**1. Introduction**

Vision is considered the central of the senses [1]. Therefore, product preference is significantly governed by the visual properties or appearance of the product [2]. It can persuade product evaluations and choices by the users in quite a few ways [3–5]. Users' first impressions of a product can be determined by the product's design as the "look" of a product is very important, which elevates the product's value and looking at something beautiful is gratifying [6]. The aesthetic responses are very personal as they are mainly emotional or feelings [7] and may derive from seeing the product without considering utility [8]. It is recognised that response to design involves a full array of human responses as the design's sensory aspect is congruent with a product's visual appearance [9].

The aesthetic preference is fundamentally an aesthetic judgment made by an individual based on recognising the structure of the product, coherence, or order [10], including the individual's prior experience generated from inherent memory integration [11]. Reference [12] pointed out that aesthetic pleasure and aesthetic interest are basically two different responses to aesthetics in a positive way. The aesthetic response can also be generated from a comprehensive aesthetic preference judgement, evidenced by considerable empirical research on aesthetic preference [13]. These findings illustrate some fundamental inconsistencies in the literature. For example, several studies mentioned that 'fluency' prompts aesthetic preference, through which an observer can process an object [14]. In contrast, other researchers challenge this finding [15]. They found that a complex design can positively trigger aesthetic liking, which is difficult to process. Novelty also makes the processing less fluent but is associated with aesthetic preference [16].

Aesthetics are also proposed to be the 'soul' of innovation [17], including innovative product designs, and its importance can be further highlighted in its ability to influence

**Citation:** Mridha, M.; Kuys, B.; Suhaimi, S.N. The Influence Innovation Has on the Visual Appearance and Aesthetic Preference of Architectural Products. *Buildings* **2023**, *13*, 19. https://doi.org/ 10.3390/buildings13010019

Academic Editors: Yongjian Ke, Jingxiao Zhang and Simon P. Philbin

Received: 28 October 2022 Revised: 16 December 2022 Accepted: 19 December 2022 Published: 22 December 2022

**Copyright:** © 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ 4.0/).

users' acceptance of innovation. Previous studies have argued that there is a link between an individual's aesthetic expertise and their evaluation of innovative designs [18]. Individuals with expertise in aesthetics or art and design have a higher tendency to prefer innovative designs, as they are particularly "more sensitive to the changes of innovativeness, which presumably was due to higher cognitive design concepts" [18] (p. 617). As an extension of these studies, exploration has also been carried out to understand specific individuals' aesthetic preferences based on their background and expertise level. By classifying participants into categories of expertise level, it is suggested that there is a distinct difference in preference and evaluation of aesthetic appeal between experts in the design field compared to design novices [19]. This aligns with a previous study [18] that shows that individuals who are inclined and interested in aesthetics tend to respond more positively to innovative designs, while those without any interest are more inclined to choose more conventional designs.

This is contested by another study [20], arguing that the study [18] did not provide any empirical evidence to support their findings. In reference [20], researchers propose that "visual typicality in design is a more important criterion for design novices who are less sensitive to the aesthetic quality of design" (p. 528). Typicality is important for this group simply because their judgement is influenced by the ease of processing [20]. They prefer designs or stimuli that are easier to relate to based on their previous knowledge or memory than a more unusual, novel design that they cannot relate to or easily understand.

Considerable research is available on innovation concerning customers' purchasing, adopting, and recommending it to others, but little research investigated the link between product innovation and aesthetic preference. Therefore, to address the gap, if aesthetics is proposed to be the 'soul' of innovation as described by reference [17], this study aims to investigate whether innovation plays a significant role in perceiving the aesthetic preference of a product more than other visual appearances. Furthermore, this study views this issue from a psychological perspective rather than market and user research, which most other studies have done. Thus, the research questions were raised as follows:


