visible and pleasing to look at (e.g., the shape of the flower vase); and, if not
visible (e.g., the vase’s center of gravity), they might be inferred from visual
appearance.
Although MEMM positively influenced the aesthetic appreciation of the
products used as stimuli in Study 2, it only had a significant effect on the aes-
thetic appreciation of four of them. Two of these products had the biggest
difference in MEMM ratings between conditions, which indicates that their
low-MEMM and high-MEMM written descriptions triggered very contrasting
perceptions of each of them. All the descriptions mentioned the effects of the
products as well as the resources the products exploited as means, but they did
Figure 4. Relationship between mean Aesthetic Appreciation and MEMM ratings of
products in high-MEMM (dots) and low-MEMM (circles) conditions.
110 Empirical Studies of the Arts 35(1)

not systematically vary in the kind of information they provided about means
and effects. Hence, it remains to be seen how specific qualities of the means and
the effect influence the aesthetic appreciation of an artifact.
General Discussion
Theory and discourse suggest that the aesthetic appreciation of an artifact
depends, to some extent, on the perception that the artifact achieves the max-
imum effect through the minimum means. In this article, we sought experimental
evidence of the principle of MEMM in the context of product design. In Study 1,
we tested the hypothesis that the aesthetic appreciation of a product would be
positively affected by the perception of the product as the minimum means
achieving the maximum effect. We confirmed this hypothesis and also found
that MEMM is related to two other factors, namely unexpectedness and inev-
itability. In Study 2, we used a more controlled experimental design to again test
the principle of MEMM. We demonstrated that a product can be aesthetically
appreciated as the minimum means to achieve the maximum effect irrespective
of its visual appearance. In particular, our findings indicate that the aesthetic
appreciation of a product partially depends on the perception that the product
achieves more than other products from its category by making an efficient use
of resources.
To better understand MEMM in the context of consumer products and other
artifacts, further research is required. Our operationalization of MEMM and
stimulus manipulation might serve as a basis for this. Although we con-
ceptually distinguished some of the resources a product can use as a means
Table 4. Aesthetic Appreciation Ratings of Products in High-MEMM and Low-MEMM
Conditions.
Product
High-MEMM Low-MEMM Difference Effect size
MSDMSD t dfpCohen’s d
Backpack 4.97 1.23 4.09 1.37 3.21 88.00 .002 0.66
Ceiling lamp 4.96 1.03 4.90 1.51 .24 77.76 .808 0.05
Door handle 4.81 1.40 4.87 1.63 .19 88.00 .854 0.04
Flower vase 5.49 1.31 5.28 1.41 .72 88.00 .471 0.15
Mountain bike 4.93 1.61 3.81 2.07 2.88 82.85 .005 0.60
Umbrella 5.16 1.33 5.05 1.47 .35 88.00 .726 0.08
USB stick 4.38 1.73 4.32 1.79 .16 88.00 .873 0.03
Washing machine 4.42 1.37 3.35 1.65 3.37 88.00 .001 0.71
Watch 4.15 1.59 3.46 1.44 2.15 87.07 .034 0.45
Note. MEMM ¼maximum effect for minimum means.
da Silva et al. 111

