The International Journal of
Yeah, I Talk to My Car...So What?
Roles and Levels of Closeness in Person-product Relationship
RUBEN H. JACOB DAZAROLA AND MANUEL MARTÍNEZ TORÁN
the author(s) © 2013 (selection and editorial matter) Common Ground All rights reserved.com. For permissions and other inquiries.designprinciplesandpractices. USA by Common Ground Publishing LLC www. criticism or review as permitted under the applicable copyright legislation. research.THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF DESIGNED OBJECTS www. Illinois. The International Journal of Designed Objects is peer-reviewed. no part of this work may be reproduced by any process without written permission from the publisher. ensuring that only intellectual work of the greatest substance and highest significance is published.commongroundpublishing. supported by rigorous processes of criterionreferenced article ranking and qualitative commentary.com ISSN: 2325-1379 © 2013 (individual papers).com First published in 2013 in Champaign.
. please contact cg-support@commongroundpublishing. Apart from fair dealing for the purposes of study.
Product Emotions and Feelings. as if one is referring to a friend or family member. 2005). We live side by side with objects. ISSN 2325-1581 © Common Ground. I Talk to My Car.” Such statements assume the existence of real relationships with objects. Manuel Martínez Torán. his car comes to a griping stop making strange noises. 2003. at his desk.00 am. which allows the development of simple and understandable language for the different stakeholders in the process of product creation. meetings with relatives and friends. Norman. We expect fidelity and support that "don’t let us down. giving them character. and determine the types of relationships that they can generate with users. we define them in human terms. go. Sartre. where he keeps his working documents. Universidad Politécnica de Valencia. Universidad Politécnica de Valencia. Spain
Abstract: Often people refer to objects in similar terms as an interaction with people: “I love this object. for example. All Rights Reserved. we are part of a world of objects that bring positive and negative emotions in us (Desmet. John smiles and says "I knew you wouldn’t let me down!” This is the car where he received his first driving lessons. When he returns to the kitchen. he has also copied some pictures of friends and family there.designprinciplesandpractices. Akalis. Then John says: "Go. The application of this to the relationship that we have with the products allows us to classify them. and remembers that this piece of furniture has been in his house long before he can remember. This approach relates theories of design and psychology.So What?: Roles and Levels of Closeness in Person-product Relationship
Ruben H. He carries his breakfast to the table. coffee and toasts are ready. John wakes to the sound of the music on his radio alarm clock and gets out of bed. www.com
.” and “I have great affection for this product because we spend so much time together" are recurring phrases. Spain Manuel Martínez Torán. they crossed the country together. Product Design. Keywords: Person-product Relationships. similar to relationships established with people. 2004. and although it belongs to the company. a car that is kept for a long time can feel almost like a friend. he checks the time on his watch. We give names to some objects and sometimes we even talk to them. Then he goes to the bathroom and gets into the shower. Waytz.. John turns on his computer. close to the top of the hill. validating and even exceeding the concept of “product attachment” encountered in the design field research. in order to reach a proper understanding of what people expect from them. Jacob Dazarola. expectations and behaviors that we develop with the people with whom we interact. In the kitchen. 2002.
The International Journal of Designed Objects Volume 6. This evident similarity between the way that we interact with people and objects suggests the possibility of raising a framework. defined in this paper. John stops at the ATM he always uses since it is placed on its way and normally there are very few people using it. At that very own table he celebrated birthdays. On its way to work. Product Anthropomorphization. 1954) at the same time.Yeah. Permissions: cg-support@commongroundpublishing. etc. Kleine & Menzel Baker. Now the wood has darkened but the table remains strong. 2013. 1988. Then. Product Attachment. we interact with them. intentions and personalities (DiSalvo & Gemperle. e-mails. Jacob Dazarola. with focus on relationships. Emotional Design
. We also expect similar behavior from products as we expect from people with an "equivalent" degree of relationship. you can do it!" The car manages to reach the top and the engine returns to its normal sound. it has served as transportation and shelter and through the years it became John’s limousine and truck.com. Epley. On the way down the steep road that leads to the city. runs the coffee and puts two slices of bread in the toaster.. Christmas parties. In many ways the objects are the ones that define who we are and who we want to be (Belk. design and development. Ruben H.
