Investigating Aesthetic Preferences in Wearable Devices via the Unified Model of Aesthetics: A Review

Full text

284
Investigating Aesthetic Preferences in Wearable
Devices via the Unified Model of Aesthetics: A
Review
Jun Ma
1
, Mohd Faiz bin Yahaya1, Lichen Tai2, Shahrul
Azman Bin Shahbudin 1, Yanqin Gao1
1 Department of Industrial Design, Faculty of Design and Architecture, Universiti Putra
Malaysia, Serdang Selangor, Malaysia
2Wenzao Ursuline University of Languages, Taiwan, China
Corresponding Author: Mohd Faiz bin Yahaya, Email :gs62769@student.upm.edu.my
Department of Industrial Design, Faculty of Design and Architecture, Universiti
Putra Malaysia, Serdang Selangor, Malaysia
Abstract
Over the past few decades, the aesthetics area of research has expanded beyond the realm
of pure artistic judgment, encompassing the aesthetics of products. The Unified Model of
Aesthetics (UMA), one of Europe's most expansive aesthetic research projects, is a design
psychology model rooted in aesthetic perception. This model has given rise to numerous
studies on product aesthetics. These widely disseminated studies form the foundation of this
paper's comprehensive integration, serving as a theoretical cornerstone for prospective
product aesthetics researchers and design developers. Within this review, we focus on
wearable device aesthetics. Rapidly evolving wearable devices have secured a profound place
in the hearts of consumers. However, the external design of these products has garnered
limited research attention. This article illustrates the importance of aesthetics in wearables
and its profound impact on user experience and purchasing behavior. We delve into the
framework of the UMA model and its implications within the study of aesthetic preferences
across diverse products. Additionally, we elucidate how this aesthetic model can be
effectively employed to explore and comprehend the aesthetic inclinations of wearable
devices. This comprehensive review provides a refined design framework and theoretical
foundation that fosters forward-looking research and facilitates wearable product
development efforts.
Vol 13, Issue 11, (2023) E-ISSN: 2222-6990
To Link this Article: http://dx.doi.org/10.6007/IJARBSS/v13-i11/19259 DOI:10.6007/IJARBSS/v13-i11/19259
Published Date: 11 November, 2023

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ACADEMIC RESEARCH IN BUSINESS AND SOCIAL SCIENCES
Vol. 13 , No. 11, 2023, E-ISSN: 2222-6990 © 2023
285
Keywords: Wearable Devices; United Model of Aesthetics; Product Aesthetics; Aesthetic
Preference
1. Introduction
Wearable devices are technological tools worn on the human body, either as a computer
accessory or as part of clothing material (Tehrani & Michael, 2014). A diverse array of
wearable devices exists, with smartwatches, Bluetooth headsets, and 3D glasses as notable
examples of mainstream wearables. Due to their ability to establish communication and data-
sharing in proximity to the user, wearable devices present novel user experiences (Lee, 2021).
Typically, these products employ accelerometers, altimeters, sensors, and algorithms to track
steps and measure calories burned (Schüll, 2016), utilizing optical heart rate sensors to
monitor heart rate and sleep quality (Chow & Yang, 2020; Mehrabadi et al., 2020). The
multifunctionality of these wearable devices contributes to consumers' well-being and
enhances the quality of life, imbuing it with heightened interest.
Wearable devices are currently experiencing rapid development. Research firm IDC
estimates that approximately 547 million wearable devices, including smartwatches and
fitness trackers, will be sold globally in 2021, reflecting a 23 percent increase from 2020. IDC
also forecasts that sales of wearable devices will escalate to 777 million units by 2025. This
swiftly expanding wearable market has attracted an increasing company to focus on and enter
this arena. In addition to annual updates from major mobile phone manufacturers, the
engagement of renowned fashion brands has further elevated the design and aesthetics of
wearable devices (Koo & Chae, 2022). As a result, wearable device designs have become more
diverse, offering a more excellent range of options and product styles, elevating consumer
preferences and aesthetic discernment. Aspects such as color, material, and shape have
shown significant variation (Choi & Kim, 2016; Iftikhar et al., 2019; Peake et al., 2018; Perry,
2018; Perry et al., 2017). This transformation has heightened the significance of visual
aesthetics in consumers' purchasing decisions concerning wearable devices and considerably
enriched users' perceptions and experiences while using such devices. However, thus far, few
studies have focused on this aspect (Lee, 2020; Lee, 2021; Muller & Klerk, 2020; Pateman et
al., 2018).
The aesthetics of wearable products form the initial bridge to establish a visual
connection with consumers. The allure or lack thereof in their beauty and design can
decisively influence consumers' purchasing inclination. Previous research into wearable
devices predominantly concentrated on the devices' functional and technical attributes.
These research delved into topics such as user privacy safeguarding, data security assurance,
as well as user experience and human-computer interaction dynamics (Aroganam et al., 2019;
Ching & Singh, 2016; Hsu et al., 2019; Keum et al., 2020; Lee & Hui, 2018; Mencarini et al.,
2019). This has left the exploration of the aesthetics of wearable devices in need of a more
comprehensive examination. The theoretical foundation for this review on product aesthetics
stems from the Unified Model of Aesthetic (UMA). This model corroborates that aesthetic
preferences are forged through the equilibrium between two evolutionary origins and the
motivational tensions they encompass (Berghman & Hekkert, 2017). This paper aims to
provide an in-depth exploration of aesthetic preferences within wearable devices. It achieves
this through thoroughly analyzing and synthesizing existing literature, employing the Unified
Model of Aesthetic (UMA) as its guiding framework.
This article is organized into several sections for discussion. First, we will review the
relevant literature on product aesthetics and aesthetic preferences to understand the current

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ACADEMIC RESEARCH IN BUSINESS AND SOCIAL SCIENCES
Vol. 13 , No. 11, 2023, E-ISSN: 2222-6990 © 2023
286
research content in aesthetics. Then, the relevant theoretical concepts of the Unified Model
of Aesthetics are introduced. Second, we will review the research results on the contrasting
factors at each level described by the UMA model. The final focus is on the aesthetics of
wearable devices in the existing literature. This comprehensive review will summarize the
impacts and categorization of prevailing research on aesthetic preferences, uncovering their
potential value in the design and advancement of wearable devices. Ultimately, we will
address the limitations and research gaps found in the existing literature while offering
suggestions and directions for future investigations. By meticulously analyzing and
understanding aesthetic preferences in wearable devices, this paper aims to equip future
designers, researchers, and policymakers with comprehensive insights into the significance
and influence of aesthetic design within wearable technology. Through the explorations
presented herein, we anticipate furnishing guidance for the aesthetic design of wearable
devices, thus contributing to the stimulation of innovation and growth within the wearable
technology domain.
2. Research Methodology
This review used a literature research method to identify literature articles using national
search engines such as Google Scholar. The term aesthetic preference was entered into
Google Scholar, which resulted in over a million articles. A restrictive term, product aesthetics,
was added, reducing the number of articles to 236,000. Then, the restrictive terms wearable
devices and unified model of aesthetics were added sequentially, and the final number of
articles was reduced to 18,800, as shown in Table 1 below.
Database
Date
Keywords
Limiters
Number
Google Scholar
9/9/2023
Aesthetic
Preference
1,710,000
Product
Aesthetics
236,000
Wearable devices
19,100
Unified Model of
Aesthetics
17,400
Table 1. Search from Google Scholar.
Next, search based on this review's subject content and the article's quality. Of course,
the quality of the literature is screened based on the journal impact factor and inclusion level.
The entire literature search and selection process is shown in Table 2. A total of 121 journal
articles related to the topic of this article were selected through keyword search and
screening. The articles were assigned to individual chapter topics based on a review of the
literature abstract and content. The topics are as follows: (1) Explain product aesthetics and
related literature review. (2) Conceptualization of aesthetic preferences and literature
review. (3) Explain the concept of the UMA model and the application of factors at various
levels in the model, (4) Analyze the aesthetic research related to wearable devices and the
UMA model, (5) Discuss the current research gaps and future research directions. This article
is reviewed based on the key findings of previous scholars, how their work supports future
research and areas that need strengthening.

