See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/228786196

A Multilayered Model of Product Emotions

Article  in  Design Journal, The · July 2003

DOI: 10.2752/146069203789355480

CITATIONS READS

208 6,954

1 author:

Pieter Desmet
Delft University of Technology
149 PUBLICATIONS   6,097 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

design for mood View project

design for subjective wellbeing View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Pieter Desmet on 26 April 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

a Multilayered Model of Product Emotions
Pieter M.A. Desmet
Industrial Design Delft, Delft University of Technology

This paper introduces a theoretical basis for the process that underlies all
emotional responses to consumer products. Five distinct classes of product-evoked
emotions are discussed, which are each the outcome of a unique pattern of eliciting
conditions. The framework for these patterns was drawn from a model that reveals
the cognitive basis of product emotions. The main proposition of this model is that
all emotional reactions result from an appraisal process in which the individual
appraises the product as (potentially) harming or favouring one or several of his
or her concerns. In this perspective, the concern and the appraisal are considered
key-parameters that determine if a product evokes an emotion, and if so, what
emotion is evoked. Because each of the five classes of product emotions (i.e.
instrumental, aesthetic, social, surprise, and interest emotions) is discussed in
terms of these key-parameters, it can be used to explain the complex and often
personal nature of product emotions, and support designers in their efforts to
design for emotion.

INTRODUCTION
Emotions enrich virtually all of our waking moments with either a pleasant or an
unpleasant quality. Many studies have shown that a person’s general experience of
well-being is strongly influenced by his or her day-to-day felt emotions (see Diener
and Lucas, 2000). Given the fact that a substantial portion of these emotional
responses is elicited by ‘cultural products,’ such as art, clothing, and consumer
products (Oatley and Duncan, 1992), designers may find it rewarding to design for
emotions that appeal to or stimulate the intended users. In addition, emotional
responses can incite customers to select a particular artefact from a row of similar
products, and will therefore have a considerable influence on our purchase
decisions. As a consequence, more and more producers currently challenge
designers to manipulate the emotional impact of their designs, or, to ‘design for
emotion.’ In design practice however, emotions elicited by product appearance are
often considered to be intangible and therefore impossible to predict or design for.
This persistent preconception is partly caused by some typical characteristics of
these ‘product emotions.’ First, the concept of emotions is broad and indefinite, i.e.
products can evoke many different kinds of emotions. We can admire the latest
ultra-slim laptop, be irritated by an annoying alarm clock, attracted to a beautiful
line in a car model, and so on. And although the touch of melancholy felt when
coming across a long forgotten childhood teddy bear seems incomparable to the
thrill of driving a motorcycle, both these responses belong to the wide spectrum of
human emotions. Second, emotions are personal, that is, individuals differ with
respect to their emotional responses to a given product. For instance, one person
may be fascinated by the restyled BMW Mini, whereas another may be
disappointed because he feels that the original Mini was far more charming. Third,
products often evoke ‘compound emotions.’ Rather than eliciting one single
emotion, products can elicit multiple emotions simultaneously because these
emotions are elicited not only by the product’s aesthetics, but also by other aspects,
such as the product’s function, brand, behaviour, and associated meanings.

Desmet, P.M.A. (2003). A multilayered model of product emotions. 1

The Design Journal, 6(2), 4-13.
 It seems that designers do not have much control over these apparently
intangible emotional responses. However, designers can influence the emotions
elicited by their designs because these emotions are not as intangible as they seem.
This position is based on theories of emotion maintaining that although emotions
are idiosyncratic, the conditions that underlie and elicit them are universal. In the
tradition of these theories, we developed a model of product emotions that sets
forth three key-parameters in the process that underlies each emotion (see Desmet,
2002; Desmet and Hekkert, 2002). By revealing the cognitive basis of product
emotions, the model can be used to explain the broad, personal, and compound
character of product emotions. The next section briefly introduces the model and
explains each of the three parameters. It is discussed how these parameters
combine to emotion-specific patterns of eliciting conditions. In an explorative
study, which resulted in a database of hundreds of anecdotal cases of product
emotions, it was found that on the one hand a similar product can elicit many
different emotions, but on the other hand, the underlying process can be explained
with these patterns of eliciting conditions. In order to develop the classification of
product emotions in five emotion types, which is introduced in the subsequent
section, the study results were structured with the use of several contemporary
cognitive theories of emotion.