(properties, mechanisms, interactions) and some of the effects it can have (imme-
diate practical functions and additional effects), these distinctions are rather
broad and were not taken into account to manipulate stimuli in a systematic
manner. Because of this, we cannot make any claims as to how specific aspects of
means and effects affect aesthetic appreciation. Future studies could adopt an
exploratory approach to research (for instance, by using interviews and ques-
tionnaires with open-ended prompts) to identify more specific aspects of means
and effects and, more importantly, the qualities that make a means minimal and
an effect maximal. Once identified, these qualities could be systematically
manipulated in experimental stimuli to test the principle of MEMM in a more
controlled manner. Future studies should further take into account the partici-
pants’ level of design literacy. Although we avoided having students in Industrial
Design and Architecture as participants to prevent results being affected by
specialized design knowledge, it could be argued that our participants did not
represent a completely naı
¨ve population insofar as they were all students in
technical fields and therefore had formally acquired some knowledge of the
way artifacts work. It remains to be seen whether our findings can be extended
to a population with no technical background. Researchers should not overlook,
however, that participants with a design background might contribute to
unraveling MEMM in a way that other participants might not. For example,
giving designers the task of (re)designing artifacts based on this principle could
clarify how the notions of the minimum means and the maximum effect translate
into design practice.
Research into the principle of MEMM can enhance the practice and teaching
of artifact development in a number of areas, including design and the arts. In
design, aesthetics often connotes the most superficial layer of a product, a merely
decorative layer, clearly distinct from functionality. In the arts, aesthetics is a
fundamental concern, but an aesthetically appealing art piece is not usually
described in terms of an efficient means-effect relationship. Learning about
MEMM involves acknowledging that aesthetics and functionality are not mutu-
ally exclusive. If design practitioners and educators focus on the development of
products that do more than performing practical tasks, that is, products that
influence people’s relationship with their environment and one another, they
might achieve not just efficiency, but beauty also. Initiatives such as design for
sustainability, design for wellbeing, and design for behavioral change are taking
a step in this direction. If artists and art critics become aware that a creative
work can be aesthetically appreciated as the minimum means to convey an
intended message or feeling, regardless of what this message or feeling is, they
might gain a useful criterion to guide creative processes and assess works of art.
This is particularly relevant for conceptual art, where the art object is not
intended to be attractive in itself, but as a means to convey the artist’s idea.
Professionals such as marketers, advertisers, and curators, who are responsible
of presenting artifacts to different audiences, might also benefit from
112 Empirical Studies of the Arts 35(1)

understanding MEMM. The principle could help them identify invisible aspects
of an artifact that are aesthetically appreciated and thus deserve to be commu-
nicated. To the everyday users of products and regular museum visitors, know-
ledge of MEMM will provide some awareness of the reason they might like
certain artifacts, an insight into their perceptions of beauty in efficiency.
Appendix 1
Stimulus materials used in Study 1.
Product Image Text
Backpack (by Enerplex)
This backpack is fitted with thin solar
panels to power portable electronic
appliances.
Ceiling lamp (by Ikea) This ceiling lamp uses an electric bulb
and an aluminum shade to light up
a room.
Bathroom tap
(by Tavistock)
This bathroom tap controls a valve
mixing cold and hot water in order
to wash people’s hands.
Door handle (by
The Agency of Design)
This door handle dispenses hand
sanitizer when pulled, so as to
promote hygiene in hospitals.
Flower vase
(by Jim Rokos)
This flower vase exploits the laws of
physics to tilt as it runs out of water
to remind people to water flowers.
(continued)
da Silva et al. 113

Continued
Product Image Text
Light switch (by Leviton) This light switch uses a motion sensor to
turn off the light when there is no
one around, so as to save energy.
Mountain bike
(by The House
of Solid Gold)
This mountain bike has heavy-duty
wheels and a frame covered in
24-carat gold to enable
off-road cycling.
Mug (by Heraldic
Pottery)
This mug, with both body and handle
made of glazed ceramic, enables
people to drink warm coffee.
Office chair (by Zuo) This office chair uses two metallic rods
to connect five cylindrical cushions
so as to provide back support.
Toaster (by Kalorik) This toaster requires the user to press
buttons, turn dials and push down
levers in order to toast bread.
Umbrella (by Senz) This umbrella is shaped asymmetrically,
exploiting the laws of aerodynamics
to withstand strong winds.
USB stick (by
Star Enterprises)
This USB stick uses flash memory
covered with a metallic case and
pieces of leather in order to
store data.
(continued)
114 Empirical Studies of the Arts 35(1)

Appendix 2
Stimulus materials used in Study 2
Continued
Product Image Text
Vacuum Cleaner
(by West Point)
This vacuum cleaner uses an electrically
powered air pump to suck up dust
from different surfaces.
Washing machine
(by Ventus)
This washing machine requires the user
to fill it with water and pump a pedal
continuously so as to wash clothes.
Watch (by Muji) This watch uses a battery-powered
mechanism to move a set of hands
and thus give the time of day.
Product Image
Texi in high-MEMM
condition
Text in low-MEMM
condition
Backpack
(by Enerplex)
This backpack is
fitted with thin
solar panels to
power portable
electronic appliances.
This backpack is made
of heavy-duty
textiles and
reinforced with an
aluminum structure
so as to carry school
textbooks and
utensils.
Ceiling lamp
(by Ikea)
This ceiling lamp uses
an occupancy sensor
to turn off the
light when there is
no one in the room,
so as to reduce
electricity usage.
This ceiling lamp uses
an electric bulb and
an aluminum shade
to light up a room.
(continued)
da Silva et al. 115