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ACADEMIC RESEARCH IN BUSINESS AND SOCIAL SCIENCES
Vol. 13 , No. 11, 2023, E-ISSN: 2222-6990 © 2023
287
Key points and steps
Notes and steps
Literature search strategy
Keyword definition
Literature search tools
Top journals and conference papers
Timeliness
Literature selection criteria
Research topic relevance
Data depth
Journal/conference paper evaluation
Integrity of methods of analyzing data and
scientificity of conclusions
Evaluation and screening
Check out the article and select the criteria
Eliminate non-compliance with documents and
quality requirements
Preliminary assessment, content, methods,
accuracy of conclusions
Synthesis and analysis
Read in detail and extract key information
Analyze topics and identify research gaps
Article review, providing research overview
Table 2. Literature search and evaluation strategies.
3. Product Aesthetics
The development of enterprises requires the continuous upgrading of products to gain
market attention and recognition, and product design is an essential driving force. Product
design research encompasses multiple attributes such as ergonomics, performance,
materials, and aesthetics. Visual product aesthetics is often a critical factor in the success of
new products. It plays the first link in product and consumer recognition and is also crucial in
promoting product technical capabilities and novel functions (Truong et al., 2014). In recent
years, research on product aesthetics has focused on product aesthetics design methods to
improve the design aesthetics of products (Alcaide-Marzal et al., 2020; Burnap et al., 2021;
Guo et al., 2019). On the other hand, some researchers recognize that product aesthetics has
a close relationship with consumers, and products with design aesthetics are more likely to
gain consumers' attention and liking and eventually stand out in the market (Toufani et al.,
2017; Workman & Caldwell, 2007; Xue, 2019; Yoo & Kim, 2014). A study by Bettels and
Wiedmann (2019) explored consumers' perceptions of the relationship between brand logos
and product design, relying on theories of self-consistency and spillover effects, which suggest
that when a consumer's self-concept is aligned with the brand logo associations, the liking of
the logo will have a positive impact. Consumers later transfer this positive spillover effect
from their perception of logo liking to their inferences about the product design, which usually
has a more substantial impact on product aesthetics than on product functionality (Bettels &
Wiedmann, 2019). This also proves that although product function is the embodiment of
product value, the need for consumers' emotional perception of product aesthetics cannot
be ignored. Consumers make initial judgments through their senses and personal aesthetics,
and this judgment of the product's design may influence the overall evaluation of the
product's performance (Lin et al., 2016). The aesthetics of a product are often judged by the
eye of the observer, who prefers designs that are visually pleasing to them (Kumar & Garg,
2010). Such pleasurable product aesthetics are often felt and judged from personal aesthetic
preferences.

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ACADEMIC RESEARCH IN BUSINESS AND SOCIAL SCIENCES
Vol. 13 , No. 11, 2023, E-ISSN: 2222-6990 © 2023
288
4. Aesthetic Preference
For product design, aesthetic preferences arise from the object's attractiveness, and
preferences are realized when the stimulus exceeds the popularity of other objects. Aesthetic
preference is influenced by many factors, such as image aesthetics, image-to-background
contrast, stimulus repetition, symmetry, and archetypes” (Reber et al., 2004). Hekkert and
Leder (2008) suggested that reaching a consensus on aesthetic pleasure is possible despite
differences between individuals in social contexts such as culture and time. This illustrates
that the characteristics of a designed product are studied and measured multiple times (e.g.,
proportional balance or preference familiarity) to produce a general agreement that can
represent the aesthetic preferences of most people for a particular product (Suhaimi, 2021).
The literature on preference studies from different aspects of a product is plentiful, and a
study by Silvia and Barona (2009) measured product aesthetic preference by testing the
product's angle as a specific element. Their experiments showed that people prefer arrays of
circles and hexagons for angles for a particular product. Another study of its kind tested
preference rates between curved and sharp objects and showed that sharp objects and
angled profiles reduced participants' preferences (Bar & Neta, 2006). There are also studies
investigating individual preferences for the physical elements of a product, such as its physical
form and shape (Silvera et al., 2002).
Design novelty is also one of the critical factors influencing aesthetic preferences. The
Liu et al. (2020) study found that consumers who focus on promotion (as opposed to
prevention) should prefer novel product designs, an effect attributed to increased processing
fluency. The same type of consumers will also make differentiated choices when faced with
product types with different attributes. For utilitarian products (for example, vacuum
cleaners), promotion (prevention) focused consumers prefer (less) novel designs, and for
hedonic products (for example, smartphones), all consumers should prefer novel designs (Liu
et al., 2020). Of course, an individual's aesthetic preferences are often related to their
aesthetic experience. Experts in the design field are more likely to favor innovatively designed
products than novice designers (Person & Snelders, 2011). In contrast, novice designers or
consumers with no interest in aesthetics prefer traditional designs. This is also affirmed by
previous Leder and Carbon (2005) research.
5. Unified Model of Aesthetics (UMA)
5.1 The Concept of the UMA Model
The origins of aesthetics can be traced back to ancient Greece, with the term "aesthetics"
derived from the Greek word " aisthetiko," signifying sensory perception, comprehension,
and perceptual knowledge (Hekkert, 2006). In its early stages, aesthetics predominantly
focused on artistic domains encompassing areas like painting, music, and drama. After the
1980s, the concepts of "beauty" and "design" became intertwined, prompting scientific
explorations into the aesthetics of products. These explorations sought to unravel the aspects
of product design that can evoke heightened attraction. In this context, design aesthetics
pertains to the beauty and visual delight produced by the design of objects (Baskerville et al.,
2018). The theoretical foundation underpinning this review is sourced from the UMA Project,
which harmonizes existing aesthetic theories across diverse disciplines. It compiles findings
from numerous literature studies to forge a more systematic and scientific research trajectory
(Hekkert, 2014).

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ACADEMIC RESEARCH IN BUSINESS AND SOCIAL SCIENCES
Vol. 13 , No. 11, 2023, E-ISSN: 2222-6990 © 2023
289
The Project UMA is an international collaborative project that unites researchers from
diverse disciplines spanning multiple universities, including engineering, industrial design,
design, and psychology. This project aims to establish a unified aesthetic model, offering
insights into the delicate equilibrium between opposing forces inherent in crafting products
for aesthetic enjoyment (Yahaya, 2017). Figure 1. furnishes a schematic depiction of the
unified aesthetic model. As gleaned from the figure, the aesthetic delight derived from a
product emerges through a network of interactions between security needs and achievement
desires. Nevertheless, given their involvement in distinct facets of stimulus processing, they
can exert diverse influences on the aesthetics of product design (Berghman & Hekkert, 2017).
As delineated in the figure, the aesthetics of product design primarily emanate from the
holistic interplay of three levels: perceptual, cognitive, and social factors. The perceptual level
emphasizes elements of unity and variety. The ensuing level, the cognitive level, delves into
the dynamic between typicality and novelty. Lastly, the social level encompasses
connectedness and autonomy. A more precise elucidation of the two factors within the social
level is the visual manifestation of belonging to or differentiating from a group. The UMA
model essentially evolves from Darwin's (1859) theory of evolution, integrated into aesthetics
and growing into a contemporary expression of human instinct, striking a balance between
safety and risk (Hekkert, 2006). This framework encompasses two forces existing across
different tiers, wielding influence over human responses to aesthetic pleasure, preferences,
and experiences (Suhaimi, 2021). We aspire to glean a deeper understanding of the intricate
relationship between opposing factors and human aesthetic preferences by examining
literature spanning distinct levels.
Figure 1. Unified Model of Aesthetics
[Online] Available: http://www.project-uma.com/the-uma-model
5.2 Application of the UMA model in aesthetic research
5.2.1The perceptual level: unity and variety
With the emergence of evolutionary psychology, perceptual systems have continually
adapted to human life's evolving environment and characteristics. The foundation of
perceptual systems stems from the ancestral imperative for survival. These systems were
developed to perceive dangers and safety within the surrounding environment, and humans
have now extended this ability to evaluate objects. At the core of perceptual aesthetics lies
the fulfillment of our pleasure and preferences through the perceptual experiences of
particular items (Hekkert, 2006; Ramachandran & Hirstein, 1999). For humans to derive
enjoyment from interactions with objects, the perception of order and coherence between
the attributes of the whole and its constituent parts is essential. This ability, known as unity,
contributes to this perception (Berlyne, 1972; Veryzer & Hutchinson, 1998). Among the