THE BASIS OF PRODUCT EMOTIONS

Arnold (1960, p.182), a pioneering psychologist in the cognitive perspective of
emotion, defined an emotion as “the felt tendency toward anything intuitively
appraised as good (beneficial) or away from anything intuitively appraised as bad
(harmful).” This definition adheres to the view that emotions are instrumental. In
this view, emotions are considered to serve an adaptive function because they
establish our position in relation to our environment, pulling us toward certain
people, objects, and ideas, and pushing us away from others (Frijda, 1986). This
implies that although people differ with respect to their emotional responses, the
process that precedes these responses is universal. To facilitate the study of
emotional responses to consumer products, Desmet (2002) and Desmet and
Hekkert (2002) established a basic ‘model of product emotions’ that represents this
underlying process. The model, which is shown in Figure 1, sets forth four main
parameters in the eliciting process of emotions: (1) appraisal, (2), concern, (3)
product, and (4) emotion. The first three parameters, and their interplay, determine
if a product elicits an emotion, and if so, which emotion is evoked.

Figure 1. Basic model of product emotions.

Desmet, P.M.A. (2003). A multilayered model of product emotions. 2

The Design Journal, 6(2), 4-13.
(1) APPRAISAL
Cognitive theorists of emotion argue that an emotion always involves an
assessment, or appraisal, of how an event may harm or benefit a person. This
appraisal is a non-intellectual, automatic evaluation of the significance of a
stimulus for one’s personal well-being (e.g. Roseman and Smith, 2001). The
central implication of the concept of appraisal is that not the event as such, but the
meaning the individual attaches to this event, is responsible for the emotion. An
example would be when a friend makes a derogatory remark about you. Depending
on the meaning you attach to this remark you might experience anger (i.e. “I am
being insulted”), or amusement (i.e. “This is a joke!”). In the case of products, an
appraisal has three possible outcomes: the product is beneficial, harmful or not
relevant for personal well-being. These three general outcomes result in a pleasant
emotion, an unpleasant emotion or an absence of emotion, respectively.
The notion that appraisals mediate between products and emotions
explains why people differ with respect to their emotional reaction to a given
product. Compare, for example, the response to an injection needle of a diabetic in
need of insulin to the response of a five year old boy waiting in line for a
preventive injection. The first will probably experience a pleasant emotion (e.g.
hope) as the outcome of an appraised benefit, whereas the second will more likely
experience an unpleasant emotion (e.g. fear) as the outcome of an appraised
potential harm.

(2) CONCERN
Every emotion hides a concern, that is, a more or less stable preference for certain
states of the world (Frijda, 1986). According to Frijda, concerns can be regarded as
points of reference in the appraisal process. Thus, the significance of a product for
our wellbeing is determined by an appraised concern match or mismatch: products
that match our concerns are appraised as beneficial, and those that mismatch our
concerns as harmful. Why do I feel attracted to an umbrella? Because it matches
my concern for staying dry. And why am I frustrated when my computer
repeatedly crashes? Because it mismatches my concern for efficiency. The number
and variety of human concerns is endless. Types of concerns reported in the
research literature are, for example, drives, needs, instincts, motives, goals and
values (see Scherer, 2001). Some concerns, such as the concern for safety and the
concern for love, are general, and others are context-dependent, such as the
concern for being home before dark or the concern for securing a good seat for
your friend at the cinema.
Events are construed as emotionally meaningful only in the context of
one’s concerns (Lazarus, 1991). Some first explorative studies have confirmed the
relationship between emotions evoked by consumer products and underlying
concerns. Desmet, Hekkert and Hillen (2003), for example, found that people who
have the concerns “to be independent,” and “to be stress-free,” are significantly
more disgusted by the Volkswagen new Beetle than those with a concern “to have
an own identity” and “to seek challenges.” Rather than disgusted, this latter group
is fascinated by that particular car model. These findings verify that in order to
understand emotional responses to consumer products, one must understand the
users’ concerns given the context in which the product is or will be used.