tend to be a way to overcome lack of affection in relationships with people (Epley et al. 2008. where the rejection ratio is less likely (Lastovicka & Sirianni. 2007. In addition. 1981). Gao. but a relation in terms that transcend the physical or utilitarian interaction. which include alcohol abuse. On the other hand. In today's consumer culture it is common to try to meet social needs through the establishment of secure relationships. thereby he has different expectations of what each object should or can do for him. 2010. some of the main theories that explain both types of relationships and how they can be useful to the design practice by proposing a model based on the roles that the products meet in their relationship with people and the expectations that users generate based on these roles. For example. 2009. Shenk. These behaviors. Understanding the phenomenon of relationships with objects is persistent in current society one must distinguish then abnormal situations.THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF DESIGNED OBJECTS
& Cacioppo. Russo. In other words. he will replace it. 1995) and a common resource in contemporary society (Epley. Anthropology. Govers & Mugge. Frayer. Schifferstein & ZwartkruisPelgrim. 2004). with the concepts of product personality (Dumitrescu. while those who have strong ties with other people also have these bonds with certain material objects (Csikszentmihalyi & Rochberg-Halton. Guthrie. 2011. If the ATM does not work. John expects his car to accomplish some implied duties that are shown in a friend to friend relationship. 2004). Such lifelong cohabitation causes not only a constant coexistence with objects. Wetmore. Monteleone. Mugge. Feeling closer to some of them and more distant to others. & Cacioppo. Govers & Schoormans. he will feel betrayed because John considers his vehicle as a friend. others are a true friend (the car) or are seen just like a colleague (the computer). 2007. and the side effects of antidepressant medications”(Lastovicka & Sirianni. They may even contribute to consumer welfare. Frayer. It is necessary to establish that these significant affective relationships with products are not pathologies. 2010. 2010) and also Marketing. the latter focusing on the study of consumer-brand relationships rather than specific objects (Ball & Tasaki. the industrial design has generated few practical applications from the ideas. Despite the diversity of views with which these relations have been observed. affective and emotional way. 1992. we could notice the variety of relationships developed by John with the objects with which he interacts. such as trust and loyalty (Annis. In the short story at the beginning of this work. there are products that are practically a part of him (the watch). 1987.
. 1988. delinquency. 2007. If the toaster fails. The aim of this paper is to establish the type of relationships users have with the objects around them and how these relationships are remarkably similar to those developed among people. Ekerdt. & Zablotsky. Lastovicka & Sirianni. and use their scope for achieving greater wellbeing and development of nurturing relationships to users. 2005) and product attachment (Mugge. 2004). it is normal that individuals who reported not to be attached to material things also present a lack of enriching human relationships.
The phenomenon of the relationships established between people and their possessions have been extensively reviewed from the perspectives of disciplines such as Social Psychology. Kuwahara. 2010.. 2008. but if the car comes to a griping stop. others only fulfill a practical function at home (the toaster). when they are not extreme. framed in the Emotional Design research. 2011). Aristotle. John will look for another. “especially when considered relative to less desirable alternative responses to loneliness. Design (Belk. some have been part of his life (the table). John has a different relationship with each of these products. 2008) those with a greater development in the practice of discipline. in other words. 1999). 2011).
Equal pairings relationships are reciprocal. Neuberg. Kenrick. Finally. Eros. Bowlby's theory has been a key in the quest to explain the dynamics of relationships between people. Community exchanges relationships suggest that in certain aspects. 1982. Similarly. there is also a relational pursuit of profit and equity as in the exchange of consumer goods. Bowlby. the exchange theory applied to relationships (Homans. The notion of product attachment relates to the concept of attachment proposed by Bowlby (1982) on mother-child relationship and how it determines subsequent forms of adult relationships. passion and commitment. every feeling. Rubin.. by C. it cannot be directly converted into the other. 1977. extremely romantic. One of the first modern theories. However. Sternberg. and yet it is experienced different by a romantic partner or by members of a family. 2005). for examplemilitary relations. 2005). Caring. 1994. & Cialdini (2009) indicate that social behavior is driven by internal goals or motivations. without exclusivity or commitment and Storge. 1987) and these feelings can vary throughout life (Fingerman & Lang. But people may experience other feelings. 2004.
Is it Love. Ludus. also involving a change in mutual feelings. Friendship. focusing on the commonalities and distinguishing individual identities. nowadays there are other proposals: The so-called "social network theory" says that relations between people are not only about attachment. which are symbolically placed on the vertices of an equilateral triangle and from the combination of these. like maternal love. There are also symmetric and reciprocal relationships. I TALK TO MY CAR…SO WHAT?