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ACADEMIC RESEARCH IN BUSINESS AND SOCIAL SCIENCES
Vol. 13 , No. 11, 2023, E-ISSN: 2222-6990 © 2023
290
factors influencing unity, Gestalt laws assume a significant role (Post et al., 2013, August).
Empirically, the Gestalt laws of similarity, continuity, symmetry, contrast, and proximity unveil
how properties of specific elements manipulate the perception of unity. For instance, people
associate aspects of the same category with similar shapes, sizes, and colors. Prior research
has established that unity can positively influence diverse domains. Instances include visual
patterns (Berlyne, 1972; Berlyne & Boudewijns, 1971; Moore, 1986), polygonal graphics
(Eysenck, 1968), product drawings (Veryzer & Hutchinson, 1998), artistic and non-art images
of varying complexity (Nadal et al., 2010), and interactive media (Graham, 2008; Post et al.,
2017; Wagemans et al., 2012).
The counterpart to the unity factor is variety, which pertains to the quantity and intensity
of perceived distinctions among attributes and elements (Berlyne, 1972; Berlyne &
Boudewijns, 1971). The presence of variety disrupts the sense of order among features,
introducing unforeseen visual stimulation to individuals. As a result, the pursuit of variety is a
natural inclination driven by the desire to explore and acquire new information (Berlyne,
1966). Studies on variety are equally extensive, spanning domains like patterns (Berlyne,
1970; Berlyne, 1972; Berlyne & Boudewijns, 1971; Moore, 1986), paintings (Hekkert & Van
Wieringen, 1990), marketing (Kahn, 1995; Wu & Kao, 2011), music (Brattico et al., 2009), and
even the arrangement of flowers in gardens (Lindemann-Matthies & Marty, 2013). To a
certain extent, diversity can be viewed as fostering our acquisition of knowledge and abilities
that we haven't yet mastered. It fuels a learning drive, enhancing our happiness during the
learning process (Berlyne, 1971; Biederman & Vessel, 2006; Hekkert, 2014). However, the
existence of anything, including a factor, requires a mastery of moderation, and unity and
diversity are no exceptions. An excessive degree of uniformity can diminish people's
enthusiasm to explore the unknown. At the same time, an excess of variation can disturb our
sensory perception, resulting in visual confusion and a decline in interest.
Satisfying the aesthetic preference of maximizing both variety and unity may be one of
our most sought-after desires, which gives rise to the concept of 'unity-in-variety.' This
principle has a longstanding history, dating back to ancient Greek times (Kim, 2006).
Perceptual unity and variety have been affirmed in prior studies to influence aesthetics
positively and encompass various research domains. These domains include general
psychology (Eysenck, 1942), aesthetics (Berlyne, 1971; Fechner, 1876), art (Cupchik et al.,
1996), computer science (Eskenazi et al., 2021), museum specimen data (Woodburn et al.,
2020), and music (Brattico et al., 2009; Tan & Spackman, 2005). Early literature relevant to
aesthetics that we have focused on is predominantly centered around abstract stimuli
(Berlyne, 1972; Berlyne & Boudewijns, 1971). Subsequent research focused on product
aesthetics (Logkizidou, 2021; Loos et al., 2022; Post et al., 2017; Post et al., 2013, August). In
these studies, a negative correlation between unity and variety was observed, yet both
factors positively impacted the aesthetic appreciation of the product. Naturally, varying
product stimuli, research subjects, and influencing factors can lead to differing conclusions.
In the realm of website aesthetics, research has demonstrated that the opposing elements of
unity and variety independently and positively enhance aesthetic preferences, with diversity
exerting a more significant impact on aesthetic appreciation than unity (Post et al., 2017). In
topology optimization aesthetics, augmenting unity is central to heightening aesthetic
appreciation (Loos et al., 2022). Hence, it becomes essential to continually expand the range
of stimuli to explore the ramifications of this principle. Participants' design backgrounds can
also exert diverse effects on the balance between unity and diversity in aesthetic preferences,
necessitating further scrutiny in future research (Post et al., 2013, August). This section shows

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ACADEMIC RESEARCH IN BUSINESS AND SOCIAL SCIENCES
Vol. 13 , No. 11, 2023, E-ISSN: 2222-6990 © 2023
291
that research into the aesthetic perception of wearable devices represents a significant gap,
with no pertinent investigations into the influence of unity and variety on aesthetic
preferences. Subsequent research could center on the impact of perceptual traits such as
appearance, shape, color, material, and texture of wearable devices on assessing aesthetic
preferences. For instance, manipulating the proportions of unity and variety variables could
be employed to explore how different device shapes affect users' attractiveness perception
and liking, discerning their relationship with aesthetic preferences.
5.2.2 The cognitive level: typicality and novelty
The second tier in the UMA model is the cognitive level. Cognitive processes inherently
rely on sensorimotor functions, recognizing and categorizing meaningful sensory inputs
(Berghman & Hekkert, 2017). Throughout object cognition, we encounter feedback from
stimuli, influencing the fluidity of our object processing based on personal experiences. When
we are familiar with a specific type of object in our cognition, we promptly recognize it.
Conversely, quick judgment and recognition become challenging if we haven't encountered
that type of object before. This distinction arises from the interplay of two opposing factors
at the cognitive level—typicality and novelty. Typicality is the extent to which an item is
perceived to embody a category, a categorical principle derived from taxonomic theory
(Rosch, 1978). In the aesthetic evaluation of product design, typicality relates to familiar
experiences, recognizable features or functions, and the inclination to prioritize safety over
risk (Hekkert, 2006; Whitfield, 1983). Earlier research has demonstrated that humans
generally lean towards the familiar or typical, as it aligns with our existing knowledge (Veryzer
& Hutchinson, 1998). This inclination manifests the evolutionary instinct rooted in our sense
of security, aiming to avoid needless hazards. The determinants of typicality were also
examined in earlier studies, and attitude was deemed one of these determinants (Loken &
Ward, 1990). Although familiarity plays a role in influencing typicality, it is not solely
responsible for determining it (Malt & Smith, 1982). Typicality has been identified as a pivotal
factor affecting aesthetic preferences in product aesthetics research. Its immediate
recognizability accelerates consumer acceptance of products, thereby imbuing them with
greater significance and value (Hekkert & Leder, 2008; Whitfield & Slatter, 1979).
However, human beings are inherently contradictory. Remaining safe for prolonged
periods can lead to losing the spirit of exploration. Conversely, seeking out different
challenges and encountering novel stimuli can also provide us with enjoyment. Research
indicates that people are also inherently drawn to novel designs (Hekkert et al., 2003; Mugge
& Schoormans, 2012; O’Neal et al., 1997). Novelty embodies the discovery of new
experiences, unfamiliar processing, and the enjoyment of aesthetic judgment (Mugge &
Schoormans, 2012; Tyagi et al., 2013). Early research unveiled that design novelty can be
assessed from three perspectives: 1. by comparing design distinctions and performance
against competing products, 2. by evaluating the design novelty within product-brand
portfolios, 3. by contrasting the designs of the latest products with those of their predecessors
(Talke et al., 2017). This underscores that novel design is often rooted in typical design forms.
The concept of novelty's nature was introduced by Berlyne (1960), who posited that stimuli
could initially seem exceedingly unfamiliar and stimulating, but repeated exposure renders
them more familiar, comfortable, and appealing. This phenomenon demonstrates that
novelty transitions into typicality after prolonged exposure to stimuli.
Upon retrospection, we appear to encounter two contradictory opposites: "We like what
we can identify with" and "We are also attracted to novelty." To reconcile this inherent