Continued
Product Image
Texi in high-MEMM
condition
Text in low-MEMM
condition
Door handle
(by The Agency
of Design)
This door handle
dispenses hand
sanitizer when
pulled, so as to
promote hygiene
in hospitals.
This door handle
requires people to
insert an
identification card
into a narrow slot
and hold it there for
5 seconds so as to
open the door.
Flower vase
(by Jim Rokos)
This flower vase
exploits the laws
of physics to tilt
as it runs out of
water to remind
people to water
flowers.
This flower vase is
made of heavy glass,
but can be inclined
toward the sink tap
so as to facilitate the
process of watering
flowers.
Light switch
(by Leviton)
This light switch uses a
motion sensor to
turn off the light
when there is no
one around, so as to
save energy.
This light switch
requires the user to
turn a dial 360to
change the intensity of
light.
Mountain bike
(by The House
of Solid Gold)
This mountain bike uses
energy generated by
pedaling to charge
devices like
smartphones and
music players.
This mountain bike has
heavy-duty wheels
and a frame covered
in 24-carat gold to
enable off-road
cycling.
Umbrella
(by Senz)
This umbrella is shaped
asymmetrically,
exploiting the laws
of aerodynamics to
withstand strong
winds.
This umbrella uses a
hydraulic pump and
fine oils to activate
an opening
mechanism.
(continued)
116 Empirical Studies of the Arts 35(1)

Acknowledgments
We would like to thank Jim Rokos for providing us with the photograph of Gauge.We
are grateful to the designers that kindly took part in the pretests of the stimulus materials:
Floris Verstraelen, Linus Knupfer, Maria Hock, Nick van der Velde, Christiaan Kieft,
Job Jansweijer, Roderick Huijgen, Viki Pavlic, Juliana Monsalve Arteaga, Santiago De
Francisco, Vid Stiglic, Jenny Tsay and Astrid Bontenbal. We are also grateful to Michae
¨l
Berghman and Ruben Post for their advice on stimuli selection and their guidance in the
statistical analyses. Special thanks go to Simo
´n Jime
´nez Jaramillo for the precious assis-
tance he offered in preparing and conducting the studies here reported. Finally, we would
like to thank the anonymous reviewers who helped us improve the quality of our
contribution.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research,
authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Continued
Product Image
Texi in high-MEMM
condition
Text in low-MEMM
condition
USB stick
(by Star
Enterprises)
This USB stick has a
flexible surface that
inflates and deflates
to indicate how much
data is currently being
stored.
This USB stick uses
flash memory
covered with a
metallic case and
pieces of leather in
order to store data.
Washing machine
(by Ventus)
This washing machine
uses a simple
human-powered
mechanism to enable
people to do laundry
in rural areas.
This washing machine
requires the user to
fill it with water and
pump a pedal
continuously so as
to wash clothes.
Watch (by Muji) This watch employs
GPS signals to set
the time
automatically and
thus give the correct
time of day anywhere
in the world.
This watch uses a
battery-powered
mechanism to move
a set of hands and
thus give the time
of day.
da Silva et al. 117