Theories about Interpersonal Relationships
Many of the concepts associated with human-product relationships arise from other disciplines. If these three archetypes were colors and we combined them. Charity (Lewis. (Fiske & Haslam (1996) propose four broad categories according to the role that could be played by people in social relationships. 1960). and notices other significant relational figures in addition to mother figure (Takahashi. such as labor relations. as well as changing the role that people play in the lives of others. Nonetheless. like friendship or caring (Berscheid. they will generate three secondary colorations: Mania (Storge and Eros) possessive and obsessive love. Takahashi. all the varieties of love require mutual attraction(Annis. Sternberg (1987) presents a review of the theories about Love and Liking concluding that feelings are qualitatively different (Lee. 2000. proposes four main varieties: Affection. Sternberg (1987) uses similar categories and terms to propose the so-called triangular love theory. Friendship implies a kind of love. reviewed as a playful and permissive love. Friendship. with three main components. The ranking of authority relationships involve asymmetry. 1970. With a different approach. or colleagues become friends. and Pragma (Ludus and Storge) which corresponds to a love that consciously seeks in the other certain convenient characteristics for the relationship.e. 1987).S. Lee (1977) establishes three primary forms: Eros which corresponds to a romantic and passionate love. Agape (Eros and Ludus) giving. sacrifice and selfless. 1987) i. arise seven
. people look for mutual benefit in these relationships. people are fully equivalent. Liking. though similar in some aspects. Affection?
Love is one of the most studied issues in the context of interpersonal relations. Friends often become romantic partners. the price-market relationships are the typical exchange value. Simmel. "love-fellowship" similar to a friend based on affinity and long-term commitment. Levitt.
There are several theories to explain the phenomenon of love and similar feelings.JACOB DAZAROLA & MARTÍNEZ TORÁN: YEAH. 1958. Similarly. intimacy. 2002) states that. Lewis. are different in nature and although it intensity may fluctuate. Sternberg.
Fatuous love. which create emotional and physical union respectively. where commitment is based solely on the passion that is generated by the desire to be together. & Hekkert.
Relationships with Products
Product attachment can be defined as “the emotional bond that a consumer experiences with a special and significant object” (Govers & Mugge. where the three components are balanced. This name has been widely used from a psychological perspective (Epley et al. the most complete kind of love. A product can also be considered special because it represents affiliation with a group with common values and interests." Although the term personification is valid. in the narrative at beginning this work. It notes that in the first place.THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF DESIGNED OBJECTS
varieties of feelings: Affection. and Battarbee & Mattelmäki (2004) that define these products as “companions”. or among life partners with intimacy and commitment. The authoress points out the intrinsic qualities of product can encourage the attachment. but it can also be evaluated for its usefulness and functional attributes. the term anthropomorphism is more accurate. 2010). among them are the lack of control by the person on objects. this includes meanings related to the material properties of the object. where there is a deep bond with the other. if we assign to objects intentions. 2004). makes a request to it and then thanks it for “not failing him. Romantic love is composed by passion and intimacy. it is also possible to find studies that use the prism of Design. design or exclusivity. Love is considered a secondary concept. the protagonist speaks to his old car as if it were a person. Consummate love. It concludes that a product can be considered as if it were a living creature with human qualities. Another common motivation is to simplify complex technology by giving its own will in order to enable communication with it in human terms (Wetmore. Guthrie. the romantic and the fatuous love. Anthropomorphism is explained by several reasons. In this role the product gets its meaning from the personification (Review Mugge (2007) chapter two for more details). Frayer. 2008. often with a personal story of how they were acquired and how they have survived. as its style. the products may have cultural. there is no intimacy between the parties. 2008. 1995).
It’s Alive! Anthropomorphism and Design
The notion of considering appreciated objects as living creatures is studied by several authors. or varieties of it. spiritual and religious significances.. For example. but no sexual passion and commitment to long term is not present. In spite of the negative connotation that may be assumed to this
. 2003). perceived by people as owners of soul and character. Guthrie. as the maternal. Schifferstein. 2004. 1999). 1995). Empty love. composed only by passion. Art and Marketing (DiSalvo & Gemperle.. The lack of social relationships can also be a motivator of anthropomorphism (Epley et al. 2003. Finally. There are also tertiary concepts around love. a personality and a character. Mugge. a product may become special for a person due to the role it plays in expressing its own identity. such as when in the short narration above John speaks to his car due to the threat it stops (Barrett & Hankes Johnson. which is part of a higher category called Emotions. feeling of deep friendships. based on intimacy. including Jordan (2000) for whom the products should be "living objects" with which people relate. to which also belong other emotions such as joy or anger. Mugge (2007) presents different conditions for attachment to occur. More recently. Companionate love often appears in marriages that have lost their passion. Regan (2003) made a proposal called the Hierarchy of Love. is commitment without intimacy or passion. Infatuation is an intense love that may come and go quickly. Besides.