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ACADEMIC RESEARCH IN BUSINESS AND SOCIAL SCIENCES
Vol. 13 , No. 11, 2023, E-ISSN: 2222-6990 © 2023
292
contradiction, Hekkert et al. (2003) introduced the "most advanced, yet acceptable" (MAYA)
design principle, effectively addressing this paradox. This principle has been tested across
various products and has consistently revealed a negative correlation between typicality and
novelty, while both aspects positively influence the aesthetic appreciation of a product
(Ceballos et al., 2019; Suhaimi et al., 2023; Thurgood et al., 2014, January). The simultaneous
maximization of typicality and novelty is particularly interesting (Hekkert et al., 2003). This
concept stems from Berlyne's (1974) proposal of an inverted U-shaped relationship between
typicality, novelty, and aesthetic preference. Objects with moderate novelty tend to be
preferred over those extremely typical or highly novel. However, an alternative viewpoint has
emerged. According to Whitfield's research (1983), people prefer products with typical
designs. These differing perspectives could arise from selecting stimulus category attributes,
which prompted Whitfield (1983) to introduce the Categorical-Motivational Model. In
subsequent aesthetic studies that tested multiple product designs, including toothbrushes
and computer mouse (Yahaya, 2017), industrial boiler (Suhaimi, 2021), furniture (Hung &
Chen, 2012; Tyagi, 2017), and lamps (Christensen et al., 2015; Tyagi et al., 2013), these stimuli
verified that product category attributes indeed influence the connection between typicality,
novelty, and aesthetic preference. However, no specific research is currently delving into the
link between product design typicality, novelty, and aesthetic preference in wearable devices.
This represents a promising research direction for the future.
5.2.3 The social level: connectedness and autonomy
The final level is the social level, where product design holds a particular social
significance. Products are social and cultural cues, bridging connectedness and autonomy
(Belk, 1988; Dittmar, 1992; Kleine III et al., 1993). The need for connection is an inherent social
requirement encompassing the desire to establish relationships with others (Deci & Ryan,
2000) and the sense of belonging within a social group (Baumeister & Leary, 2017; Brewer,
1991). This sentiment enables one to attain a comprehensible identity at the social level,
representing a yearning for a sense of security. The group typically confers This sense of
security, serving as an identity label within the social collective (Axelrod & Hamilton, 1981).
This rationale may also be rooted in the evolutionary progress of our species, where groups
offer advantages such as resource sharing and survival protection. Consequently, this
dynamic influences the aesthetic appreciation and assessment of individuals who are, or
aspire to be, part of a given group (Markus & Kitayama, 1991). Conversely, there are instances
where we seek to distinguish ourselves from the group, yearning for autonomy. Autonomy
involves an individualized existence that sets one apart from others, embodying freedom, and
self-control (Bettencourt & Sheldon, 2001; Deci & Ryan, 2000; Lynn & Harris, 1997). From an
evolutionary perspective, this need facilitates swift recognition of an individual within the
group. Hence, some autonomous individuals strive to manifest their uniqueness through
distinctive expression. While such distinctiveness may carry certain risks, such as social
exclusion, it does not deter people's pursuit of it under specific circumstances.
At the social level, a design principle exists that concurrently satisfies the opposing needs
of security and accomplishment - 'Autonomous yet Connected.' Consumers want to connect
with people through safe product choices to show they are in social groups (Brewer, 1991;
Deci & Ryan, 2000). On the other hand, to present their unique autonomy, consumers seek
social accomplishment (Bettencourt & Sheldon, 2001; Deci & Ryan, 2000; Lynn & Harris,
1997). The optimal equilibrium between consumer connectedness and autonomy is the crux
of this principle, resolving this inherent tension. A product attains its highest aesthetic appeal

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ACADEMIC RESEARCH IN BUSINESS AND SOCIAL SCIENCES
Vol. 13 , No. 11, 2023, E-ISSN: 2222-6990 © 2023
293
when its design characteristics strike an aesthetic equilibrium that instills consumers' sense
of connection and autonomy (Blijlevens & Hekkert, 2015). Previous studies reveal that
different product categories entail varying social risks, influencing the correlation between
product connectedness and autonomy (Blijlevens & Hekkert, 2014). This concept
encapsulates the social value intrinsic to product design, a product of harmonizing the social
dimensions of safety and accomplishment. Effects associated with more significant social risks
amplify the desire for connectedness, while those linked to lower social risks prompt a more
vigorous quest for autonomy (Blijlevens & Hekkert, 2014). Of course, consumer attributes
also play a role in product choice. Those with a "prevention-focused" orientation favor high-
fluency stimuli compared to individuals with a "promotion-focused" exposure (Blijlevens &
Hekkert, 2014; Freitas et al., 2005). Such inclinations may be rooted in individual living
environments and cultural distinctions, where diverse values and personal beliefs lead to
information processing deviations. This underscores that everyday aesthetic preferences,
aside from being influenced by general psychophysical attributes, also intersect with
situational organization and cultural contexts (Hekkert & Leder, 2008; Richerson & Boyd,
2008).
While relatively few previous studies have been conducted at the social level, there is
sufficient evidence to illustrate the significant impact of connectedness and autonomy on
aesthetic preferences. Products such as sunglasses, bicycles, staplers, sneakers, and
backpacks have been examined in these studies (Blijlevens & Hekkert, 2014, 2015). The
results of these investigations consistently affirm the positive influence of the two contrasting
factors at the social level on product design. Yet, it remains uncertain whether this
relationship holds for wearable devices, a direction that could be explored in future research.
Regarding the social level, the research could delve into the correlation between aesthetic
preferences for wearable devices and individuals' social needs, group identity, and
sociocultural factors. For instance, studies could investigate potential variations in the
aesthetic preferences of distinct user groups for wearable devices and how personal identities
and cultural inclinations find expression through a device's external design and symbolic
elements.
6. Aesthetic Research of Wearable Devices
With the ongoing evolution of the wearable device market, both high-end brands and
low-end enterprises have invested considerable resources and effort in the wearable market,
aiming to capture consumers' attention. Given that consumers are the primary recipients of
these products, understanding consumer preferences has consistently remained a central
concern for wearable device designers. In today's market, the array of wearable devices is
extensive, and consumer expectations for products have expanded beyond mere
functionality to encompass design alignment with their personal aesthetics. Design factors
are pivotal in determining a product's hedonic appeal and significantly influence the adoption
of wearable devices (Krey et al., 2019; Sohn & Kwon, 2020). Notably, visual design serves as
the initial gateway through which consumers rapidly perceive the beauty of wearable
products, thus playing an indispensable role in attracting consumers and driving purchase
decisions. In the upcoming sections, we will meticulously examine pertinent literature on the
aesthetics of wearable devices within visual design, categorizing our review into three levels:
perceptual, cognitive, and social.
6.1Perceptual aspects

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ACADEMIC RESEARCH IN BUSINESS AND SOCIAL SCIENCES
Vol. 13 , No. 11, 2023, E-ISSN: 2222-6990 © 2023
294
At the perceptual level, researchers are concerned with how wearable device design
attributes influence users' aesthetic preferences. Chuah et al. (2016) investigated the
potential drivers behind consumers' choices of wearable devices. They affirmed that
perceived usefulness and visibility are significant factors influenced by consumers'
preferences, as demonstrated by the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM). This study
validates that consumers evaluate wearable devices along two dimensions: technology and
fashion, highlighting the equal importance of design alongside technology (Chuah et al.,
2016).
Chunyan and Hu (2015) examined general design patterns of intelligent clothing and
identified four core design elements in wearable devices: technology, material, structural
model, and color. Notably, color plays a role in influencing visual perception of product
aesthetics. Color psychology can be strategically employed in wearable device design to
convey design intentions accurately (Adapa et al., 2018). A later study by Muller and Klerk
(2020) confirmed this effect of color. This study found that consumers perceive design
aesthetics through the shape, color, and style of exterior design, using these cues to assess
the devices' attractiveness. Branded wearable devices showcasing specific design aesthetics
bolster consumers' purchasing inclination (Muller & Klerk, 2020). In subsequent studies,
design aesthetics has also proved its essential position in wearable devices.
Wang and Hsu's (2020) exploration of smartwatch interface design further affirms the
critical role of design aesthetics in wearable devices. Their study delved into the interaction
effects of screen shapes (square and circular), symmetry, and interface complexity. The
aesthetic attributes of interface design (symmetry-asymmetry, complex-simple, square and
round) influence users' emotional responses, subsequently shaping user preferences and
purchase decisions (Wang & Hsu, 2020). Since symmetry aligns with the Gestalt laws,
contributing to the unity aspect of the perceptual level, it validates the notion that unity
profoundly influences the aesthetic preference of wearable devices.
Similarly, another study investigated the design aesthetics of smartwatches, assessing
the impact of design aesthetics as a critical non-functional hedonic consumption factor on
perceived product value (Lee, 2020). The findings underscored that design aesthetics
substantially affect wearable technology's practical and hedonic value (Lee, 2020). This
highlights the profound emotional effect of design aesthetics on consumers, solidifying that
wearable device design and functionality hold equivalent significance for consumers during
purchase decisions (Perry et al., 2017).
Through reviewing aesthetic research in the wearable device perception field, we find
that there needs to be a specific study focusing on the influence of the balanced relationship
between unity and diversity on the aesthetic preference of wearable devices. Under the UMA
model, the interaction between opposing factors at the perceptual level necessitates further
exploration within wearable devices.
6.2 Cognitive aspects
At the cognitive level of wearable device design, research centers on the interplay
between product typicality and novelty. Lee (2021) investigated how visual typicality, a crucial
cognitive factor for wearable devices, influences consumers' purchase decisions. In this
specific study, Lee (2021) utilized four psychological factors—effort expectation, performance
expectation, social influence, and enjoyment—to gauge whether visual typicality affects
consumers' smartwatch decisions. The study measured the visual typicality of wearable
devices by varying product colors to assess the extent of consumer preference. Results