Desmet, P.M.A. (2003). A multilayered model of product emotions. 3

The Design Journal, 6(2), 4-13.
(3) PRODUCT
Emotions always imply and involve a relation between the person experiencing
them and a particular object: one is afraid of something, proud of something, in
love with someone and so on (Frijda, 1994). Note that the stimulus that evokes the
emotion is not necessarily also the object of that emotion. The stimulus can be an
actual event, such as someone calling our name or catching sight of an object, as
well as a remembered or imagined event. We all know from experience that
thinking of someone we love is sometimes enough to elicit strong emotions. Or
merely fantasising about a planned summer vacation can fill us with anticipatory
excitement. Although in these cases the thought and the fantasy are the stimuli, the
objects of our emotions are the person we love and the summer vacation
respectively. This implies that with respect to emotional responses to products, a
basic distinction can be made between emotions of which the object is the product
as such (e.g. “I am excited by the soft finish of this chair”), and emotions of which
the object is some association or fantasy that is induced by the product (e.g. “I am
excited by the idea of surprising my friends with this chair”). This distinction
corresponds to the one made by Tan (2000) regarding emotions elicited by works
of art. First, A-emotions are emotions related to the material artefact. One can, for
instance, be fascinated by the lines and colours of a painting, or admire the artist
who created the work of art. Second, R-emotions are emotions related to
representations of something besides the artefact itself. An example is the
emotional response one may experience to the person who is represented on a
figurative painting. Non-figurative works of art may also represent things besides
the artefact itself (e.g. memories or imaginary landscapes evoked by a piece of
music). Whereas A-emotions have ‘real’ objects, such as the object of art itself, the
objects of R-emotions are imaginative, existing only in a fictitious world.
Obviously, products can also elicit A-emotions. One can, for example,
admire the designer who created an innovative new bicycle concept, or be
fascinated by the mechanical complexity of a wristwatch. Products also elicit R-
emotions. In these cases, the objects are the fantasies we have about what a product
means or may mean to us. These fantasies can be both anticipatory and
retrospective. For instance, a person may feel desire towards a new abdominal
work-out device because they anticipate that with this device the perfect body is
within their reach. Or, someone may be inspired by the sight of a backpack because
it reminds them of an exciting hiking expedition.

(4) EMOTION
A difficulty of affective concepts is that they are probably as intangible as they are
appealing. Design literature tends to refer to ‘emotions’ or ‘moods’ when studying
anything that is thought of intangible non-functional or non-rational. Although the
words emotion and mood are often used interchangeably, they do in fact refer to
specific and different experiential phenomena. First, they differ in terms of
duration (Ekman, 1994). Emotions are acute states that exist only for a relatively
short period of time. Usually, the duration of an emotion is limited to seconds, or
minutes at most. Moods, however, tend to have a relatively long-term character:
one can be sad or cheerful for several hours or even for several days. A second and
more important difference is that emotions are intentional whereas moods are
essentially non-intentional (e.g. one is not sad or cheerful at something). As
opposed to emotions, moods are not directed at a particular object but rather at the
surroundings in general or, in the words of Frijda (1994, p. 60), at “the world as a
whole.” Whereas emotions are usually elicited by an explicit cause (e.g. some
event), moods have combined causes (e.g. “It is raining,” “I didn’t sleep well,”

Desmet, P.M.A. (2003). A multilayered model of product emotions. 4

The Design Journal, 6(2), 4-13.
“Someone has finished the coffee!”). Consequently, we are generally unable to
specify the cause of a particular mood (Ekman, 1994). A person is sometimes not
even aware of being in a certain mood (e.g. if we are grumpy in the morning we
usually only realise it when someone else tells us).
The model of product emotions was developed to facilitate the study of
relationships between products and emotions. Given this aim it was decided not to
include moods in the model because the influence of moods on our emotional
responses to products is independent of product characteristics. A person in a
cheerful mood will experience more pleasant emotional responses towards
products in general –regardless of the particular characteristics of the product. Note
that although the current focus is on emotions, this does not imply that other types
of affective states are irrelevant for product experience. In fact, the various types of
affective states influence each other. Obviously, our emotions are influenced by
our moods. For instance, a person in an irritable mood becomes angry more readily
than usual (Ekman, 1994). In the same way, a person’s emotional response to
products may vary depending on their mood. Consumer researchers found that
moods have a strong influence on consumer behaviour (e.g. Faber and Christenson,
1996). Someone who is cheerful will be attracted to products more readily than
someone who is in a bad mood. Conversely, emotions also influence our moods. A
person who is repeatedly disappointed by a malfunctioning computer may very
well end up in a bad mood. Nevertheless, the model of product emotions is
focussed specifically on emotions because only these imply and involve a relation
between the person experiencing them and a particular object.