a romantic partner. defining the categories Eros. they users understand the feedback through superior performance and an attractive appearance. Whang. Mania and Agape as the greatest impact on the development of a "successful romantic relationship driver-motorcycle. This is the case of users who wash and wax their car with extreme frequency and dedication. etc. rejecting the idea that other people have this contact with the product (Lastovicka & Sirianni. 2007. Wallendorf & Arnould. (2004) conducted a study on the sentiment that motorcycle riders of HarleyDavidson have for their machines. or driving without a vehicle.JACOB DAZAROLA & MARTÍNEZ TORÁN: YEAH. Sahoury. Willoughby. Lastovicka & Sirianni (2011) report that relationships with possessions are inherently asymmetric and quoting Shimp & Madden (1988) claim that many of the interpersonal relationships are also asymmetric. 1988). 2004) found clear manifestation that in fact what many people experience to their products are fully consistent with the definitions and characteristics of love referred above. weapons and robots will tend to stimulate anthropomorphize because the functions that cannot be carried out without "participation" of the product. Serpell (2007) claims that "the positive effects of social relationships can be applied to any relationship where the person believes to be loved. such as robotic AIBO dogs (Sony) also increases the welfare of the residents in a hospital or nursing (M. several studies (Lastovicka & Sirianni. The common practice of naming certain objects require immediate determination of the type of product. it has been reported that attachment to robotic pets. as it conditions the type of relationship with the product that may be established later. also asymmetrical. 1989) coincidentally. for example the love of parents to children is in some periods totally asymmetric and unrequited and love for pets is reciprocal only from the human perspective. Stallones. thus facilitating the development of feelings toward the products. often highlighting certain stereotypes of gender and class (Forlizzi. 1999). Aggarwal & McGill (2007) state that the efforts of the manufacturers can go further than suggesting that their products are human. Even the concept of "physical intimacy" is present in person-object relations. it is imperative that the product is fully involved in the activity making a team with the user (Wetmore. You cannot make music without an instrument. appreciated and that is part of a network of mutual obligations". they can also propose a specific type of person such as a chatty person. It is particularly important in the process of anthropomorphism.
Social Networks between People and Products Love and Other Feelings for the Products
In spite of frequency with which people mention their love for certain products. a friendly one. 2011). Banks. I TALK TO MY CAR…SO WHAT?
motivation. 2011. 1988). can manifest itself equally in relationships with products. as if these were people. Although objects do not correspond to the love received in active. This feature. Some products like cars. this usually only applies to a colloquial form of expression. or who perform mechanical maintenance to their own vehicles." These results confirm that this relationship is truly a romantic relationship and show some differences on interpersonal
Measuring the Love for Objects
Whang et al. However. & Zhang. & Banks. 2008. Pets also act as transitional objects. The outcomes disclosed are highly consistent with some forms of love found in interpersonal love relationships. assigning a specific genre. Allen. 2008). there are perspectives that suggest it may be a positive condition. musical instruments. Marx. such as surrogate parents for children and children surrogates for adults (Belk.. Russo. In fact it was established that these types of relationships with pets reduces depression in the elderly (Garrity. Savaş. & Johnson. based on the classification of love proposed by Lee (1977).
According to Lastovicka & Sirianni while social deprivation based on couple relationships can be partially compensated on the development of romantic relationships with products. and using a simple analogy based on terms from interpersonal relationships (such as family. For that purpose. it will configure one or more roles that the product will occupy in the life of the users. computers and firearms. such as friendship or love based on fellowship. Lastovicka & Sirianni (2011) found the presence of several types of love triangular theory's own relationships of users with cars.
Figure 1: “Roles of Product” Model (RPM) The expectations that an individual deposits in their close friends and relatives arise mostly on the specific role they play in his life. pet. one can conclude that having a greater understanding of the roles that the products play in the people's lives will also allow a better definition of the expectations that individuals put into their products.THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF DESIGNED OBJECTS
relations: Bikers manifest possessive love style (Mania) and selfless love (Agape).