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ACADEMIC RESEARCH IN BUSINESS AND SOCIAL SCIENCES
Vol. 13 , No. 11, 2023, E-ISSN: 2222-6990 © 2023
295
revealed that the perceived visual typicality of the smartwatch design negatively impacted
participants' purchase choices, significantly diminishing perceived performance and
enjoyment of the watch (Lee, 2021). This counterintuitive cognitive finding contrasts the idea
that more typical product designs are better liked. Possible factors for this discrepancy could
be attributed to the specific category of wearable devices, warranting further investigation,
or to the potential limitations of color as a measurement variable. Historical research
attempted to establish harmonious color preferences through experiments and data analysis,
yielding inconclusive results (Whitfield & Wiltshire, 1990).
Another study, employing a smartwatch stimulus, examined consumer purchase
intentions, using design, uniqueness, and screen size as determinants of aesthetic appeal
(Dehghani & Kim, 2019). Findings affirmed that design aesthetics significantly influence
consumers' intentions to purchase smartwatches, with screen size and uniqueness equally
impacting purchase intentions (Dehghani & Kim, 2019). In another study, uniqueness
emerged as a pivotal predictor of purchasing behavior (Choi & Kim, 2016). This underscores
consumers' pursuit of distinctiveness and novelty in smartwatch design, suggesting a
preference for novelty over typicality. A recent study incorporated traditional cultural
elements in smartwatches to determine consumers' preferences based on their familiarity
with the cultural elements. (Yang et al., 2021). The appropriate use and combination of
cultural elements in a product will increase consumers' goodwill and cultural identity towards
the product, which also provides a new design style direction for wearable devices.
These studies indicate that typicality and novelty have been evaluated as separate
variables to gauge consumer aesthetic preferences. However, whether these factors are
interdependent or opposing ends of a continuum remains uncertain and necessitates further
investigation. Moreover, striking a balance between typicality and novelty to satisfy varying
user groups' aesthetic preferences remains an avenue for future exploration.
6.3 Social aspects
At the societal level, there is limited research on the influence of wearable device
connectivity and autonomy on aesthetic preferences, and the relevant literature is relatively
sparse. Given the current popularity of mobile devices, wearable devices have the potential
to establish an identity for the wearer and display their affiliation with preferred social groups
(Aspers & Godart, 2013; Johnson et al., 2008). Similarly, individualistic wearable device
designs can make the wearer stand out within their social circle.
A study by Pateman et al. (2018) delved into wearable devices' profoundly personal
nature, aesthetics, and form factors to comprehend the role of aesthetics and
personalization. The research revealed that participants favored personalization, which could
potentially encourage manufacturers to incorporate this aspect in future product
development (Pateman et al., 2018). Such personalized designs can reflect participants'
cultural backgrounds and personal preferences, enabling them to differentiate themselves in
social interactions and embrace autonomy. This also highlights the positive impact autonomy
can have on wearable devices.
Ouverson et al. (2017) conducted a study investigating the connection between
aesthetic factors and the social acceptability of wearable devices. The research indicated that
aesthetics and social acceptability are related, although not synonymous. The study examined
Bluetooth headsets, smartwatches, and Bluetooth glasses as wearable stimuli and found
subtlety to be the most critical aesthetic consideration (Ouverson et al., 2017). It's important
to note that aesthetic appeal cannot wholly alleviate social concerns and apprehensions tied

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ACADEMIC RESEARCH IN BUSINESS AND SOCIAL SCIENCES
Vol. 13 , No. 11, 2023, E-ISSN: 2222-6990 © 2023
296
to wearable devices. Although the relationship between aesthetics and social aspects might
not be as direct as anticipated, a connection still exists.
In the next phase, the social dimension of the UMA framework can be further explored
in wearable device aesthetics research. To comprehensively analyze this domain, in-depth
investigations are required, spanning various cultural contexts and social settings.
7. Discussions
Reviewing the literature reveals that current aesthetic research on the UMA model
predominantly concentrates on a single level, whether perceptual, cognitive, or social. These
studies investigate the impact of selecting a specific level of opposing factors or focusing on
a single aspect of aesthetic preferences. There needs to be more studies examining wearable
devices through the lens of the UMA theoretical framework, and a comprehensive
exploration of the alignment of multi-level factors is lacking. Future research has the potential
to delve into the intricate interplay between various factors spanning different levels. This
research could shed light on the aesthetics of wearable devices by simultaneously considering
all three levels – perceptual, cognitive, and social. Such an approach would provide a more
comprehensive understanding of users' aesthetic preferences for wearable devices.
Most participants in previous studies on the UMA model have been from Western
populations (Blijlevens & Hekkert, 2014; Post et al., 2016; Post et al., 2014, August; Tyagi,
2017; Yahaya, 2017). However, there is a notable absence of relevant investigations into the
aesthetic preferences of individuals from Eastern cultures. Recognizing that disparities
between Eastern and Western cultures can lead to aesthetic variations is essential.
Additionally, considering the attributes of individual users, such as gender, age, and cultural
background, could influence aesthetic preferences. Future research can delve into the
relationship between user characteristics and aesthetic preferences. This exploration could
provide insight into various user groups' distinctive aesthetic inclinations and requirements.
Ultimately, this understanding could guide the development of tailored wearable devices.
Numerous studies have revealed that aesthetics holds an equivalent significance to
functionality and technology in wearable devices, prompting an emergence of research into
the aesthetics of these devices. This aesthetic inquiry centers on wearable devices' design
aspects and user experience. However, there is a growing need for parallel research exploring
how product aesthetic design influences user acceptance and satisfaction in real-world
scenarios. In the coming times, further research should be directed towards substantiating
the impact of aesthetic design in practical contexts. This could be achieved through user
testing, evaluations of user experience, and other relevant methodologies.
8. Conclusion
This paper comprehensively reviews aesthetic research concerning wearable devices
and the Unified Model of Aesthetics (UMA). It delves into the UMA model's concept and
examines the correlation between opposing factors at different levels and aesthetic
preferences. The review found that the current relevant research on the UMA model only
focuses on aesthetic research at a single level, and there is a lack of pertinent literature on
simultaneous analysis on three levels. Although current research has yielded specific insights,
we still need more clarification and in-depth attention to the interactions between various
factors at different levels. Notably, this review uniquely concentrates on the aesthetics of
wearable devices, which have gained popularity among consumers in recent times.
Furthermore, it undertakes the novel endeavor of integrating these stimuli into the UMA