CLASSIFICATION OF PRODUCT EMOTIONS

Most, if not all, contemporary researchers in the cognitive tradition of emotion
hold that particular types of emotions are associated with particular types of
appraisals, and that emotions can be predicted from the nature of the underlying
appraisal (e.g. Lazarus, 2001; Roseman and Smith, 2001). Many appraisal models
advanced to date include small sets of appraisal types to differentiate between
emotions. Each appraisal type (and related concern type) addresses a distinct
evaluative issue, which can be seen as a particular ‘appraising question.’ In the
case of products, these questions relate to issues such as: “Does this product help
me to attain some goal? Can I afford it? Will my neighbours approve? Is it safe to
use?” etcetera. With these various underlying appraisal types, product emotions
can be classified in one of the following five classes: instrumental, aesthetic, social,
surprise, and interest emotions. This classification, which is shown in Figure 2, was
developed on the basis of cognitive models of emotions developed by
psychologists such as Scherer (2001), Smith and Ellsworth (1987), Roseman
(2001), and Ortony, Clore and Collins (1988).

Desmet, P.M.A. (2003). A multilayered model of product emotions. 5

The Design Journal, 6(2), 4-13.
 Figure 2. Classification of product emotions.

Each type is illustrated with an example that was drawn from an explorative study
to the eliciting conditions of product emotions. In this study, participants
photographed products to which they felt emotional responses. Participants were
instructed to write down in a booklet what emotion the product elicited, and why
this particular emotion was experienced. They were asked to formulate their
explanation as completely as possible and invited to describe whatever they
thought was relevant to explain their emotion (e.g. context, product design,
associations, etcetera). The result of the study comprised 357 cases, which filled an
anecdotal database of product appraisals. Each case includes a picture of a product,
a participant number, an emotion, and a description of the underlying appraisal and
concern type.

Figure 3. Examples of instrumental product emotions.

Desmet, P.M.A. (2003). A multilayered model of product emotions. 6

The Design Journal, 6(2), 4-13.
(1) INSTRUMENTAL PRODUCT EMOTIONS
We never buy a product without having some motive to invest our resources.
Products can be regarded instrumental because we belief they can help us
accomplish our goals. The concern type ‘goal’ refers to states of affairs that we
want to obtain, i.e., how he would like things to be (Ortony et al, 1988). Humans
have numerous goals, which vary from abstract (e.g., I want to be happy), to
concrete (e.g., I want to have lunch). Our goals are the points of reference in the
appraisal of motive compliance. A product that facilitates goal achievement will be
appraised as motive compliant, and elicit emotions like satisfaction. Similarly,
products that obstruct goal achievement will be appraised as motive incompliant,
and elicit emotions like disappointment (see Figure 3; ‘lemon squeezer’).
Also products that threaten to obstruct or promise to facilitate goal
achievement elicit instrumental emotions. Each time we see a product, we
anticipate its future use or possession. We predict the experiences of using the
product and the consequences of owning it. These anticipations are based on
knowledge about the type of product or the product brand, and on information
conveyed by the product itself (e.g., appearance, price, and packaging). When
shopping for new shoes, one might, for example, anticipate that wearing a
particular pair of elegant shoes will have the consequence of ‘being attractive.’ If
this person has the goal to be attractive, he or she will appraise this particular pair
of shoes as motive compliant and, for instance, experience desire (see Figure 3;
‘boot’). If the same person has the goal of ‘comfortable walking,’ he or she might
appraise the anticipated discomfort as motive incompliant and experience
dissatisfaction.

Figure 4. Examples of aesthetic product emotions.