“Roles of Product” Model (RPM). and the different roles that play the products in every person’s life at that level. friend. which do not coexist in the love between people. the diversity of relationships that can be established between people and also between people and objects. It has been created providing a wide range of feelings and emotions.). acknowledging the existence of a different strain in relations between people and objects. Russo (2010) examines the love that people feel for shoes and cars through the application of theory and scales proposed by Sternberg (1988) and she describes the person-product love experiences as enduring and as changing over time. If we add that to the notion established above that the person–object relations have in many ways similar dynamics than interpersonal relationships. The authors report in all categories of products the presence of romantic.
. the model starts from the determination of the feelings experienced by people in relation to the products. neighbor. etc. Also using Sternberg’s proposal.
The Expectations of Users and the Roles of Products
A model has been developed specifically to be taken into consideration in the pursuit of definitions of the "roles of products". the gaps from other relationships may be partly offset by establishing relationships with other products. bicycles. fatuous and companionate love.
I TALK TO MY CAR…SO WHAT?
As stated. (1) It encourages interdisciplinary dialogue among members of the teams involved in product development. Table Roles of Products and Expectations of the Users
Applications for Industrial Design Practices
The “Roles of Product” Model (RPM) should continue its development to generate a structured protocol that allows its application as a concrete tool that meets three key objectives in the design process. this interaction may vary. Engineering and Design. the definition of specific roles for the products can contribute to the investigation of the nature of the interaction between user and product. when this kind of contact can be even value. Therefore it is important to establish more of a role for some objects. according to the nature of the interaction with them. for example. Using the defined categories of feelings (table in Figure 2) we present a first proposal for the roles that often play the products in the lives of people.
. but another user. often the products fulfill different roles to different people. a medical device like an EMR machine can be a kind of "co-worker" for the practitioner. Furthermore. Thus. often from diverse areas such as Marketing. in a product that probably plays a distant role an intimate interaction or likely to have plenty of physical contact is not adequate.JACOB DAZAROLA & MARTÍNEZ TORÁN: YEAH. as it can with a product within a close relation. as the patient on the stretcher will see it very differently. the expectations they generate. These defined roles will contribute directly to the definition of user expectations and indirectly to the process of conceptualizing and defining product requirements. Figure 2. and features examples of each. because depending on the degree of closeness with the product.
In a subsequent process the ideas are analyzed interactively using a table and post-it. In the context of emotional design research has been proposed the use of negative emotions to encourage interaction and usability of products (Fokkinga. The scope of this "role play" can lead. The RPM can be carried out both in design education and practice in product development in companies or design teams. for example through physical interaction with the products. The variation of negative to positive roles.
The objective of this research is to lay the theoretical groundwork for further investigation of the treated area and the development of practical tools for the design process. Aware of those expectations. such as an alarm clock. Thereby when facing certain roles. can be a valuable resource in product design field. and can also be used in processes involving users of these products. Of an alarm clock the user can simply wait to be effective and minimally irritating as possible.THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF DESIGNED OBJECTS
through a language based on analogies and metaphors but also easy to understand regardless of the professional training. Desmet. Similarly. and integrate the language created. Yet it should always be provided space for discussion on the expectations of each role. Factors such as social. and (3). Because of their simplicity. Recognizing the implicit negativity in some roles. to guide the direction to take during the requirements definition process and the subsequent establishment of specific features in the products. in the exploration of feelings and roles of products it is possible to find out negative dimensions. the process should continue through qualitative and quantitative validation of the various roles and expectations that exist for them. preliminary experiments have already been made using cards with roles. that encourages the user and generate positive emotions and wellbeing in this transition process. 2010). and set demonstrably representative expectations of the user perceptions. users and types of products. It is precisely the definition of these expectations which is expected to be generated an enriching exchange between product development teams. & Hoonhout. particularly to confirm understanding and assimilation of roles for the users. discussing which product attributes are represented and how.
. as a "serious game" where small groups defend two or three roles and gives reasons why the product would play that role. these expectations may vary. can also help define the expectations users have of this type of product. from this first version of the RPM. cultural and economic context as well as the idiosyncrasies of people (users) should be considered for any tool that may arise from this model show practical use in the design process. this feature can be implemented after a number of ways. (2) The tool should facilitate understanding of user desires and roles that objects play in their lives. as part of the dialogue. cross-language codes and the idea of early insertion in the design process is presented as a useful tool to assist in the understanding of the design cycle and the process of conversion of the needs of users´ product features. Although the practical methodology for using this model in a real design project is still being defined. to consider other similarities between interpersonal relationships and person-object relationships. which could also be used in the proposed model. Therefore.