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ACADEMIC RESEARCH IN BUSINESS AND SOCIAL SCIENCES
Vol. 13 , No. 11, 2023, E-ISSN: 2222-6990 © 2023
297
aesthetic model, a previously unexplored avenue. Discover the aesthetics of wearable devices
by considering all three levels (perceptual, cognitive, and social) simultaneously. Future
research could delve into various factors, user characteristics, practical applications, and
more to deeply probe the core of wearable device aesthetics. This could offer helpful
guidance and inspiration for future product design and user experiences.
9. Acknowledgments
This research is part of the first author's doctoral research at the Faculty of Design and
Architecture, Universiti Putra Malaysia. This content was presented at the 2022 International
Design and Architecture Postgraduate Colloquium (IDAPC2022) Conference organized by
Universiti Putra Malaysia in Kuala Lumpur on 2 August 2022.
Disclosure statement
There are no relevant financial or non-financial competing interests to report.
Reference
Adapa, A., Nah, F. F.-H., Hall, R. H., Siau, K., & Smith, S. N. (2018). Factors influencing the
adoption of smart wearable devices. International Journal of Human–Computer
Interaction, 34(5), 399-409.
Alcaide-Marzal, J., Diego-Mas, J. A., & Acosta-Zazueta, G. (2020). A 3D shape generative
method for aesthetic product design. Design Studies, 66, 144-176.
Aroganam, G., Manivannan, N., & Harrison, D. (2019). Review on wearable technology sensors
used in consumer sport applications. Sensors, 19(9), 1983.
Aspers, P., & Godart, F. (2013). Sociology of fashion: Order and change. Annual Review of
Sociology, 39, 171-192.
Axelrod, R., & Hamilton, W. D. (1981). The evolution of cooperation. Science, 211(4489), 1390-
1396.
Bar, M., & Neta, M. (2006). Humans prefer curved visual objects. Psychological science, 17(8),
645-648.
Baskerville, R. L., Kaul, M., & Storey, V. C. (2018). Aesthetics in design science research.
European Journal of Information Systems, 27(2), 140-153.
Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (2017). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal
attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Interpersonal development, 57-89.
Belk, R. W. (1988). Possessions and the extended self. Journal of Consumer Research, 15(2),
139-168.
Berghman, M., & Hekkert, P. (2017). Towards a unified model of aesthetic pleasure in design.
New Ideas in Psychology, 47, 136-144.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.newideapsych.2017.03.004
Berlyne, D. E. (1960). Conflict, arousal, and curiosity [doi:10.1037/11164-000]. McGraw-Hill
Book Company. https://doi.org/10.1037/11164-000
Berlyne, D. E. (1966). Curiosity and Exploration: Animals spend much of their time seeking
stimuli whose significance raises problems for psychology. Science, 153(3731), 25-33.
Berlyne, D. E. (1970). Novelty, complexity, and hedonic value. Perception & psychophysics,
8(5), 279-286.
Berlyne, D. E. (1971). Aesthetics and Psychobiology, New York: Appleton Century
Crofts.

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ACADEMIC RESEARCH IN BUSINESS AND SOCIAL SCIENCES
Vol. 13 , No. 11, 2023, E-ISSN: 2222-6990 © 2023
298
Berlyne, D. E. (1972). Uniformity in variety: Extension to three-element visual patterns and
non-verbal measures. Canadian Journal of Psychology / Revue canadienne de
psychologie, 26, 277-291. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0082436
Berlyne, D. E. (1974). Studies in the new experimental aesthetics: Steps toward an objective
psychology of aesthetic appreciation. Hemisphere.
Berlyne, D. E., & Boudewijns, W. J. (1971). Hedonic effects of uniformity in variety. Canadian
Journal of Psychology / Revue canadienne de psychologie, 25, 195-206.
https://doi.org/10.1037/h0082381
Bettels, J., & Wiedmann, K.-P. (2019). Brand logo symmetry and product design: The spillover
effects on consumer inferences. Journal of Business Research, 97, 1-9.
Bettencourt, B., & Sheldon, K. (2001). Social roles as mechanism for psychological need
satisfaction within social groups. Journal of personality and social psychology, 81(6),
1131.
Biederman, I., & Vessel, E. A. (2006). Perceptual pleasure and the brain: A novel theory
explains why the brain craves information and seeks it through the senses. American
scientist, 94(3), 247-253.
Blijlevens, J., & Hekkert, P. P. M. (2014). Influence of social connectedness and autonomy on
aesthetic pleasure for product designs. Proceedings of the 23rd Biennial Congress of
the International Association of Empirical Aesthetics, 22-24 augustus 2014, New York,
USA., IAEA.
Blijlevens, J., & Hekkert, P. P. M. (2015). " Autonomous, yet connected": A social design
principle explaining consumers' aesthetic appreciation of products. 2015 academy of
marketing conference-the magic in marketing (pp. 1-8). The Academy of Marketing.
Brattico, E., Brattico, P., & Jacobsen, T. (2009). The origins of the aesthetic enjoyment of music
— A review of the literature. Musicae Scientiae, 13(2_suppl), 15-39.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1029864909013002031
Brewer. (1991). The social self: On being the same and different at the same time. Personality
and social psychology bulletin, 17(5), 475-482.
Burnap, A., Hauser, J. R., & Timoshenko, A. (2021). Design and evaluation of product
aesthetics: A human-machine hybrid approach. Available at SSRN 3421771.
Ceballos, L. M., Hodges, N. N., & Watchravesringkan, K. (2019). The MAYA principle as applied
to apparel products: The effects of typicality and novelty on aesthetic preference.
Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management: An International Journal.
Ching, K. W., & Singh, M. M. (2016). Wearable Technology Devices Security and Privacy
Vulnerability Analysis. International Journal of Network Security & Its Applications,
8(3), 19-30. https://doi.org/10.5121/ijnsa.2016.8302
Choi, J., & Kim, S. (2016). Is the smartwatch an IT product or a fashion product? A study on
factors affecting the intention to use smartwatches. Computers in Human Behavior,
63, 777-786.
Chow, H.-W., & Yang, C.-C. (2020). Accuracy of optical heart rate sensing technology in
wearable fitness trackers for young and older adults: Validation and comparison study.
JMIR mHealth and uHealth, 8(4), e14707.
Christensen, B. T., Kristensen, T., & Reber, R. (2015). Contributions of consumer-perceived
creativity and beauty to willingness-to-pay for design products. International Journal
of Design Creativity and Innovation, 3(3-4), 164-176.

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ACADEMIC RESEARCH IN BUSINESS AND SOCIAL SCIENCES
Vol. 13 , No. 11, 2023, E-ISSN: 2222-6990 © 2023
299
Chuah, S. H. W., Rauschnabel, P. A., Krey, N., Nguyen, B., Ramayah, T., & Lade, S. (2016).
Wearable technologies: The role of usefulness and visibility in smartwatch adoption.
Computers in Human Behavior, 65, 276-284.
Chunyan, Q., & Hu, Y. (2015). The review of smart clothing design research based on the
concept of 3F+ 1I. International Journal of Business and Social Science, 6(1).
Cupchik, G. C., Spiegel, S., & Shereck, L. (1996). Unity in the diversity of aesthetic response.
Visual Arts Research, 1-10.
Darwin, C. (1859). The origin of species by means of natural selection (Vol. 247, p. 1859). EA
Weeks.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The" what" and" why" of goal pursuits: Human needs and
the self-determination of behavior. Psychological inquiry, 11(4), 227-268.
Dehghani, M., & Kim, K. J. (2019). The effects of design, size, and uniqueness of smartwatches:
perspectives from current versus potential users. Behaviour & Information
Technology, 38(11), 1143-1153.
Dittmar, H. (1992). The social psychology of material possessions: To have is to be. Palgrave
MacMillan.
Eskenazi, A., Maneva, N., & Ivanova, K. (2021). Computer Science Research—Unity in Variety.
In Research in Computer Science in the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences (pp. 7-22).
Springer.
Eysenck, H. J. (1942). The experimental study of the'good Gestalt'—a new approach.
Psychological Review, 49(4), 344.
Eysenck, H. J. (1968). An Experimental Study of Aesthetic Preference for Polygonal Figures.
The Journal of General Psychology, 79(1), 3-17.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00221309.1968.9710447
Fechner, G. T. (1876). Preschool of aesthetics. Breitkopf & Härtel, Leipzig.
Freitas, A. L., Azizian, A., Travers, S., & Berry, S. A. (2005). The evaluative connotation of
processing fluency: Inherently positive or moderated by motivational context? Journal
of experimental social psychology, 41(6), 636-644.
Graham, L. (2008). Gestalt theory in interactive media design. Journal of Humanities & Social
Sciences, 2(1).
Guo, F., Li, M., Hu, M., Li, F., & Lin, B. (2019). Distinguishing and quantifying the visual
aesthetics of a product: an integrated approach of eye-tracking and EEG. International
Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 71, 47-56.
Hekkert, P. (2006). Design aesthetics: principles of pleasure in design. Psychology science,
48(2), 157.
Hekkert, P. (2014). Aesthetic responses todesign: a battle of impulses. In The Cambridge
Handbook of the Psychology of Aesthetics and the Arts (pp. 277-299).
https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9781139207058.015
Hekkert, P., & Leder, H. (2008). Product aesthetics. Product experience, 259-285.
Hekkert, P., Snelders, D., & Van Wieringen, P. C. (2003). ‘Most advanced, yet acceptable’:
Typicality and novelty as joint predictors of aesthetic preference in industrial design. .
British journal of Psychology.
Hekkert, P., & Van Wieringen, P. C. W. (1990). Complexity and prototypicality as determinants
of the appraisal of cubist paintings [https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-
8295.1990.tb02374.x]. British journal of Psychology, 81(4), 483-495.
https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8295.1990.tb02374.x