Desmet, P.M.A. (2003). A multilayered model of product emotions. 7

The Design Journal, 6(2), 4-13.
(2) AESTHETIC PRODUCT EMOTIONS
As products are physical objects, they look, feel, smell, taste, and sound in a
particular way. Each of these perceivable characteristics can both delight and
offend our senses. Like all objects, products, or aspects of products, can be
appraised ‘as such’ in terms of their appealingness. The concerns that are the points
of reference in the appraisal of appealingness, are attitudes. Our attitudes are our
dispositional likings (or dislikings) for certain objects or attributes of objects
(Ortony et al, 1988). Like goals, we have many attitudes, of which some are innate
(e.g., the innate liking for sweet foods), and others are learned (e.g., the acquired
taste for oysters or wine). We have attitudes with respect to aspects or features of
products, such as product colour or material (see Figure 4). We also have attitudes
with respect to product style. For instance, some people have developed an attitude
for the style of Japanese interior design, whereas others have a taste for Italian
design.
A product that corresponds with (one of) our attitudes, is appraised as
appealing and will elicit emotions like attraction. A product that conflicts with
(one of) our attitudes, is appraised as unappealing and will elicit emotions like
disgust. In some cases, the appealingness is based on characteristics of the product
itself, such as shape, size, or particular details. As a result, a dispositional liking for
a certain model will be generalisable to other products. Sometimes, however, the
dispositional (dis)liking is restricted to only one specific product. In those cases,
the liking results from previous usage or ownership of that particular exemplar.
One can have a dispositional liking for a ring because it was a gift from someone
special or for a particular backpack because one travelled with it to many different
countries. In these cases, the attitudes are embedded with personal meaning and not
applicable to other exemplars of the product type.

Figure 5. Examples of social product emotions.

Desmet, P.M.A. (2003). A multilayered model of product emotions. 8

The Design Journal, 6(2), 4-13.
(3) SOCIAL PRODUCT EMOTIONS
Next to goals and attitudes, standards are a third type of human concerns relevant
to product emotions. Our standards are how we believe ‘things should be’ and how
‘people should act’ (Ortony et al, 1988). For example, many of us have the
standard that we should respect our parents and eat fruit and vegetables. Most
standards are socially learned and represent the beliefs in terms of which moral and
other kinds of judgmental evaluations are made. Products are embedded in our
social environment; they are designed by people, used by people, and owned by
people. Because we cannot separate our view on products from our judgments of
the people we associate them with, we apply our social standards and norms, and
appraise products in terms of ‘legitimacy.’ Products that are appraised as legitimate
elicit emotions like admiration, whereas those that are appraised as illegitimate
elicit emotions like indignation.
The objects of social emotions are essentially agents. This agent can be
either the product itself that is construed as an agent, or an associated agent, such
as the designer or a typical user. Firstly, products are the result of a design process
and the designer or company is the construed agent. While looking at a product,
one can for example, praise its originality or blame the designer for a lack of
product quality and experience contempt. Secondly, products are also often
associated with particular users or user groups. Most of us have no difficulty in
envisioning typical users of, for example, German cars, or skateboards. In those
cases the typical user group or institution that is associated with the product is the
object of appraisal. We can blame the user of a big car for not caring about
environmental issues, or admire the owner of a digital agenda for their presumed
time-efficiency (see Figure 5; ‘car striping’). Thirdly, we also tend to apply our
social standards to products themselves. Although products are not people, they
can be treated as agents with respect to the presumed impact they generally (can)
have on people or society. A person can, for instance, experience indignation
towards mobile telephones because they blame these products for the disturbance
they cause in public spaces such as train compartments (see Figure 5; ‘gun’).

Figure 6. Examples of surprise product emotions.

Desmet, P.M.A. (2003). A multilayered model of product emotions. 9

The Design Journal, 6(2), 4-13.
(4) SURPRISE PRODUCT EMOTIONS
Any product (feature) that is appraised as ‘novel,’ i.e., sudden and unexpected, will
elicit a surprise response. Surprise emotions differ from the previous three emotion
types because they are not related to a particular concern type. Instead, pleasant
surprise is elicited by a sudden and unexpected match with any concern (i.e., a
goal, attitude, or standard), and unpleasant surprise is elicited by a sudden and
unexpected concern mismatch.
We can be surprised by products that are totally new to us (see Figure 6;
‘Passat’). A person can, for instance, be pleasantly surprised when first
encountering a wireless computer mouse (that unexpectedly matches the concern
of comfort). Besides totally new products, also product aspects or details can elicit
surprise (see Figure 6; ‘oil jerry can’). A printer, for instance, can be surprisingly
fast, or a door handle surprisingly soft. In the latter case, we expect door handles to
be rigid and are pleasantly surprised because this particular handle disconfirms that
expectation. Once we have become familiar with the novel aspect of the product, it
will no longer elicit surprise. Therefore, these are often one-time-only emotions.

