**5. Discussion**

In this study, we examined whether innovation plays a significant role in perceiving the aesthetic preference of a product more than other visual appearances. Our findings suggest several theoretical and practical implications.

#### *5.1. Theoretical Implications*

#### 5.1.1. Innovation and Aesthetic Preference

The results section shows that the independent variable significantly predicts the dependent variable (overall aesthetic preference). To further investigate whether a product's

aesthetic preference depends on its innovative appearance, we look at Table 4, which shows which of the variables incorporated in the models contributes more to predicting overall aesthetic preference. Except for Joint 4, innovation uniquely explained the highest percentage of the variance in overall aesthetic preference. Although Joint 4 was a bit exceptional, where 'Functional' took the lead, the difference was only by 1%.

We mentioned earlier reference [1] findings that a product's visual properties are vital in determining product preference. In an innovation, the first thing users notice is the product's visual appearance, i.e., aesthetics [43]. The effect of visual complexity was examined in several early studies [44,45]. A medium level of complexity (which all stimuli in this study fall into) was often preferable [27] due to the arousal potential resulting from visual stimulation. Since innovative appearance is a visual property, we contend that aesthetic preference depends on the innovative appearance of a product.

#### 5.1.2. Innovation and Aesthetic Experience

The results section finds that 'Joint appears innovative' statistically impacts overall aesthetic preference for all joint types. Let us explore respondents' aesthetic experiences when viewing the stimuli to record aesthetic preferences. Stimuli were shown chronologically. Therefore, respondents observe Joint 1 first and Joint 5 last. From the literature, we know that aesthetic experience occurs in response to a visual encounter with any type of object, scene, or event [26]. Reference [46] pointed out that when a user sees a product, one of the first responses is aesthetic perception, which is closely related to visual information. Hence, reference [47] argues that overall, it significantly impacts the perception of a product. During the observation, stimuli 1 appeared as something new for many respondents, and they rated Joint 1 as significantly innovative. Having this experience when they observed stimuli 2, which is almost similar to stimuli 1 except for the introduction of a small protrusion of timber beam, they scored a little low on innovation. The introduction of capital and elaborate rounded protrusion of stimuli 3 was a substantial departure from stimuli 2. As a result, respondents rated it as significantly innovative (even higher than stimuli 1). Respondents rated stimuli 4 low in terms of innovation due to the exact reason for stimuli 2. Stimuli 5 was significantly different from previous stimuli. The timber column took the shape of the Greek Corinthian order. As rated by the respondents, the flute on the shaft, volute, and acanthus leaf on the capital made it the most innovative (Tables 3 and 4). According to reference [48], a product's outer form can affect customer perceptions in quite a few ways, (i) by accentuating or concealing different factors of technology that are introduced by innovation, (ii) by providing visual cues for product interpretation, and (iii) by triggering sensory experiences, which influence cognition and emotion. Therefore, we argue that products perceived as innovative provide observers with initial cues that trigger various cognitive and emotional responses that underlie their assessment of aesthetic preference.

#### 5.1.3. Aesthetics and functionality

Reference [8] pointed out that a product's aesthetic value may relate to the pleasure of seeing the product without considering utility. The finding is in accordance with reference [6], who mentioned that a user might prefer a product entirely based on its 'look' as looking at something beautiful is satisfying. The functionality of Joint 4 uniquely explains the highest percent of the variance. The result is different from other joints. Although functionality reflects the users' perceptions of a product's ability to fulfil its purpose [49]. However, according to reference [50], aesthetics are significantly more important than functionality for product appreciation and observation, which is also supported by reference [51], which argues that visual appeal is more important than functionality. Since the variance difference between 'innovation' and 'functional' is only 1%, this deviation can be ignored and will not impact the overall empirical premise of the study.

### *5.2. Practical Implications*

In practice, this can be used for designing and developing a new product that includes products from the architectural and building industry, where innovativeness is considered a condition for generating public preference that promotes product success. Notably, the study consents to new thoughts and debates on how innovation should be defined, evaluated, and construed, including product innovation's role in professional practice and design-related research areas.