Visual stimuli that have received scholarly attention include but are not limited to sculptures, textures, faces, and geometrical shapes [21]. We used timber joints of the pagoda-style structure to represent an architectural product as visual stimuli to conduct the study. There were certain considerations for this choice. Firstly, we were concerned about the complexity of visual stimuli. By complexity, we mean the respondent's perception of the stimulus complexity in question. The study [12] shows that moderately complex stimuli is preferred over high or low level of complexity, which is supported by many other studies [22]. Reference [12] hypothesised the relationship between complexity and aesthetic preference as an inverted U shape, where stimuli with an intermediate level of complexity attain the highest preference. Timber joints used in the study are moderately complex. Secondly, we were concerned about visual working memory (VWM). Reference [23] identified that VWM lets people hold visual information in mind for a few seconds. A study [24] on the VWM capacity of simple and complex stimuli revealed that VWM is sensitive to the surface complexity of the stimuli, suggesting the heavier the information load, the lower the VWM capacity [25]. Therefore, we can anticipate that the perceptual limitation of complex stimuli can be compensated by viewing the stimuli for a longer time and thus allowing participants to view the stimuli as long as required. Finally, the present study uses timber joints as visual stimuli, as they combine both aesthetics and functionality. Unlike artwork that predominantly fulfils a hedonic need, timber joints provide practical motives that induce cognitive and affective aesthetic judgment. Therefore, a combination of the neural processing of aesthetic experience and emotional responses to visual stimuli can address the research gap identified in the present study.

#### **2. Theoretical Background**

#### *2.1. Overview of Aesthetic Experience*

According to reference [26], an aesthetic experience occurs in response to a visual encounter with any type of object, scene, or event. This encounter is not bound to the experience of encountering visual artworks. It can occur daily, for instance, when one appreciates the beauty of one's newly purchased decorative vase or a building product. Aesthetic experience can be further defined as a cognitive process influenced by a person's affective state that will lead to an aesthetic emotion [27]. Each aesthetic experience may be different depending on the state of visual processing. Because of this, aesthetic experiences are considered complex phenomena, and any gradual development or change must be considered when assessing the experience [28].

An aesthetic experience involves different stages of classifying, understanding, and cognitively mastering an artwork, or in this case, a stimulus [27]. This multi-stage process can also be referred to as aesthetic information processing [29]. At the first stage of aesthetic processing, a person generates a perceptual analysis of the stimulus, thus, creating the first impression of that stimulus. Reference [30] suggests that, in general, a person would spontaneously generate a global impression or the gist of the stimulus at first glance of a stimulus. This occurrence is an immediate awareness of the visual appearance; the gist is pre-cognitive in nature [30]. Reference [31] summarises the aesthetic-processing stages and states that the whole process starts with the participant's perceptual analysis of the stimulus, which is then compared with their previous personal encounters and experience. The stimulus will then be classified into a meaningful category that is later interpreted and assessed. This results in the final stage of aesthetic processing, namely, aesthetic judgement and aesthetic emotion.

#### *2.2. Overview of Aesthetic Preference*

To understand the aesthetic preference of individuals for a particular product, it is important to note that there are factors and principles that can be used to measure an aesthetic preference. The study [14] highlights possible factors that can "influence aesthetic judgments such as figural goodness, figure-ground contrast, stimulus repetition, symmetry and prototypicality" (p. 364). Reference [1] proposes that despite the differences in social settings, such as culture and time among individuals, it is possible to form a universal agreement on aesthetic pleasure. The properties of a designed product, such as having a balanced proportion or a familiar property that stimulates preference, have been studied and measured to produce a universal agreement that can represent the aesthetic preference of the majority of individuals for a particular product.

Studies have experimented with using product elements and properties to measure aesthetic preference. One such study [32] measures a product's aesthetic preference by testing product angularity as a specific element. Their experiment shows a preference for arrays of circles and hexagons when it comes to angularity. Another similar study examining the difference in preference rate between curved and sharp objects suggests that sharp objects or sharp-angled contours induced lower preference in participants [33]. Some studies look into an individual's preference for physical elements of products, such as its physical form and shape (for example, [34]). The evaluation of other product elements and the global perception of a product itself also differs between design beginners and design experts. According to reference [35], beginners have a higher probability of using the level of novelty to indicate a product's apparent usability compared with design professionals. This means they perceive a novel-designed product as more usable than a designed product with typical features.