Funding
The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, author-
ship, and/or publication of this article: This research is part of Project UMA, which is
supported by the MAGW VICI grant number 453-10-004 awarded to Paul Hekkert by
The Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research.
References
Barrett, H. C., Laurence, S., & Margolis, E. (2008). Artifacts and original intent: A cross-
cultural perspective on the design stance. Journal of Cognition and Culture,8(1), 1–22.
Black, J. (1991). The aesthetics of murder: A study in romantic literature and contemporary
culture. Baltimore, MD: John Hopkins University Press.
Blijlevens, J., Thurgood, C., Hekkert, P., Leder, H., & Whitfield, A. (2014). The devel-
opment of a reliable and valid scale to measure aesthetic pleasure in design.
In A. Kozbelt (Ed.), Proceedings of IAEA 2014 (pp. 100–106). New York, NY:
Hunter College of the City of New York.
Bloom, P. (1996). Intention, history, and artifact concepts. Cognition,60(1), 1–29.
Boselie, F., & Leeuwenberg, E. (1985). Birkhoff revisited: Beauty as a function of effect
and means. The American Journal of Psychology,98(1), 1–39.
Cain, A. J. (2010). Deus ex machina and the aesthetics of proof. The Mathematical
Intelligencer,32(3), 7–11.
Cohen, J. (1998). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.).
New York, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Crease, R. P. (2004). The prism and the pendulum: The ten most beautiful experiments in
science. New York, NY: Random House.
Crilly, N. (2011a). Do users know what designers are up to? Product experience and the
inference of persuasive intentions. International Journal of Design,5(3), 1–15.
Crilly, N. (2011b). The design stance in user-system interaction. Design Issues,27(4),
16–29.
Crilly, N., Moultrie, J., & Clarkson, P. J. (2009). Shaping things: Intended con-
sumer response and the other determinants of product form. Design Studies,30(3),
224–254.
Da Silva, O., Crilly, N., & Hekkert, P. (2015). How people’s appreciation of products is
affected by their knowledge of the designers’ intentions. International Journal of
Design,9(2), 21–33.
Da Silva, O., Crilly, N., & Hekkert, P. (2016). Maximum effect for minimum means: The
aesthetics of efficiency. Design Issues,32(1), 41–51.
Dipert, R. R. (1993). Artifacts, art works, and agency. Philadelphia, PA: Temple
University Press.
Forsey, J. (2013). The aesthetics of design. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Fokkinga, S., Hekkert, P., Desmet, P., & O
¨zcan, E. (2014). From product to effect:
Towards a human-centered model of product impact. In K. Niedderer & Y.-K. Lim
(Eds.), Proceedings of DRS 2014 (pp. 71–83). Umea
˚, Sweden: Umea
˚Institute of
Design.
Goldman, A. (2001). The aesthetic. In B. Gaut & D. McIver Lopes (Eds.), The Routledge
companion to aesthetics (pp. 181–192). London, England: Routledge.
118 Empirical Studies of the Arts 35(1)

Hardy, G. H. (1967). A mathematician’s apology. Cambridge, England: Cambridge
University Press.
Hekkert, P. (2006). Design aesthetics: Principles of pleasure in design. Psychology Science,
48(2), 157–172.
Hekkert, P. (2014). Aesthetic responses to design: A battle of impulses. In T. Smith &
P. Tinio (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of the psychology of aesthetics and the arts
(pp. 277–299). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Hekkert, P., & Leder, H. (2008). Product aesthetics. In H. N. Schifferstein & P. Hekkert
(Eds.), Product experience (pp. 259–285). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier.
Hilpinen, R. (1992). On artifacts and works of art. Theoria,58(1), 58–82.
Howard, J. T. (1923). Inevitability as a criterion of art. The Musical Quarterly,9(3),
303–313.
Jacobsen, T., & Hoefel, L. (2003). Descriptive and evaluative judgment processes:
Behavioral and electrophysiological indices of processing symmetry and aesthetics.
Cognitive Affective & Behavioral Neuroscience,3(4), 289–299.
Jakesch, M., & Leder, H. (2009). Finding meaning in art: Preferred levels of ambiguity in art
appreciation. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,62(11), 2105–2112.
Jakesch, M., & Leder, H. (2015). The qualitative side of complexity: Testing effects of
ambiguity on complexity judgments. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts,
9(3), 200–205.
Johnson, G. (2009). The ten most beautiful experiments. New York, NY: Vintage Books.
Kant, I. (2000). Critique of the power of judgment. Cambridge, England: Cambridge
University Press.
Kaplan, A., & Kris, E. (1948). Esthetic ambiguity. Philosophy and Phenomenological
Research,8(3), 415–435.
Koren, L. (2010). Which “aesthetics”do you mean? Ten definitions. Point Reyes, CA:
Imperfect Publishing.
Lakoff, G. (1990). Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the
mind. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Lidwell, W., Holden, K., & Butler, J. (2010). Universal principles of design: 125 ways to
enhance usability, influence perception, increase appeal, make better design decisions,
and teach through design. Beverly, MA: Rockport.
Locher, P., & Nodine, C. (1989). The perceptual value of symmetry. Computers &
Mathematics with Applications,17(4–6), 475–484.
Macnab, M. (2012). Design by nature: Using universal forms and principles in design.
Berkeley, MA: New Riders.
Margulies, S. (1977). Principles of beauty. Psychological Reports,41, 3–11.
Matan, A., & Carey, S. (2001). Developmental changes within the core of artifact con-
cepts. Cognition,78(1), 1–26.
Muth, C., & Carbon, C. C. (2013). The aesthetic aha: On the pleasure of having insights
into Gestalt. Acta Psychologica,144(1), 25–30.
Muth, C., Hesslinger, V. M., & Carbon, C.-C. (2015). The appeal of challenge in the percep-
tion of art: How ambiguity, solvability of ambiguity, andthe opportunity for insight affect
appreciation. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts,9(3), 206–216.
Orrell, D. (2012). Truth or beauty: Science and the quest for order. New Haven, CT: Yale
University Press.
da Silva et al. 119

