Integrating affective values to sustainable behaviour focused on Kansei engineering

Figures & data

Figure 1. A model of Kansei showing how individuals modify their subjective innate filter, suggested by Kim et al. (2012).

Figure 2. Stimuli attributions and expected results.

Figure 3. The question of the present study.

Figure 4. The scope of the present study.

Figure 5. Experimental flow.

Figure 6. The type of used stimuli.

Figure 7. (a) Item screening flow, (b) Item screening by each subject.

Figure 8. Stimuli reconciliation process 1.

Figure 9. Stimuli reconciliation process 2.

Figure 10. Stimuli reconciliation process 3.

Figure 11. Product evaluation.

Figure 12. Factor of car-front-face.

Figure 13. Factor of car-side.

Figure 14. Factor of car-multi-aspect.

Figure 15. Factor of car front and side.

Table 1. Evaluation values showed significant main effects in car-front-face images.

	Car body	Car headlights	Body × headlights
Aesthetic	p < .0001	p = .004	p = .7633
Pleasure	p < .0001	p = .0004	p = 1.0000
Preference	s	s	n.s

Figure 16. Values show a significant effect.

Figure 17. Values show a significant effect.

Figure 18. Values show a significant effect.

Figure 19. Values show a significant effect.

Figure 20. Tendency of Uninominal Reality Sets.

Figure 21. Tendency of Binominal Reality Sets.

Table 2. Evaluation values showed significant main effects in car-side images.

	Car body	Car wheels	Body × wheels
Aesthetic	p < .0001	p = .0289	p = .2893
Pleasure	p < .0001	p = .0011	p = .3002
Preference	s	s	n.s

Table 3. Evaluation values showed significant main effects in car-multi-aspect images.

	Car body	Headlights and wheels	Body × headlights and wheels
Aesthetic	p < .0001	p = .0564	p = .6392
Pleasure	p < .0001	p = .0203	p = .6595
Preference	s	s	n.s

Table 4. Evaluation values showed significant main effects in car front and side images.

	Car front	Car side	Front × car side
Aesthetic	p = .0013	p = .0002	p = .0018
Pleasure	p < .0001	p < .0001	p = .0526
Preference	s	s	n.s

Table 5. Correlation between the attributes of factors and reconciliated images in the evaluation values in Uninominal Reality Sets.

Uninominal Reality Sets
Factors of images reflecting Subjective Preference			Results of product evaluation
Factor 1 (body)		Factor 2 (headlights, wheels, headlights & wheels)	Combination of factor 1 & 2
Preferred	?	Preferred	Most preferred (balanced, pleasant)
Preferred	?	Non-preferred	Further more preferred (balanced, pleasant) than non-preferred body and preferred headlights
Non-preferred	?	Preferred	More preferred (balanced, pleasant) than a combination of non-preferred body and headlights
Non-preferred	?	Non-preferred	Non-preferred (balanced, pleasant)

Table 6. Correlation between the attributes of factors and reconciliated images in the evaluation values in Binominal Reality Sets.

Binominal Reality Sets
Factors of images reflecting Subjective Preference			Results of product evaluation
Factor 1 (front)		Factor 2 (side)	Combination of factor 1 & 2
Preferred	?	Preferred	Preferred (balanced, pleasant)
Preferred	?	Non-preferred	Non-preferred (balanced, pleasant)
Non-preferred	?	Preferred	Non-preferred (balanced, pleasant)
Non-preferred	?	Non-preferred	Non-preferred (balanced, pleasant)

Table 7. Assumption in the relationship between factors and reconciliated images in Uninominal Reality Sets.

Table 8. Assumption in the relationship between factors and reconciliated images in Binominal Reality Sets.

Kim, S. K., Y. I. Cho, K. Niki, and T. Yamanaka. 2012. “The Influence of Holistic View Impression in Product Evaluation by an Approach in Kansei.” In Proceedings of International Conference on Kansei Engineering and Emotion Research, 945–952.

 Google Scholar