#### *2.3. Aesthetics and Innovation*

Linking aesthetics and innovation focuses mostly on 'soft' innovations, which are products that have a strong aesthetic component [36]. The author, in reference [36], also argues that most soft innovations are regarded best as new differentiated products. Because products that

are primarily the same can be ascertained individually based on performance and aesthetic appeal, they are preferred by users differently due to different tastes or preferences.

A report from the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) [37] defines product innovation as "the introduction of a good or service that is new or significantly improved with respect to its characteristics or intended uses. This includes significant improvements in technical specifications, components and materials, incorporated software, user-friendliness or other functional characteristics" [37] (p. 48). We claim that aesthetic innovation plays a vital role in product characteristics and intended uses because nowadays, people are more concerned about the look, feel, and functionality of a product due to aesthetics being an essential element in our society [38]. As a result, practitioners comprehend the significance of aesthetic design in user choice [39], and many industries experience aesthetic innovation when the visual attributes of a product ascertain novelty [40].

Supporting this, we refer to another form of innovation listed in the OECD report [37] (p. 49), known as marketing innovation. "A marketing innovation is implementing a new marketing method involving significant changes in product design or packaging, product placement, product promotion or pricing" (p. 49). Despite the fact that the OECD's introduction of the marketing innovation concept has made it accepted that innovation no longer necessitates a change in product performance or functionality, and that innovation can exhibit just an aesthetic transformation as opposed to a functional change, none of the previously defined types of innovation encompasses soft innovation as defined above [37].

### **3. Methods**

#### *3.1. Participants*

Australians 18 years of age and above were eligible to participate in the survey. Participants under 18 years of age and participants with limited or no capacity or authority to give voluntary and informed consent were excluded from the survey. An experience management company, Qualtrics©, recruited a total of 114 participants. Qualtrics© organised financial rewards for the participants for their contribution to the survey.

#### *3.2. Procedures*

An online survey was conducted in line with the National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research, outlining the ethics protocol and approvals. All participants' data were anonymous, and they were informed about the intention of this study and gave implied consent. Participants were presented with five images of timber joints of the pagoda-style structure (Figure 1), one after another. Each image carried several visual appearance questions, and participants were asked to rate their agreement with the statements on a 7-point Likert scale (from 'Disagree' to 'Agree'). The online survey was prepared in English.

**Figure 1.** Stimuli were shown to the respondents.

#### *3.3. Stimuli*

The experimental stimuli were computer-generated visual images of a post and roof beam detail of five timber joints for a pagoda-style structure (Figure 1). The experimental stimuli were created to understand better visual appearance's contribution to determining aesthetic preference. Therefore, stimuli ranged from simple and straightforward (Joint 1) to intricate and highly decorative (Joint 5). All timber joints' images were taken from the same viewpoint and in a similar setting for consistency. Although the setting and

the viewpoint for all stimuli were controlled, other visual features which might affect participants' responses were outside the experimental control. Furthermore, participants were not given any indication of performance or other product specifications.

#### *3.4. Variables*

Previous research confirms that visual appearance is a key component in product design and influences users' product preference or choice in many ways [1,3–5]. Since the aim of this study is to examine if innovation plays a significant role in perceiving the aesthetic preference of a product more than other visual appearances, the overall aesthetic preference of the timber joints has been considered as the dependent variable, while 'Joint appears innovative' is the independent variable in this study. We incorporated several controls in our study to account for other factors that are likely to influence the result. Therefore, we added three visual properties of the timber joint (i.e., long-lasting, functional, and strong) as a controlled variable (Table 1).

**Table 1.** Definition and description of all variables used in the study.