Figure 7. Examples of interest product emotions.

(5) INTEREST PRODUCT EMOTIONS

The fifth product emotion type comprises emotions like fascination, boredom, and
inspiration. These emotions are all elicited by an appraisal of challenge combined
with promise (Tan, 2000) and all involve an aspect of (a lack of) stimulation.
Products that evoke interest emotions make us laugh, stimulate us, or motivate us
to some creative action or thought. A well-established psychological principle is
that people are ‘intrinsically’ motivated to seek and maintain an optimal level of
arousal. A shift away from this optimal level is unpleasant. Since low arousal
levels seem to be disliked, we appear to have a ‘stimulus hunger.’ Products that are
appraised as not holding a challenge and a promise will elicit emotions like

Desmet, P.M.A. (2003). A multilayered model of product emotions. 10

The Design Journal, 6(2), 4-13.
boredom (either because they do not provide us with any bodily sensation or leave
nothing to explore; see Figure 7; ‘disc container’). Products that are appraised as
stimulating because they bring about some question or because they require further
exploration will elicit emotions like fascination and inspiration (see Figure 7; ‘New
Beetle’). Interest emotions are similar to aesthetic emotions because in both cases
the object of emotion is the product ‘as such.’

DISCUSSION
The classification introduced in this paper has some important implications for our
understanding of the emotional impact of consumer products. First, it shows that
the popular assumption that emotional responses to products only relate to aesthetic
(and not to functional) qualities is incorrect. Although the aesthetic emotions are an
important class of product emotions, the other four classes are no less relevant.
Emotion-driven design should therefore not be considered to be merely a matter of
styling. To design for emotion requires a profound understanding of the manifold
emotional meanings that can be construed by the intended users. Second, it
illustrates that the present-day focus on generalised pleasure (see e.g. Green and
Jordan, 2002) is rather narrow. Although the increasing interest in product
experience is commendable, this obvious focus on ‘pleasure of use’ ignores the
wealth of pleasant and unpleasant emotions that may be experienced during
product use. One can, for instance, be fascinated by a new material of a chair, be
disappointed by the uncomfortable seat, admire the designer for his or her
visionary design, and so on. The study of product emotions requires an approach
that acknowledges this possible co-occurrence of several different emotions.
Note that the model of product emotions and the corresponding
classification provide a basic but incomplete explanation of how emotions are
elicited by products. Firstly, they do not explain differences between emotions that
are the outcomes of the same appraisal type. The emotions contempt and
indignation, for example, are both outcomes of the appraisal of legitimacy.
Nevertheless, they are different emotions, and if one wants to understand the
differences in eliciting conditions between these two emotions, it is necessary to
specify the particular appraisals in more detail. Secondly, the discussed five classes
of product emotions are not claimed to cover all possible emotional responses
towards products. Nevertheless, they do illustrate that products have many
different layers of emotional meaning, and that some of these emotional meanings
can be predicted. Designers that are aware of the patterns that underlie emotional
responses (and the concerns and appraisals that make up these patterns) can
therefore influence the emotions elicited by their designs. In several design cases
(see e.g. Desmet and Dijkhuis, 2003) we found that these patterns enable the
designer to understand the intended users and at the same time surpass the direct
wishes of these users and therefore to create something that both befits the users’
wishes and still is new and stimulating to them.
Note that it is not assumed that to serve humans’ well-being, designers
should create products that elicit only pleasant emotions. Instead, it may be
profitable to design products that elicit ‘paradoxical emotions,’ that is, positive and
negative emotions simultaneously. Frijda (1996) stated that in experiencing art,
these paradoxical emotions are the ones that we seek. It may be rewarding for
designers to investigate the possibilities of designing paradoxical emotions because
this may result in products that are unique, innovative, rich, challenging – and,
therefore, desirable.