Coming Together: A Perspective on Relationships across the Life Span. (1996).1145/782896. Holanda. W. M. 155-172. W. & Rochberg-Halton. In K. México: Porrúa. & Cacioppo. 79-129.. J. doi:10. B. Monteleone. Social Cognition.. A. Dispossession: The Tenacity of Things. P. N. (2004). P. M. 9(3). A. 173-7. (1992). When we need a human: Motivational determinants of anthropomorphism.007 Barrett.. UK: Cambridge University Press.. Fiske. D. (2007). SAGE. New York. L.. Possessions and the extended self. Erp. F. 55-62. E. P. (1988).jamda. 24(4). Journal of personality and social psychology. A. New York. J..JACOB DAZAROLA & MARTÍNEZ TORÁN: YEAH. Csikszentmihalyi. 69(3). Fingerman & F. Current Directions in Psychological Science. Journal of Cognition and Culture. 1(2). L. USA: ACM Press. (2007). 45. J.1086/518544 Annis. Experiment for testing the concept of product personality. (1987). J. Delft. Journal of Consumer Psychology. P. Ekerdt (Eds. 410-35. Meaningful product relationships. 2. K.. Bowlby..F. & D. 67). Ekerdt. The Dark Side of Enjoyment. 143-148. doi:10. The Role of Control in Attributing Intentional Agency to Inanimate Objects.1016/j. 349-356. Hekkert. F. Growing Together. pp. Gao. D. (2009). Design and Emotion. (2002).. Lang (Eds. J. R. The experience of everydays things (Kindle Ed. 5(5). (Tesis Doctoral No publicada).1163/156853703322336634 Battarbee.. Akalis. Sato. doi:10. M. E.. 1-23). McDonagh. and Duties of Friendship.. Desmet. 1: Attachment (2nd ed. Berscheid.. Delft University of Technology. Universitatea Politehnica din Bucharest. R. Journal of the American Medical Directors Association. Epley. & Haslam.). 139-168.. (2004). A. DiSalvo. (2008). doi:10. Waytz. The Journal of Consumer Research. R. A. Ciudad de México D. USA: Basic Books.DPPI ’03 Proceedings (p. 34(4).11. & Cacioppo. Vol. S. USA: Taylor & Francis. J. Desmet. Scientific Bulletin..). UK: Transaction Publishers.. Making sense by making sentient: effectance motivation increases anthropomorphism. Desmet. Ética Nicomáquea.2007. H. L. P. doi:10. Willoughby. (1981). R. A. (1994). Attachment and loss. P. T. 468-479. A. Annual Review Psychology. L. & Hoonhout. Value. J. Personal Relationships across the Life Span (1st ed. Ball.-H. USA: Cambridge University Press. C. N. Cambridge. Interpersonal Relationships. 3(3).. Londres. & Gemperle.). Belk.
. (2004). A. Journal of Consumer Research.1037/a0020240 Epley.. Jones. (2008). The Role and Measurement of Attachment in Consumer Behavior. J.). I TALK TO MY CAR…SO WHAT?
Aggarwal. 143-155. Using negative emotions to design for rich user experiences. Fokkinga. L. J. Fingerman. Social Cognition is Thinking About Relationships. doi:10. The rise of consumer lifestyles (1st ed. Libro VIII Cap.. In K. K. (2003).). & Hankes Johnson. In I. Animal-assisted therapy and loneliness in nursing homes: use of robotic versus living dogs. The Meaning of Things.). P. & Tasaki. & McGill. Domestic symbols and the self (1st ed. & Mattelmäki.. pp. M. Consumtion and generational change.782913 Dumitrescu. & Banks. 15(2). G. V. S. P. L. 99(3). Designing Emotions. T. (1982). & D. The Meaning. NY. A. & Lang. international conference on Designing pleasurable products and interfaces . From seduction to fulfillment. 208-217. NY. Is That Car Smiling at Me? Schema Congruity as a Basis for Evaluating Anthropomorphized Products. American Philosophical Quarterly. (2003). N.1207/s15327663 jcp0102_04 Banks. Aristóteles. NY. T. Higgs. (2010). M. Gyi (Eds. New York. New York. 63-78). (2010). D. 26(2). In D.. New York.
