KaydedilenlerDerginizi ekleyin

Dergiler / A|Z ITU Mimarlık Fakültesi Dergisi / 2022 / Cilt: 19 - Sayı: 2

Biophilic dimensions of products and their effects on user preferences

Miray BOĞA
Gülname TURAN
Hakan ÇETİNKAYA
Sayfa
353–369
Yayın Tarihi
2022-11-11
DOI
—
🏛️Bu makalenin bibliyografik verileri ve tam metin bağlantısı DergiPark üzerinden sağlanmıştır.
DergiPark Kaydı ↗
✨

Yapay Zeka Hızlı Bakış & Çıkarımlar

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(1 Cümlede Hızlı Çıkarım)

The results revealed that the functional dimension has a significant effect on user preferences in both biophilic and non-biophilic/ biophobic cases while the psychological dimension has a significantly negative effect on user preferences just in non-biophilic/biophobic cases.

📌 3 Maddede Bu Makale

🎯
Amaç & Hipotez:Biophilia is hypothesized as one of the defining concepts guiding human preferences of everyday life.
📊
Temel Bulgular & Veri:Although “biophilia” has been well integrated as a design approach in Architectural and Urban Design, it is yet to develop in industrial design.
💡
Sonuç & Katkı:The results revealed that the functional dimension has a significant effect on user preferences in both biophilic and non-biophilic/ biophobic cases while the psychological dimension has a significantly negative effect on user preferences just in non-biophilic/biophobic cases.
🔬Tür:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Kapsam:Genişletilmiş Akademik Örneklem
⚙️Değişkenler:Alan Parametreleri

Abstract

Biophilia is hypothesized as one of the defining concepts guiding human preferences of everyday life. Although “biophilia” has been well integrated as a design approach in Architectural and Urban Design, it is yet to develop in industrial design. Employing a two-staged approach, we aimed to define the biophilic characteristics of a product multidimensionally and examine their effects on the users’ preferences. The first stage consisted of empirical studies to describe the biophilic dimensions. This endeavor yielded a word set (N=78) that qualifies the biophilic dimensions (N=6). The words obtained consisted of biophilic design values and the hypothetical biophilic product dimensions that were proposed by researchers. Also, we obtained a set of product images (N=18) to be used throughout the study. The second stage was designed to explore the effects of biophilia on user preferences. An expert group (N=120) assessed the associations between the words and product sets. Also, a user group (N=1.206) rated how much they preferred these products. The data obtained from the experts and the users were analyzed to examine how the biophilic dimensions predicted the user preferences by regression analyses conducted on SPSS 27. The results revealed that the functional dimension has a significant effect on user preferences in both biophilic and non-biophilic/ biophobic cases while the psychological dimension has a significantly negative effect on user preferences just in non-biophilic/biophobic cases.

🔖

Bu Makaleye Atıf Yap

BOĞA, M., TURAN, G., ÇETİNKAYA, H. (2022). Biophilic dimensions of products and their effects on user preferences. A|Z ITU Mimarlık Fakültesi Dergisi, Cilt: 19 - Sayı: 2, 353–369. https://ajindex.com/articles/655749

📄 Tam Metin PDF Okuyucu

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

Kaynakça (7)

  1. Appleton, J. (1975). The experience of landscape. John Wiley & Sons. Arvay, C. G. (2018). The biophilia effect: A scientific and spiritual exploration of the healing bond between humans and nature (V. Goodrich-Graham, Trans.). Sounds True. (Original work published 2015)
  2. Bailey, D. H., & Geary, D. C. (2009). Hominid brain evolution: Testing climatic, ecological, and social competition models. Human Nature, 20, 67–79. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12110-008- 9054-0
  3. Barrett, H. C. (2016). Adaptations to predators and prey. In D. M. Buss (Ed.), The handbook of evolutionary psychology. Volume 1: Foundations (2nd ed., pp. 246-263). John Wiley & Sons. Baudrillard, J. (1981). For a critique of the political economy of the sign. Telos Press.
  4. Bechara, A., & Damasio, A. R. (2005). The somatic marker hypothesis: A neural theory of economic decision. Games and Economic Behavior, 52(2), 336–372. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. geb.2004.06.010 Biro, D., Haslam, M., & Rutz, C. (2013). Tool use as adaptation. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 368: 20120408. http://dx.doi. org/10.1098/rstb.2012.0408 Boradkar, P. (2010). Designing things: A critical introduction to the culture of objects. Berg. Boyer, P., & Barrett, H. C. (2016). Intuitive ontologies and domain specificity. In D. M. Buss (Ed.), The handbook of evolutionary psychology. Volume 1: Foundations (2nd ed., pp. 161-180). John Wiley & Sons. Boztepe, S. (2007). User value: Competing theories and models. International Journal of Design, 1(2), 55-63.
  5. Bracha, H. S. (2004). Freeze, flight, fight, fright, faint: Adaptationist perspectives on the acute stress response spectrum. CNS Spectrums, 9, 679–685. https://doi.org/10.1017/ S1092852900001954
  6. Browning, W. D., Ryan, C. O., & Clancy, J.O. (2014). 14 patterns of biophilic design: Improving health & well-being in the built environment. Terrapin Bright Green, LLC. https://www.terrapinbrightgreen. com/reports/14-patterns/ Buettel, J. C., & Brook, B. W. (2016). Egress! How technophilia can reinforce biophilia to improve ecological restoration. Restoration Ecology, 24(6), 843– 847. https://doi.org/10.1111/rec.12387
  7. Chudek, M., Muthukrishna, M., & Henrich, J. (2016). Cultural Evolution. In D. M. Buss (Ed.), The handbook of evolutionary psychology. Volume 2: Integrations (2nd ed., pp. 749-769). John Wiley & Sons. Dean, J., Shanahan, D., Bush, R., Gaston, K., Lin, B., Barber, E., Franco, L., & Fuller, R. A. (2018). Is nature relatedness associated with better mental and phy