Parrot: Flower power. (2012). Retrieved from http://www.parrot.com/nl/producten/
flower-power
Parsons, G., & Carlson, A. (2008). Functional beauty. Oxford, England: Oxford
University Press.
Poe, E. A. (1846). Marginalia. Graham’s Magazine,28(2), 116–118.
Post, R., Blijlevens, J., & Hekkert, P. (2016). To preserve unity while almost allowing for
chaos: Testing the aesthetic principle of unity-in-variety in product design. Acta
Psychologica,163(1), 142–152.
Ramachandran, V. S., & Hirstein, W. (1999). The science of art. Journal of Consciousness
Studies,6(6–7), 15–51.
Rokos, J. (2013). Gauge. Retrieved from http://www.jimrokos.com/gauge_story.html
Saito, Y. (2007). Everyday aesthetics. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
Savic
´, S., & Savic
ˇic
´, G. (Eds.). (2013). Unpleasant design. Belgrade, Serbia: G.L.O.R.I.A.
Silvia, P. J., & Barona, C. M. (2009). Do people prefer curved objects? Angularity,
expertise, and aesthetic preference. Empirical Studies of the Arts,27(1), 25–42.
Veryzer, R. W., & Hutchinson, J. W. (1998). The influence of unity and prototypicality on
aesthetic responses to new product designs. Journal of Consumer Research,24, 374–394.
Walsh, D. (1979). Occam’s razor. American Philosophical Quarterly,16(3), 1–4.
Westerman, S. J., Gardner, P. H., Sutherland, E. J., White, T., Jordan, K., Watts, D., &
Wells, S. (2012). Product design: Preference for rounded versus angular design ele-
ments. Psychology & Marketing,29(8), 595–605.
Zelanski, P., & Fisher, M. P. (1984). Design: Principles and problems. New York, NY:
CBS College Publishing.
Author Biographies
Odette da Silva is a doctoral researcher in Design Aesthetics at Delft University
of Technology. She combines conceptual and experimental approaches to study-
ing how people’s aesthetic appreciation of products is affected by their knowl-
edge of the designers’ intentions or intended effects. Her research is part of
Project UMA (www.project-uma.com).
Nathan Crilly is Senior Lecturer in Engineering Design at the University of
Cambridge. His research interests are in the areas of design, technology and
communication. He employs an interdisciplinary approach to studying how
artifacts are developed, the properties they exhibit and the ways in which
people respond to them.
Paul Hekkert is Full Professor of Form Theory in the Faculty of Industrial
Design Engineering at Delft University of Technology. He conducts research
on the ways products impact human experience and behavior. He is co-editor of
Product Experience (2008) and co-author of Vision in Design: A Guidebook for
Innovators (2011).
120 Empirical Studies of the Arts 35(1)