M. doi:10. Por qué nos gustan (o no) los objetos cotidianos (1st ed. (1970). 597606. Delft. Delft University of Technology. NY. Giving the Toaster Eyes: Applied Anthropomorphism and its Influences on User-Object Relations with Everyday Objects (Tesis de Máster). & Cialdini. 4th International Conference on Design and Emotion Proceedings (pp. The mating game: a primer on love. Anthrozoos. Product personality and its influence on consumer preference. Ankara. IL. An introduction to the new human factors (1st ed. Holanda. USA: Oxford University Press. & Johnson. El Ser y La Nada. Frayer. 3-19). Pet Ownership And Attachment As Supportive Factors In The Health Of The Elderly. Social relations across the life span: in search of unified models. P. 7th International Design & Emotion Conference Proceedings (pp. C. P.. 16(2). J. CA. T. Deeply: Consumers in the Throes of Material Possession Love. USA: SAGE. (2003). (1954). Forlizzi. HRI ’07 Proceedings of the ACM/IEEE international conference on Human-robot interaction (pp. D. M.. (2009). M.THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF DESIGNED OBJECTS
Hekkert. Madly. & A. R. Baywood Publishing Co. 3(1). 2004(1). doi:10. J. USA: ACM New York. Mathew (Eds. NY. M. USA. Z. Thousand Oaks. The Effect of Product-Personality Congruence on Product Attachment. Neuberg. The Four Loves (1st ed. España: Ediciones Paidós Ibérica. FL. L.).C. El Diseño Emocional. A. (1995). 129-136). Academy of Marketing Science Review. Sartre. S. sex. Kenrick. Social Psychology: Goals in Interaction (5th ed.. S. 22(4). D. G.. Govers. (1989). Lastovicka.).1108/07363760510605308 Guthrie. (2000). The American Journal of Sociology. and marriage (1st ed. Designing Pleasurable Products. Lund University. International journal of aging & human development. Building. M.). & Sirianni. Ensayo de Ontología Fenomenológica (2nd ed. Shoes. C. L. Homans.). cars and other love stories: Investigating the experience of love for products (Tesis Doctoral). Marx. (2004). 1-14). 2-35). Introduction to Social Psychology. S. Barcelona. Jordan. Suecia.. Washington. 323-342. New York. S. J. (Tesis Doctoral). Product Attachment. Orlando.). Turquía. USA: Allyn and Bacon. (2010). T. USA: Taylor & Francis. (2007). & Menzel Baker. (1958). A. Ludden. Boston MA. Lund. Because It’s Tough Like Me. University of Chicago Press. Journal of Consumer Research. C. J. An Integrative Review of Material Possession Attachment. How Robotic Products Become Social Products: An Ethnographic Study of Robotic Products in the Home. (2010). Mugge. N. P. (1960). General Theories of Love.1177/014616727700300204 Levitt. (2007). Garrity. W. Chicago. Social behaviour as exchange. J. 173-182. D. USA: Harvest Books. & Mugge.. doi:10. P. S. pp. A new theory of religion (1st ed. 3(2). B. E. NY. J. A Typology of Styles of Loving. L. USA. Regan. Rubin. I Love My Jeep . (1977). Inc. Delft University of Technology. (2004). 38(2). B. C.. Buenos Aires. B.). (2005). S. Journal of personality and social psychology. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 1-12). Argentina: Ibero-Americana. 265-73. Design. F. Russo. (2000). G. Journal of Consumer Marketing.. D.
.. 51(1). Measurement of romantic love.. P. 71-84. (2005). P. Kleine. L. Norman.. S. P.. pp. R. Delft. Govers. 189-197.1086/658338 Lee. 3544. (2011). J. Stallones. New York. & Schoormans. Lewis. R. Holanda. Truly. T.. Faces in the Clouds.
E. Schifferstein. He has a master’s degrees in “Design. J. A. & Zhang. Sternberg. Liking Versus Loving: A Comparative Evaluation of Theories. & Hekkert. Human Development. 531-547. I TALK TO MY CAR…SO WHAT?
Savaş. (1988).1016/j. New York. Simmel. Moving Relationships. Sahoury. N. 1-13.. (2004).) (1st ed.1159/000083215 Wallendorf. and Emotion in the Process of Product Design and Development. Emotions for the necessary. 48(1-2). 126). Trans. J. USA: Columbia University Press. American Psychological Association Inc. Toward a Life Span Theory of Close Relationships: The Affective Relationships Model. McDonagh. Mitman (Eds. Proposals for Integration in SME” in Ph. (2004). 48-66. METU Journal of Faculty of Architecture. M. Cuestiones Fundamentales de Sociología. E. (2005). & Zwartkruis-Pelgrim. New York. 163-168. K. V.). (A. Manuel Martínez Torán: Manuel Martínez Torán received his Ph.html Whang.006 Shimp. since 1997. Thinking with Animals: New Perspectives on Anthropomorphism (1st ed. (1987).
