Novelty and typicality: A different view to preference

The question of the visual preference is central to the cognitive aesthetics. As information-processing beings, why do we prefer certain images, scenes, objects and spaces over others? A valuable perspective is offered by Kaplan’s theory of environmental preference which suggest that preference is the result of information-processing potentials that an environment presents. A preferred environment is the one that is rich in information (complex) and at the same time well-ordered (coherent). But are there other cognitive factors influencing our preference of objects?

Steel House designed by Robert Bruno 

In the context of aesthetics, Hekkert, Snelders and van Wieringen have proposed another theory based on typicality and novelty of objects. The notion of typicality is adopted from the prototype theory in cognitive science which suggests that some objects are more central (prototypical) of the categories that they represent. For instance, robin is more prototypical of a bird than a penguin. Proposed by Rosch, this theory suggests that we categorize objects based on their similarity to this prototypical objects and not based on the sum of their features. Hekkert et al. researched the role of prototypicality in our preference of objects. Do we prefer objects that are more typical or the ones that present novelty? This question is especially relevant in the domain of design.

Any design project is based on a set of precedents and no one can “invent” radically new forms overnight. However, the question is the extent to which a designer should remain dependent on the previous forms and models. Does prototypicality or novelty of an object determine its popularity? Hekkert et al. studied this question in the context of industrial design. Their study shows that both perceived novelty or typicality of objects have a positive correlation with the preference. However, their study showed some variance on different products. For instance, participants had a higher preference for prototypical cars. If prototypicality and  novelty both positively influence preference of an object, how this two contradictory factors can be reconciled? I think we need to return to Kaplan’s theory of preference for understanding this contradiction. We can easily locate those objects in the network of representations. Prototypicality of an object helps us to read and understand its form and purpose based on our previous experience with that category. Novelty, however, invokes exploration for new information. A novel object is harder to categorize and as a result, it provides opportunities for receiving new information.

Robie House designed by Frank Lloyd Wright

The problem remains unsolved: how typical or novel a design should be? There is no definitive answer to this question and it is dependent on multiple factors including industry, context, and culture. Hekkert et al. suggest that people generally prefer novel objects as long as novelty does not affect typicality. However, the question must be addressed in specific context. When we are dealing with highly instrumental objects, typicality plays a major role in quick recognition and functionality of that object. Think about the world in which designers were free to pick any color or pattern for fire extinguishers. Results of such diversion from typicality in design could be fatal in case of emergency. Typicality (recognizability) of design is central to the functionality of fire extinguisher. However, in the context of artistic expression typicality is perceived negatively. Imagine theaters were always showing movies with the same plot. Probably after a while, everybody would stop going to movies. So, it is necessary for designers to understand the context of use of any object to decide on their approach towards design.

Reference

Hekkert, Paul, Dirk Snelders, and Piet CW Wieringen. "‘Most advanced, yet acceptable’: Typicality and novelty as joint predictors of aesthetic preference in industrial design." British journal of psychology 94.1 (2003): 111-124.

Kaplan, Stephen. "Aesthetics, affect, and cognition environmental preference from an evolutionary perspective." Environment and behavior 19.1 (1987): 3-32.