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ACADEMIC RESEARCH IN BUSINESS AND SOCIAL SCIENCES
Vol. 13 , No. 11, 2023, E-ISSN: 2222-6990 © 2023
300
Hsu, F. R., Kuo, Y.-H., Wei, S.-Y., Hsieh, Y.-H., & Nguyen, D. C. (2019). A study of user interface
with wearable devices based on computer vision. IEEE Consumer Electronics
Magazine, 9(1), 43-48.
Hung, W. K., & Chen, L. L. (2012). Effects of novelty and its dimensions on aesthetic preference
in product design. International Journal of Design, 6(2), 81-90.
Iftikhar, H., Shah, P., & Luximon, Y. (2019). Exploring the balance between utilitarian and
hedonic values of wearable products. International Conference on Applied Human
Factors and Ergonomics,
Johnson, K. K., Yoo, J.-J., Kim, M., & Lennon, S. J. (2008). Dress and human behavior: A review
and critique. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 26(1), 3-22.
Kahn, B. E. (1995). Consumer variety-seeking among goods and services: An integrative
review. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 2(3), 139-148.
https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/0969-6989(95)00038-0
Keum, K., Kim, J. W., Hong, S. Y., Son, J. G., Lee, S. S., & Ha, J. S. (2020). Flexible/stretchable
supercapacitors with novel functionality for wearable electronics. Advanced
Materials, 32(51), 2002180.
Kim, N. (2006). A history of design theory in art education. Journal of Aesthetic Education,
40(2), 12-28.
Kleine III, R. E., Kleine, S. S., & Kernan, J. B. (1993). Mundane consumption and the self: A
social‐identity perspective. Journal of consumer psychology, 2(3), 209-235.
Koo, S., & Chae, Y. (2022). Wearable Technology in Fashion. In Leading Edge Technologies in
Fashion Innovation: Product Design and Development Process from Materials to the
End Products to Consumers (pp. 35-57). Springer.
Krey, N., Chuah, S. H.-W., Ramayah, T., & Rauschnabel, P. A. (2019). How functional and
emotional ads drive smartwatch adoption: The moderating role of consumer
innovativeness and extraversion. Internet Research.
Kumar, M., & Garg, N. (2010). Aesthetic principles and cognitive emotion appraisals: How
much of the beauty lies in the eye of the beholder? Journal of consumer psychology,
20(4), 485-494.
Leder, H., & Carbon, C.-C. (2005). Dimensions in appreciation of car interior design. Applied
Cognitive Psychology, 19(5), 603-618. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.1088
Lee, E.-J. (2020). Gender influence in the effect of design aesthetics on perceived product
value of wearables. International Journal of Advanced Culture Technology (IJACT), 8(2),
129-138.
Lee, E. J. (2021). Impact of visual typicality on the adoption of wearables. Journal of Consumer
Behaviour, 20(3), 762-775.
Lee, L.-H., & Hui, P. (2018). Interaction methods for smart glasses: A survey. IEEE access, 6,
28712-28732.
Lin, K.-Y., Chien, C.-F., & Kerh, R. (2016). UNISON framework of data-driven innovation for
extracting user experience of product design of wearable devices. Computers &
Industrial Engineering, 99, 487-502.
Lindemann-Matthies, P., & Marty, T. (2013). Does ecological gardening increase species
richness and aesthetic quality of a garden? Biological Conservation, 159, 37-44.
https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2012.12.011
Liu, F., Zhu, Z., Chen, H., & Li, X. (2020). Beauty in the eyes of its beholders: Effects of design
novelty on consumer preference. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 53.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2019.101969

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ACADEMIC RESEARCH IN BUSINESS AND SOCIAL SCIENCES
Vol. 13 , No. 11, 2023, E-ISSN: 2222-6990 © 2023
301
Logkizidou, M. (2021). The neglected unity-in-variety principle: A holistic rather than a single-
factor approach in conceptualising a visual merchandise display. Journal of Global
Fashion Marketing, 12(4), 309-326. https://doi.org/10.1080/20932685.2021.1930097
Loken, B., & Ward, J. (1990). Alternative approaches to understanding the determinants of
typicality. Journal of Consumer Research, 17(2), 111-126.
Loos, S., Wolk, S. v. d., Graaf, N. d., Hekkert, P., & Wu, J. (2022). Towards intentional aesthetics
within topology optimization by applying the principle of unity-in-variety. Structural
and Multidisciplinary Optimization, 65(7), 185.
Lynn, M., & Harris, J. (1997). Individual differences in the pursuit of self‐uniqueness through
consumption. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 27(21), 1861-1883.
Malt, B. C., & Smith, E. E. (1982). The role of familiarity in determining typicality. Memory &
Cognition, 10(1), 69-75.
Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion,
and motivation. Psychological Review, 98(2), 224.
Mehrabadi, M. A., Azimi, I., Sarhaddi, F., Axelin, A., Niela-Vilén, H., Myllyntausta, S., Stenholm,
S., Dutt, N., Liljeberg, P., & Rahmani, A. M. (2020). Sleep tracking of a commercially
available smart ring and smartwatch against medical-grade actigraphy in everyday
settings: instrument validation study. JMIR mHealth and uHealth, 8(11), e20465.
Mencarini, E., Rapp, A., Tirabeni, L., & Zancanaro, M. (2019). Designing wearable systems for
sports: a review of trends and opportunities in human–computer interaction. IEEE
Transactions on Human-Machine Systems, 49(4), 314-325.
Moore, K. M. (1986). Perceptual Determinants of Aesthetic Unity. Dissertation.
Mugge, R., & Schoormans, J. P. L. (2012). Newer is better! The influence of a novel appearance
on the perceived performance quality of products. Journal of Engineering Design,
23(6), 469-484. https://doi.org/10.1080/09544828.2011.618802
Muller, C., & Klerk, N. D. (2020). Influence of Design Aesthetics and Brand Name On
Generation Y Students’ Intention to Use Wearable Activity-Tracking Devices.
International Journal of eBusiness and eGovernment Studies, 12(2), 107-121.
https://doi.org/10.34111/ijebeg.202012202
Nadal, M., Munar, E., Marty, G., & Cela-Conde, C. J. (2010). Visual Complexity and Beauty
Appreciation: Explaining the Divergence of Results. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 28(2),
173-191. https://doi.org/10.2190/EM.28.2.d
O’Neal, G., Fiore, A., & Kimle, P. (1997). African-American aesthetics of dress. Understanding
aesthetics for the merchandising and design professional, 108-109.
Ouverson, K., Kelly, N., & Gilbert, S. B. (2017). Fashion and technology: Implications for the
social acceptability of a wearable device. Human-Computer Interaction. User Interface
Design, Development and Multimodality: 19th International Conference, HCI
International 2017, Vancouver, BC, Canada, July 9-14, 2017, Proceedings, Part I 19,
Pateman, M., Harrison, D., Marshall, P., & Cecchinato, M. E. (2018). The role of aesthetics and
design: wearables in situ. Extended Abstracts of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human
Factors in Computing Systems,
Peake, J. M., Kerr, G., & Sullivan, J. P. (2018). A Critical Review of Consumer Wearables, Mobile
Applications, and Equipment for Providing Biofeedback, Monitoring Stress, and Sleep
in Physically Active Populations. Front Physiol, 9, 743.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fphys.2018.00743