Desmet, P.M.A. (2003). A multilayered model of product emotions. 11

The Design Journal, 6(2), 4-13.
REFERENCES
Arnold, M.B. (1960). Emotion and personality. New York: Colombia University
Press.
Desmet, P.M.A. (2002). Designing emotion. Unpublished doctoral thesis. ISBN
90-9015877-4.
Desmet, P.M.A. and Hekkert, P (2002). ‘The basis of product emotions.’ In. W.
Green and P. Jordan (Eds.). Pleasure with products, beyond usability (60-68).
London: Taylor & Francis.
Desmet, P.M.A. and Dijkhuis, E. (2003). ‘A wheelchair can be fun: a case of
emotion-driven design.’ Proceedings of DPPI03, Pittsburg, USA. In press.
Desmet, P.M.A., Hekkert, P. and Hillen, M.G. (2003). ‘Values and emotions; an
empirical investigation in the relationship between emotional responses to
products and human values.’ Proceedings of the fifth European academy of
design conference, Barcelona, Spain. In press.
Diener, E. and Lucas, R.E. (2000). ‘Subjective emotional well-being.’ In M. Lewis
and J.M. Haviland-Jones (Eds.), Handbook of Emotions; second edition (325-
337). New York: The Guilford Press.
Ekman, P. (1994). ‘Moods, emotions, and traits.’ In P. Ekman and R.J. Davidson
(Eds.), The nature of emotions, fundamental questions (56-58). Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Frijda, N.H. (1986). The emotions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Frijda, N.H. (1994). ‘Varieties of affect: emotions and episodes, moods, and
sentiments.’ In P. Ekman and R.J. Davidson (Eds.), The nature of emotion,
fundamental questions (59-67). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Faber, R.J. and Christenson, G.A. (1996). ‘In the mood to buy: differences in mood
states experienced by compulsife buyers and other consumers.’ Psychology
and marketing, 13, 803-819.
Green, W. and Jordan P. (2002). Pleasure with products, beyond usability.
London: Taylor & Francis.
Lazarus, R.S. (1991). Emotion and adaptation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Oatley, K. and Duncan, E. (1992). ‘Structured diaries for emotions in daily life.’ In
K.T. Strongman (Ed.) International review of studies in emotion, vol. 2, (250-
293). Chichester: Wiley.
Ortony, A., Clore, G.L. and Collins, A. (1988). The cognitive structure of
emotions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Roseman, I.J. (2001). ‘A model of appraisal in the emotion system: integrating
theory, research, and applications.’ In K. Scherer, A. Schorr and T. Johnstone
(Eds.), Appraisal processes in emotion (68-91). Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Roseman, I.J. and Smith, G.A. (2001). ‘Appraisal theory: assumptions, varieties,
controversies.’ In K. Scherer, A. Schorr and T. Johnstone (Eds.), Appraisal
processes in emotion (3-19). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Scherer, K.R. (2001). ‘Appraisal considered as a process of multilevel sequential
checking.’ In K. Scherer, A. Schorr and T. Johnstone (Eds.), Appraisal
processes in emotion (92-120). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Smith, C.A. and Ellsworth, P.C. (1987). ‘Patterns of appraisal and emotion related
to taking an exam.’ Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 475-
488.
Tan, E.S.H. (2000). ‘Emotion, art, and the humanities.’ In M. Lewis and J.M.
Haviland-Jones (Eds.), Handbook of emotions; second edition (116-134). New
York: The Guilford Press.

Desmet, P.M.A. (2003). A multilayered model of product emotions. 12

The Design Journal, 6(2), 4-13.
 BIOGRAPHY
Pieter Desmet is assistant professor at Industrial Design Delft. He has a
background as an industrial designer and obtained a PhD degree with research
focussed on emotional product experience. His main research interest is in the
question why and how consumer products evoke emotions. In addition, he
develops tools and methods that facilitate an approach for emotion-driven design.
He works with several international companies (e.g. Mitsubishi Motor R&D) who
acknowledge the relevance of emotional responses in consumer behaviour and are
interested in knowledge and tools to support them in developing products and
services with an added emotional value. Besides his research initiatives, he
organized design workshops for designers and design students in, for example,
Tokyo (Japan), and Delft (The Netherlands).

ADDRESS FOR CORRESPONDENCE

Pieter Desmet, Department of Industrial Design, Delft University of Technology.
Landbergstraat 15, 2628 CE Delft, The Netherlands. Email:
p.m.a.desmet@io.tudelft.nl

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This research was funded by Mitsubishi Motor R&D, Europe GmbH, Trebur,
Germany. Paul Hekkert, Jan Jacobs, and Kees Overbeeke are acknowledged for
their contribution to this research.

Desmet, P.M.A. (2003). A multilayered model of product emotions. 13

The Design Journal, 6(2), 4-13.

View publication stats