ABOUT THE AUTHORS
Ruben H. 14. Journal of Aging Studies. (2008).org/misc/anthropomorph. K. & J. New York.). 320-327. & Zablotsky. Older women’s attachments to their home and possessions. Sternberg. J. Befriending the Automobile to Relieve Anxiety.D in the design program at the Polytechnic University of Valencia (1998). Middle East Technical University. p. T. & Madden. 157-169. Chile (1999). P. P..2004. Commitment. 31(1989). from http://www. Barcelona. NY. Advances in Consumer Research.. The experience of everydays things (Kindle Ed. Design and Emotion. doi:10. Shenk. University of Santiago de Chile (USACH) and Technological University of Chile (INACAP). institution where he is currently working on his doctoral thesis "Perception.” He is also part time professor at the schools of industrial design. J. doi:10. 25(1). (2008). and social linkage. H.. The Triangle of Love: Intimacy. Falling in Love with a Product: The Structure of a Romantic Consumer-Product Relationship.jaging. Erp (Eds. In D.01. T. M. Retrieved November 7. (1988).. J. N. H. is a founding partner and owner at the design office "Taller Zero" in Chile. He has been Professor of Industrial Design at the School of Design Engineering since 1995.drdriving. Jacob Dazarola: Ruben H. Ö. (2002). Karger. Psychological Bulletin. P. In L. Schifferstein. USA: Taylor & Francis. Advances in Consumer Research.). N. (2007).. & Arnould. 163-175. Ackermann Pilári. program “Design. España: Gedisa. 331-343. R. Serpell. Sensation. International Journal. Mugge. H. D. (2004). 18(2). (1988). where he teaches undergraduates and Masters
. Kuwahara.. R. Daston & G. People in Disguise: Anthropomorphism and the Human-Pet Relationship.1300/J136v02n01_11 Wetmore. Elsevier. NY. Hekkert. 2011. Journal of Consumer Research.).. J. J.. USA: Basic Books. Manufacture and Management Industrial Projects. Turquía. “My Favorite Things”: A cross-cultural inquiry into object attachment. doi:10. Spain. Takahashi. Designing consumer . G.. Consumer-object relations: A conceptual framework based analogously on Sternberg’s triangular theory of love.D.JACOB DAZAROLA & MARTÍNEZ TORÁN: YEAH. possessiveness. Management and New Product Development” (2003) and “CAD CAM CIM” (2010) from the Universidad Politécnica de Valencia. J. Allen. developing projects of industrial and graphic design for various clients. Industrial Designer from the University of Valparaiso. J. 15. Consumer-Product Attachment: Measurement and Design Implications. (1999). Jacob D. R. (3). D.. Y. Passion.. 2(3).product attachment. H. NY.
For fifteen years. He has been a visiting teacher in Argentina (2002). and Chile (2011 and 2012). He has participated in the organization of Design International Congress INDITEC. Since 1994. Additionally. He has been the Design and Product Development Group Manager since 2009 and the Institute of Design and Manufacturing Assistant Manager since 2012. twelve book chapters. fourteen contributions at conferences and has published a patent recognized. he has been a Jury Member of Design in Spain since 2011. Mexico (2006 and 2007). He has been the FabLab Valencia Director since 2012. He has published five books.THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF DESIGNED OBJECTS
students of Design and Computer Aided Manufacturing. For five years. he has been a member of the Association of Designers of the Valencian Community. he has taught in the Masters of Engineering Design program at Cardenal Herrera CEU University. and has been a principal research of two European and 25 R&D projects of desig.
. two books shared. he has been Head of Design Technology Center of REDIT (1995-99).
The International Journal of Designed Objects is one of six thematically focused journals in the collection of journals that support the Design Principles and Practices knowledge community—its journals. book series. including industrial design. this journal invites presentations of practice—including documentation of designed objects together with exegeses analyzing design purposes. and other design practices.
. As well as papers of a traditional scholarly type. purposes and effects. conference and online community. The journal examines the nature and form of the objects of design. interior design. fashion. The International Journal of Designed Objects is a peerreviewed scholarly journal.