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ACADEMIC RESEARCH IN BUSINESS AND SOCIAL SCIENCES
Vol. 13 , No. 11, 2023, E-ISSN: 2222-6990 © 2023
302
Perry, A. (2018). Exploring from creators’ perspectives issues and solutions about knowledge,
difficulties, and disposal in making smart clothing designs. International Journal of
Fashion Design, Technology and Education, 11(1), 129-137.
Perry, A., Malinin, L., Sanders, E., Li, Y., & Leigh, K. (2017). Explore consumer needs and design
purposes of smart clothing from designers’ perspectives. International Journal of
Fashion Design, Technology and Education, 10(3), 372-380.
Person, O., & Snelders, D. (2011). Initial findings on design and product category expertise in
aesthetic evaluation. Nordes, (4).
Post, R., Nguyen, T., & Hekkert, P. (2017). Unity in Variety in website aesthetics: A systematic
inquiry. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 103, 48-62.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2017.02.003
Post, R. A., 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
Psychol (Amst), 163, 142-152. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2015.11.013
Post, R. A. G., Blijlevens, J., & Hekkert, P. (2013, August). The influence of unity-in-variety on
aesthetic appreciation of car interiors. Consilience and innovation in design:
proceedings of the 5th international congress of international association of societies
of design research. Tokyo: Shibaura Institute of Technology, (pp. 1-6).
Post, R. A. G., Blijlevens, J., & Hekkert, P. (2014, August). Aesthetic appreciation of tactile
unity-in-variety in product designs. 23rd Biennial Congress of the international
association of empirical aesthetics, (pp. 358-360).
Ramachandran, V. S., & Hirstein, W. (1999). The science of art: A neurological theory of
aesthetic experience. ournal of consciousness Studies, 6(6-7), 15-51.
Reber, R., Schwarz, N., & Winkielman, P. (2004). Processing fluency and aesthetic pleasure: Is
beauty in the perceiver's processing experience? Personality and social psychology
review, 8(4), 364-382.
Richerson, P. J., & Boyd, R. (2008). Not by genes alone: How culture transformed human
evolution. University of Chicago press.
Rosch. (1978). Cognition and categorization.
Schüll, N. D. (2016). Data for life: Wearable technology and the design of self-care.
BioSocieties, 11(3), 317-333. https://doi.org/10.1057/biosoc.2015.47
Silvera, D. H., Josephs, R. A., & Giesler, R. B. (2002). Bigger is better: The influence of physical
size on aesthetic preference judgments. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 15(3),
189-202.
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.
Sohn, K., & Kwon, O. (2020). Technology acceptance theories and factors influencing artificial
Intelligence-based intelligent products. Telematics and Informatics, 47, 101324.
Suhaimi, S. N. (2021). Investigating the Significance of Typicality and Novelty in the Aesthetic
Preference of Industrial Products.
Suhaimi, S. N., Kuys, B., Barron, D., Li, N., Rahman, Z., & Whitfield, A. (2023). Probing the
extremes of aesthetics: The role of typicality and novelty in the aesthetic preference
of industrial boilers. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 41(1), 216-230.
Talke, K., Müller, S., & Wieringa, J. E. (2017). A matter of perspective: Design newness and its
performance effects. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 34(2), 399-413.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijresmar.2017.01.001

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ACADEMIC RESEARCH IN BUSINESS AND SOCIAL SCIENCES
Vol. 13 , No. 11, 2023, E-ISSN: 2222-6990 © 2023
303
Tan, S.-L., & Spackman, M. P. (2005). Listeners’ judgments of the musical unity of structurally
altered and intact musical compositions. Psychology of Music, 33(2), 133-153.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0305735605050648
Tehrani, K., & Michael, A. (2014). Wearable technology and wearable devices: Everything you
need to know. Wearable Devices Magazine, 26.
Thurgood, C., Hekkert, P., & Blijlevens, J. (2014, January). The Joint Effect of Typicality and
Novelty on Aesthetic Pleasure for Product
Designs: Influences of Safety and Risk. Congress of the International Association of Empirical
Aesthetics.
Toufani, S., Stanton, J. P., & Chikweche, T. (2017). The importance of aesthetics on customers’
intentions to purchase smartphones. Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 35(3), 316-
338.
Truong, Y., Klink, R. R., Fort‐Rioche, L., & Athaide, G. A. (2014). Consumer response to product
form in technology‐based industries. Journal of Product Innovation Management,
31(4), 867-876.
Tyagi, S. (2017). The influence of individual elements on the aesthetic pleasure of furniture
designs.
Tyagi, S., Thurgood, C., & Whitfield, T. A. (2013). Unravelling Novelty. Consilience and
Innovation in Design: Proc of the 5th IASDR Conf. Tokyo.
Veryzer, J. Robert W., & Hutchinson, J. W. (1998). The Influence of Unity and Prototypicality
on Aesthetic Responses to New Product Designs. Journal of Consumer Research, 24(4),
374-385. https://doi.org/10.1086/209516
Wagemans, J., Elder, J. H., Kubovy, M., Palmer, S. E., Peterson, M. A., Singh, M., & von der
Heydt, R. (2012). A century of Gestalt psychology in visual perception: I. Perceptual
grouping and figure-ground organization. Psychol Bull, 138(6), 1172-1217.
https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029333
Wang, J., & Hsu, Y. (2020). The relationship of symmetry, complexity, and shape in mobile
interface aesthetics, from an emotional perspective—A case study of the smartwatch.
Symmetry, 12(9), 1403.
Whitfield, T. W., & Wiltshire, T. J. (1990). Color psychology: A critical review. Genetic, Social,
and General Psychology Monographs, 116, 385-411.
Whitfield, T. W. A. (1983). Predicting preference for familiar, everyday objects: An
experimental confrontation between two theories of aesthetic behaviour. Journal of
Environmental Psychology, 3(3), 221-237.
https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/S0272-4944(83)80002-4
Whitfield, T. W. A., & Slatter, P. E. (1979). The effects of categorization and prototypicality on
aesthetic choice in a furniture selection task [https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-
8295.1979.tb02144.x]. British journal of Psychology, 70(1), 65-75.
https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8295.1979.tb02144.x
Woodburn, M., Paul, D. L., Addink, W., Baskauf, S. J., Blum, S., Chapman, C., Grant, S., Groom,
Q., Jones, J., & Petersen, M. (2020). Unity in Variety: Developing a collection
description standard by consensus. Biodiversity Information Science and Standards, 4,
e59233.
Workman, J. E., & Caldwell, L. F. (2007). Centrality of visual product aesthetics, tactile and
uniqueness needs of fashion consumers. International Journal of consumer studies,
31(6), 589-596.

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ACADEMIC RESEARCH IN BUSINESS AND SOCIAL SCIENCES
Vol. 13 , No. 11, 2023, E-ISSN: 2222-6990 © 2023
304
Wu, P.-H., & Kao, D. T. (2011). Goal orientation and variety seeking behavior: The role of
decision task. Journal of Economic Psychology, 32(1), 65-72.
https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joep.2010.11.005
Xue, J. (2019). An investigation into the effects of product design on incremental and radical
innovations from the perspective of consumer perceptions: evidence from China.
Creativity and innovation management, 28(4), 501-518.
Yahaya, M. F. (2017). Investigating typicality and novelty through visual and tactile stimuli.
(Doctoral dissertation, Swinburne University of Technology, Melbourne).
Yang, Z., Yahaya, M. F., Ishak, S. M. M., & Qiao, Y. (2021). MAKING TRADITIONAL TRENDING:
THE STUDY ON FAMILIARITY AND LIKINGS IN PROMOTING CULTURAL AWARENESS.
International Journal on Sustainable Tropical Design Research & Practice, 14(2).
Yoo, J., & Kim, M. (2014). The effects of home page design on consumer responses:
Moderating role of centrality of visual product aesthetics. Computers in Human
Behavior, 38, 240-247.