#### **6. Conclusions**

The research presented throughout this paper revealed that a product's innovativeness strongly influences the visual appearance and aesthetic preference. The study also has some strengths. First, our samples were randomly selected across all of Australia, ensuring variability in the population. Second, our study investigated product innovation and aesthetic preference from a psychological perspective rather than market and user research. Third, our findings uniquely contribute to design research and design practice.

Reference [52] identified that there is a disconnect of belief on what is new and innovative between marketers and users. There may be a number of factors for this disengagement but what attracts a user to a new product is the visual aesthetic design [43]. Users increasingly value the visual aesthetics of product design [53,54]; however, there have been small attempts to ascertain how innovative visual aesthetics influence the perceptions of novelty and product assessments [43]. The visual appearance is critical to the product's user response and success [3]. As we pointed out in the introduction section, 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]. As a result, the product's visual appearance as perceived by the users is characteristically based on users' cognitive and affective responses. The aesthetic properties of objects can activate a multifaceted combination of secondary emotional and cognitive responses, which according to Csikszentmihalyi and Robinson [55] (p. 18), is "the aesthetic experience". So, a user may positively evaluate a product if product innovation prompts a positive emotional response through its aesthetic properties.

The survey of 114 respondents revealed that the joints' innovativeness explained the highest percentage of variance in overall aesthetic preference. This displays that the visual complexity and appeal (aesthetics) tend to be more important than a product's performance (functionality) upon first observation. Furthermore, the study shows a link between cognitive and emotional responses in their assessment of aesthetic preference. Therefore, we expect this study's findings to offer new insight into the design process of new product development, not only in the architectural and building industry, but in a holistic context for architectural and product design in general.

#### **7. Limitations and Future Research**

This study highlights innovation as an important aspect of visual appearance to determine aesthetic preference among respondents living in Australia; however, it has several limitations which suggest useful guidance for future research. First, our study design means causality cannot be concluded. There could be source bias as both exposure and outcome measures are self-reported. We encourage future research to go further with larger sample sizes and use control and experimental groups to reduce bias and further extend our understanding. Second, the respondents could only respond to the selected visual appearance questions. No open-ended questions were included to give respondents an opportunity to include other aspects of their lives that contribute to aesthetic preference. Thus, we invite studies examining whether other aspects of life (e.g., sociodemographic characteristics) may influence aesthetic preference. Third, it is difficult to claim that the study represented the complete breadth and all types of constructs and variables as a predictor of aesthetic preference. Therefore, it is difficult to assess the generalisability of the findings to projects other than those in the sample without the benefit of further research that includes a comprehensive range of predictors of aesthetic preference.

**Author Contributions:** Conceptualisation, M.M.; methodology, M.M.; validation, M.M. and B.K.; formal analysis, M.M.; investigation, M.M., B.K. and S.N.S.; resources, M.M., B.K. and S.N.S.; writing original draft preparation, M.M.; writing—review and editing, M.M., B.K. and S.N.S.; visualisation, B.K.; supervision, M.M. and B.K.; project administration, B.K.; funding acquisition, B.K. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

**Funding:** This research received no external funding.

**Institutional Review Board Statement:** The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki, and approved by Swinburne University of Technology Human Ethics Committee (Ref: R/2019/209, 18/09/2019) for studies involving humans.

**Informed Consent Statement:** Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

**Data Availability Statement:** The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author. The data are not publicly available due to approved ethical restrictions.

**Acknowledgments:** The authors would like to thank Australian manufacturer Timberfy, who worked with the research team to manufacture the pagoda for one of Melbourne's largest cemeteries. The authors would also like to thank the research participants for their time in completing the survey.

**Conflicts of Interest:** The authors declare no conflict of interest.

#### **References**


**Disclaimer/Publisher's Note:** The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.
